Industry and safety advocates point to progress and potential future criteria for top safety awards as evidence that impairment-detection tech is feasible, with some states already requiring ignition interlock systems for DUI offenders and efforts to incentivize development, including a proposed $45 million prize for a consumer-ready solution.

Industry groups, including the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, caution that more research is needed to prevent false positives and unnecessary disruption to unimpaired drivers.

MADD and supporters argue the technology exists and should be deployed now to cut fatalities, while proponents seek faster regulatory approval and practical deployment timelines.

Opponents warn of risks such as false positives and overreach, and lawmakers caution about potential self-deactivations and unintended consequences.

The piece frames the issue through personal tragedy and policy struggles, highlighting evolving dialogue among lawmakers, safety advocates, insurers, and automakers about whether and when impairment-detection tech will become mandatory in U.S. vehicles.

Lawmakers weigh funding, regulatory authorization, public safety benefits, and technical readiness, with injured advocates urging faster action.

Momentum includes a failed House vote to strip funding for the Halt Act and ongoing repeal efforts; regulators at NHTSA are evaluating technologies and may delay decisions to 2027, extending automaker implementation timelines by two to three years.

Current status: NHTSA is assessing technologies with no near-term final approval, and supporters project potential delays to 2027 with installation timelines pushed out accordingly.

Opposition attempts to defund or repeal Halt Act funding have largely failed in the House, but broader repeal remains possible as the debate continues.

Opponents fear a government-controlled 'kill switch' and potential misuse, while supporters stress the system would be passive and not share data or enable remote control.

Advocates like MADD emphasize the act’s importance and insist the technology would be passive and non-intrusive, countering fears of a kill switch.

Key concerns include false positives and privacy or control issues, while manufacturers and safety groups argue the technology would be passive and align with existing safety mandates.