From my previous comment, it looks like NHTSA is moving faster than I predicted. We're now at step 1, with this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
(edit: I jumped the gun, we're still at step '0' on my original list)
Most of this notice seems to be a report on why 'impaired driving' is bad. I see alcohol, cannabis, mobile phone use, drowsiness...etc.
Due to technology immaturity and a lack of testing protocols, drugged driving is not being considered in this advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
Makes sense.
There is no clear and consistent engineering or industry definition of ‘‘impairment.’’
Yep, another unclear request by Congress.
NHTSA believes that Congress did not intend to limit NHTSA’s efforts under BIL to alcohol impairment.
Okay, that's fair.
Camera-based-systems, however, are increasingly feasible and common in vehicles.
Uh-oh...
The Safety Act also contains a ‘‘make inoperative’’ provision, which prohibits certain entities from knowingly modifying or deactivating any part of a device or element of design installed in or on a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Those entities include vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers, rental companies, and repair businesses. Notably, the make inoperative prohibition does not apply to individual vehicle owners. While NHTSA encourages individual vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles or equipment by removing, modifying, or deactivating a safety system, the Safety Act does not prohibit them from doing so. This creates a potential source of issues for solutions that lack consumer acceptance, since individual owners would not be prohibited by Federal law from removing or modifying those systems (i.e., using defeat mechanisms).
Note that "make inoperative" does not apply to a "kill switch" in this case. NHTSA uses the term to mean "disabling required safety devices". For example, as an individual vehicle owner, it's perfectly legal for you to remove the seatbelts from your car, despite Federal requirements. But it's illegal for the entities listed above to do it. (This example doesn't extend to state regulations. It's legal for you to remove your seatbelts, but may still be illegal to drive a car without them.)
There's a short 'discussion' here regarding how to passively detect impaired driving, noting the difficulties of creating such a system. Followed by a note that basically says if they can't do it within 10 years, NHTSA can give up and not do it, as stated in the Infrastructure law.
There's a long section on how to detect various types of impairment, current methods of preventing impaired driving, etc. An interesting section about detecting blood-alcohol level using infrared sensors embedded in the steering wheel. Body posture sensors can be used to detect driver distraction.
This is followed by a brief overview of the technologies NHTSA is considering:
Camera-Based Driver Monitoring Sensors
Hands-On-Wheel Sensors
Lane Departure and Steering Sensors
Speed/Braking Sensors
Time-Based Sensors
Physiological Sensors
On page 850 (21 of the PDF), NHTSA asks for feedback to several questions. There are a few pages of relevant issues, so I won't cover them here. If you wish, you can go here to leave a comment. Please don't leave irrelevant garbage like "I oppose this on the grounds of my Constitutional rights..." While applicable in this situation, it's irrelevant to NHTSA, and commenting like that will just waste everybody's time. There's a section on page 855 (26 of the PDF) about Privacy and Security.
That's that. Let me know I can answer any of your questions. I'll try to come back to this post throughout the day and see what's happening. But, I do not work for NHTSA, so can't remark on agency thought process.
I don't disagree. Would do the same thing. Bit it's not a good reason.
Exactly why driverless cars are required. Humans are bad at driving. Emotional and self preservation
Driverless cars would be worse; programming the kind of judgement calls into an expert system is... Not easy, and likely won't work. They will probably do well with routine driving, when everyone else is also using an expert system to drive, but in an emergency? How do you convince your car that it's an emergency? And what keeps someone from, say, lying? Like, I'm late to work because I overslept, so I need my car to drive 100mph, versus my home is on fire and I need to get there ten minutes ago to get my cats out?
The problem is that edge cases exist, and it's really, really hard, if not outright impossible, to plan for them with an expert system.
No they wouldn't break the speed limit. But less people would die from car crashes. So in fact they would be better. Just not in this situation. Which again is incredibly rare.
It never ever breaks speed limit. It doesn't have to. No situation requires you to put your life above others.
Demonstrably false in the case of emergency vehicles. Going faster is not necessarily a risk; the autobahn has generally lower rates of accidents than the US interstates, despite people routinely driving >140mph.
Speed limits have always been a compromise between utility and lethality. You could nearly eliminate all accidents by having speed limits be no more than 20mph in any place. But it's recognized that this isn't practical, so we set speed limits at 25mph in school zones, 35 in residential/city roads, 45 on rural roads, 55 on unlimited access highways, and 65/70 on most interstates. Higher utility--an emergency--necessitates taking more risk.
If someone will die if you don't break the speed limit, versus someone might die if you do, you're probably going to break the speed limit.
Emergency vehicles cause quite a lot of fatalities. They are also taught how to drive at speed and motorway driving should have less crashes. It's intersection and corners that causes issues.
Not American so no. Not how all places operate.
People break the limit all the time. Speed isn't really the problem with drivers. It's attention. Speed is a factor as you can't react as fast but phones and other issues.
Sources. My dad was a firefighter for 30 years.