My post doesn't really offer any new information, but thought I'd share it anyway.

I've been seeing some articles online related to the coming of impaired driving prevention technology in model year 2027 vehicles, with various amounts of sensationalism and clickbait: kbb.com, gadgetreview.com, yahoo.com. The actual text of the bill is here: Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (H.R. 3684), with the relevant text in "SEC. 24220. ADVANCED IMPAIRED DRIVING TECHNOLOGY". Excerpt:

As I read it, there's no requirement that data collected during monitoring be reported, although the fear is that the law could be amended in the future to require such sharing. Or even if not, there's the risk of becoming stranded or such due to a bug in the prevention system. The kbb article mentions that the NHTSA hasn't codified the rules yet (which Slate Auto also references in their reply to me), but it sounds like the rules are coming very soon due to the extension expiring. From kbb:

The law directed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to codify rules for “Advanced Impaired Driving Prevention Technology.” The agency missed its 2024 deadline to establish those policies but was granted an extension, which is about to expire.

One motivation for many buyers of the Slate Truck is having physical controls, being off grid, not being tracked, etc. So the truck is portrayed as combining the best of the small trucks of the past with modern safety features. Having to include this surveillance technology on the Slate Truck might scare off some of their potential customers drawn to the vehicle in their hopes of avoiding being spied upon. However, obviously Slate Auto has to follow the law. If it's mandated then it's mandated and they have to do it, along with every other manufacturer, whether they want to or not. That's not even a question, and not something that can be held against the company.

As preorders for the Slate Truck are already targeting 2027+, I reached out in hopes of determining whether a Slate Truck preordered in 2026 would be exempt from the technology, even if the vehicle was ultimately delivered in 2027 or beyond. It's something that they should already know the answer to, whether or not the exact NHTSA rules surrounding the technology are finished, as it's a question of law, not technology. I fully expected them to respond with something along the lines of "Preordering a vehicle does not exempt it from the requirements." (IANAL, but it seemed like that'd be the way things would go, since you don't actually pay for the vehicle upfront). However, they chose not to answer my question. This makes me think that perhaps they're already working on (or outsourcing) the prevention tech and that there's a very strong chance that a Slate Truck preordered today could either be delivered with surveillance technology in place, or at least enough hardware needed to enable it with a firmware update later. Here's their email response (also, notice how the extension expiration isn't mentioned):

At this time, Slate hasn't announced whether future production vehicles will include an impaired driving prevention system or other technologies related to future regulatory requirements. Originally expected by 2024, the NHTSA has extended its evaluation and research period, citing that current technologies do not yet meet the necessary accuracy and reliability standards. Because a finalized rule or prototype standard has not yet been established by the agency, a widespread 2027 rollout in all new cars is looking increasingly unlikely as regulatory and data-privacy reviews continue. Slate vehicles are designed to meet all applicable U.S. federal safety standards while still keeping drivers in control and avoiding unnecessary complexity wherever possible. As we get closer to production, we'll share any updates regarding regulatory requirements and vehicle equipment.

On a more hopeful note, even if surveillance does get added, Slate Auto could still position themselves as implementing the most innocuous version of it possible within the rules due to the bare-bones nature of the vehicle. For example not using a camera, limiting vehicle operation rather than preventing it, those kinds of things. Other automakers might have more trouble defending doing the same if they already have cameras in the car, etc.

I guess I'm okay with this but it's kind of weird that they managed to do this but no such safety concerns for firearms. Strap a breathalizer on all new chambers, let's see it happen.

Slate doesn't even have a modem by default so there's physically no way to transmit said surveillance.

I went and looked into this and the laws implementation hinges on a 2024 report from the NHTSA saying it is technologically feasible and widespread available which the NHTSA did not submit, and this year the NHTSA submitted a report to congress that it explicitly isn't.

So 2027 models are all safe, probably 2029 models as well.

I would be fine with breathalizers in cars. Not much chance of false positives there. But a camera is going to screw up for people of color, anyone with facial scarring or disfigurement, eye patches, sunglasses, probably different hairstyles or even some eye makeup, people who have naturally large pupils, lazy eye, facial tics, swelling from allergies, the list is essentially endless.

I'm not a fan of some likely-AI-driven nonsense "checking in" on me before operating anything I own. There could be a case to be made implementing such a thing for people who have a record though.

Excellent! Any links you can share?

EDIT: Found it: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2026-03/Report-to-Congress-Advanced-Impaired-Driving-Prevention-Technology.pdf

I’m not sure why you expect a breathalyzer to be more reliable. Any complex technology trying to read biology is subject to failure, especially when deployed in the tens of millions

My biggest concern is what it'll do if theres an actual emergency and the driver has had a few beers. I dont live near a large hospital, and EMS takes a while, as do the police. Imagine if someone goes to a party and doesn't plan on driving, but they need to escape a bad situation. I just can't see this being implemented correctly.