I'm eager to buy a DADDS
I'm eager to buy a DADDS-enabled vehicle to protect my husband from being falsely accused of DUI. He doesn't drink, but he has a speech impediment which makes him sound drunk. And, I'd like to see NHTSA mandate these new behavior monitoring systems to protect us from bad drivers no matter what's wrong with them. Drilling down into my state's FARS data, I discovered that in recent years, most driving events resulting in fatalities other than those to drivers/passengers in the at-fault vehicle are committed by elderly drivers, and by drivers with medical conditions, not by drunk drivers. Specifically, broadside fatalities and wrong-way fatalities were disproportionately caused by elderly drivers and those with epilepsy, narcolepsy, dementia, and other conditions.
My state may be unique in that following the (unfortunate) legalization of marijuana, large numbers of potheads moved here. Many of these potheads have been smoking it since their hippie days in the 1960's. It's likely that even without being impaired by drugs/alcohol, these drivers are impaired by a lifetime of chronic use. We were broadsided in broad daylight by an elderly woman who "just didn't see us." Her vision was fine, and she couldn't explain why she ran a stop sign and hit our brand-new Toyota Tacoma. She wasn't arrested because she was old. It's these types of dangerous drivers who need to be driving vehicles with these behavior monitoring systems. If Subarus stop when you take your eyes off the road longer than you should, Nissans stop if you fail to do the right movements, and Mercedes and other car companies have eye-tracking technology, many lives could be saved even if the driver hasn't consumed alcohol or drugs.
I believe that these safety features should be implemented without any extra emphasis on "impaired" driving. Why? Because as you say, there are those want to drive impaired, and there are those who profit from impaired driving.
My state has taken only those "countermeasures" which result in increased revenue, even when evidence shows little or no effectiveness.
Two examples: 1) MADD's victim impact panels slightly increase recidivism in the female 1st DUI population, and 2) Lengthy and expensive Level II education and "therapy" (group therapy, like from the 1970's) have been mandatory for years, but recidivism keeps increasing. Effective strategies such as: Incarceration, 24/7 sobriety, inpatient hospitalization, Naltrexone, Intensive Supervised Probation, and vehicle seizure aren't being utilized. Even the simple, cost-effective strategy of publicizing Colorado's 0.05 BAC level isn't being implemented, not even by DMV to drivers moving here from out-of-state. Consequently, many drivers are arrested who aren't drunk, or dangerous.
I hope that NHTSA mandates behavior monitoring systems for safety, not for enforcement. Enforcement may be revenue-driven, but safety is about lives.