American roads are unusually dangerous for a wealthy country. Globally, the World Health Organization estimates that road crashes kill about 1.19 million people each year, with the burden falling most heavily on low- and middle-income countries. But among high-income nations, the United States still stands out in the wrong direction. The International Transport Forum’s United States road-safety profile reported a U.S. road-death rate of 12.2 deaths per 100,000 people in 2023, far higher than many peer countries in Europe and well above the safest high-income systems.  Finn ranked the U.S, 26 out of 27 counties in its road safety analysis with the Netherlands coming out top.  The U.K. was sixth, with about 3.2 deaths per 100,000 people.

Alcohol remains a large part of that picture. NHTSA reported that 12,429 people were killed in U.S. crashes involving an alcohol-impaired driver in 2023, representing 30 percent of all traffic fatalities. Its public drunk-driving data for 2024 puts the number at 11,904 deaths, still roughly one death every 44 minutes. Europe has the same problem, though generally within a safer road system overall. The European Commission estimates that about 25 percent of road fatalities in Europe are alcohol-related, even though only about 1 percent of kilometers driven involve drivers over the 0.5 g/l blood-alcohol threshold.

That is the context for this month’s IssueVoter Bill of the Month: H.R. 1137, the No Kill Switches in Cars Act. The bill asks a deceptively simple question. Should the federal government require new cars to include technology that can detect impairment and stop the vehicle from being operated? Or is that a public-safety idea with too much surveillance, too much uncertainty, and too much trust placed in sensors and regulators?

Read the full IssueVoter analysis here.

What an Ignition Interlock Device Actually Is

There are few traffic-safety inventions more awkwardly named than the ignition interlock device. It sounds like something from a submarine manual. In practice, it is much simpler: a breathalyzer wired into a vehicle’s ignition system. Before the car starts, the driver blows into the device. If the device detects alcohol above a preset level, the vehicle does not start. Many devices also require rolling retests while the vehicle is in use, not to turn the car off while it is moving, but to make sure the person who started the car is still the person driving it and remains alcohol-free.

Ignition interlocks are not new, and they are not especially exotic. They emerged in experimental form decades ago and became a regular part of state impaired-driving policy as lawmakers looked for something more practical than simply suspending licenses and hoping for the best. License suspension has one obvious weakness: people can, and often do, drive anyway. Interlocks try to split the difference between punishment and prevention. They allow some offenders to keep driving to work, school, treatment, or family obligations, but only in a vehicle that checks for alcohol first. It is the traffic-safety equivalent of “fine, but we are watching the front door.”

The United States is not an outlier in using ignition interlocks, but it is one of the countries where offender-based interlock programs have become most deeply embedded in ordinary DUI policy. NHTSA’s Countermeasures That Work notes that all 50 states and the District of Columbia allow interlocks for at least some DWI offenders, and that 34 states plus D.C. make them mandatory for all convicted offenders, including first offenders. NCSL’s state law overview tells the same story in legal form: interlocks are no longer a niche tool in the U.S. They are part of the standard impaired-driving toolbox.

Internationally, the picture is more mixed. The European Transport Safety Council’s alcohol interlock map shows that many European countries have alcohol interlock rehabilitation programs as an alternative to driving bans, and ETSC has urged wider use, especially for repeat drink-driving offenders and professional vehicles. But European adoption is patchier and more programmatic than the U.S. state-law landscape. They are not used at all in the U.K. for example, except voluntarily by commercial fleets (such as logistics and coach companies).  In short, the U.S. is not alone in using interlocks, but it is unusually far along in making them a routine legal consequence for DUI offenders.

H.R. 1137 and the “Kill Switch” Fight

H.R. 1137, sponsored by Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA), would repeal Section 24220 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. That section directed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to develop a federal motor vehicle safety standard requiring new passenger vehicles to include “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology.” Under the law, that technology could passively monitor driver performance, passively detect whether a driver’s blood alcohol concentration is at or above the legal limit, or combine both approaches. If impairment is detected, the system would prevent or limit operation of the vehicle.

Supporters of the federal mandate tend to describe this as the next stage of traffic safety: technology that stops drunk or impaired driving before anyone is hurt. Opponents of the mandate describe it as a federally required vehicle “kill switch.” That phrase does a lot of political work. It suggests a button, a remote authority, perhaps even a government agent with a clipboard and a grudge. The actual statutory language is more technical and less cinematic. But the civil-liberties concern is not invented from nothing. The mandate is about technology that would detect behavior and limit vehicle operation. That is enough to raise real questions about reliability, privacy, data access, and consumer control.

IssueVoter’s analysis of H.R. 1137 captures the two poles of the debate. Opponents of H.R. 1137, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving, argue that the “kill switch” label is misleading and politically loaded. In their view, the federal law is not about government agents remotely disabling cars, tracking location, or building a rolling surveillance state. It is about stopping impaired drivers before they kill someone. MADD has argued that anti-drunk-driving technology could prevent thousands of deaths and that no one has a civil liberty interest in driving drunk.

Supporters of H.R. 1137 see the same technology through a very different windshield. They argue that Congress created an open-ended mandate and left too many details to regulators. The concern is not only that a car might refuse to start after a false reading, though that is serious enough in emergencies, rural areas, or for people with limited transportation options. It is also that passive monitoring could become normalized in everyday vehicles. Cameras, sensors, biometric readings, behavioral analytics, driving patterns, and vehicle-control systems all raise privacy and accountability questions. Once the system exists, critics ask, who controls it? What data is stored? Can insurers access it? Can law enforcement? Can the system be expanded beyond alcohol impairment to other kinds of behavior regulators dislike?

That is the central tension in H.R. 1137. It is not a simple fight between people who care about drunk-driving deaths and people who do not. It is a fight over whether a proven idea in one context — ignition interlocks for convicted offenders — should become a universal, passive, built-in feature of every new car.

The Research: Interlocks Work, But Passive Universal Technology Is Not There Yet

The strongest argument for ignition interlocks is that they have been studied for years, and the evidence generally points in the same direction: while installed, they reduce repeat impaired driving. NHTSA’s countermeasures guidance says drivers with interlocks have much lower alcohol-impaired-driving recidivism rates than comparable drivers without them, though the benefits often fade after removal. That matters. It suggests interlocks are effective at incapacitation — stopping someone from driving drunk while the device is there — but they are not a cure for alcohol misuse or risky behavior once the device is gone.

Other research points in the same direction. A study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that state laws requiring ignition interlocks for all drunk-driving offenders were associated with lower rates of alcohol-involved fatal crashes. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has also estimated that thousands of deaths could be prevented each year if drivers with blood alcohol concentrations at or above 0.08 percent were kept off the roads. In policy terms, that makes interlocks one of the more evidence-backed impaired-driving interventions available to states. They are not magic. They are not rehabilitation by hardware. But they are a practical way to prevent a known high-risk driver from starting a vehicle after drinking.

The federal advanced-technology mandate is different. It is not about a known offender using a device after a conviction. It is about every new vehicle passively detecting impairment in ordinary drivers. That requires a much higher level of reliability. A court-ordered interlock can be annoying, costly, and imperfect, but it applies to a narrow class of drivers after due process. A universal passive system would operate at national scale.

That is why NHTSA’s February 2026 report to Congress matters. In its Report to Congress on Advanced Impaired Driving Prevention Technology, the agency said alcohol-impaired driving remains a major cause of roadway deaths, but also concluded that current passive detection technology has not yet demonstrated the precision, speed, and reliability needed to satisfy the federal mandate. NHTSA warned that even a system that looked highly accurate in percentage terms could produce huge numbers of incorrect outcomes when applied across hundreds of billions of annual vehicle trips. That is a sobering little bit of math, and yes, in this context “sobering” is doing too much work.

This gives both sides something real to point to. Safety advocates can say the problem is enormous, the long-term technology could be transformative, and offender-based interlocks already show that vehicle-based prevention can work. Skeptics can say the federal mandate is premature, the false-positive problem is not theoretical, and NHTSA itself has not identified a commercially available passive system ready for mandatory deployment.

What are the States Doing?

The map below shows related current legislation across the U.S.  Click a state to see the bills, and click Detail to read them. 

The bill map widget shows that the state picture is much less dramatic than the federal “kill switch” debate. States are mostly not trying to ban impaired-driving technology. They are doing something more mundane and more consequential: expanding, tightening, funding, and administering ignition interlock programs for people already in the impaired-driving system.

Across the bills shown in the map, the largest category involves expanding or mandating ignition interlock use for DUI, DWI, high-BAC offenses, repeat offenses, restricted licenses, reinstatement after suspension, or pretrial release. A second major category deals with the plumbing of the system: vendor rules, calibration, proof of installation, indigency funds, compliance reports, restricted-license rules, and penalties for tampering.

That distinction matters. Legislatures appear less interested in debating whether interlocks should exist and more interested in making existing programs harder to evade.

California is a good example. California AB 366, now signed into law, extends the state’s ignition interlock provisions until January 1, 2033. It preserves requirements for certain DUI offenders to install certified devices, keeps graduated periods for repeat offenders, and maintains income-based fee reductions. California is not pausing because of the federal kill-switch controversy. It is extending the known system.

Colorado has gone further for first-time offenders. Colorado HB 1242, signed by the governor, requires a nine-month interlock-restricted license period after reinstatement for first-time DUI, DUI per se, or excess-BAC offenders, with some early removal possibilities and expanded financial assistance. That is a notable expansion because the policy is no longer only about repeat offenders or extreme cases. It pushes the interlock model deeper into the first-offense category.

Maryland enacted companion measures, HB 286 and SB 38, requiring participation in the Ignition Interlock System Program as a condition for modifying a suspended or revoked license or obtaining a restricted license in certain alcohol-related cases. Maryland’s approach reflects a recurring theme across the bill map: if a driver wants limited driving privileges after an impaired-driving violation, the state increasingly wants a device between that driver and the ignition.

Tennessee’s 2025 and 2026 activity shows the administrative side of the trend. Tennessee HB 1315 and SB 1299, both enacted, modify ignition interlock rules by addressing military deployment, calibration windows, monitoring appointments, and compliance issues. Tennessee also enacted bills dealing with the electronic monitoring indigency fund, including HB 1343, SB 1097, HB 1748, and SB 1845. These are not headline-grabbing bills, but they are important. Interlock mandates are only as practical as the payment systems, compliance rules, and hardship procedures behind them.

Wisconsin also enacted a compliance-focused measure. Wisconsin SB 248 extends and clarifies license eligibility and restrictions related to ignition interlock devices, including consequences for violations such as tampering or operating vehicles not permitted under a court order. Idaho enacted S 1311, requiring vendors to notify prosecutors when a person is prevented from starting a vehicle because of the device’s calibration setting and requiring proof of installation to be provided to the transportation department. Kansas enacted HB 2222, requiring ignition interlock manufacturers to pay fees to support administration of the state program. Again, the pattern is not “should interlocks exist?” It is “how do we make the program enforceable?”

Several bills are advancing but not yet enacted. Alabama HB 1, which crossed over, addresses license suspension and ignition interlock requirements after a first driving-under-the-influence offense. Louisiana SB 278, also crossed over, would prohibit reinstatement of a license suspended for DUI without ignition interlock installation. North Carolina H 789, which crossed over, takes a somewhat different approach by letting voluntary pretrial use of an ignition interlock device serve as a mitigating factor at sentencing in certain impaired-driving cases. North Carolina S 310, a broader criminal-law bill that crossed over, also includes conditional restoration of driving privileges for impaired-driving offenders who complete treatment and use an ignition interlock or continuous alcohol monitoring system.

Missouri is worth watching because HB 1740 has passed and been delivered to the governor. The bill expands mandatory ignition interlock use for certain DWI offenses, especially higher-BAC or injury/property-damage cases, adds low-income fee provisions, and includes “Bentley and Mason’s Law” provisions involving child maintenance payments when an impaired-driving offense causes the death of a parent. It is a broad impaired-driving bill, with ignition interlocks as one piece of a larger accountability framework.

New York illustrates another enforcement problem: what happens when a court orders an interlock but the driver does not prove installation and use? New York S 2517, which crossed over, would require proof of installation, maintenance, and regular use before a license can be restored. Its Assembly companion, A 2703, remains in committee. That kind of proof-of-use legislation suggests states are no longer satisfied with simply ordering the device. They want evidence that it was actually installed, maintained, and used.

South Carolina’s S 52, which crossed over and is in conference, is a broader DUI bill that includes testing, penalties, victim impact panels, and ignition interlock provisions. Virginia enacted HB 561, allowing restricted licenses with immediate ignition interlock installation for certain offenders and requiring a work group to study improvements to DUI laws. Virginia also saw SB 764, a Republican-sponsored deferred-disposition and license-suspension bill, vetoed.

At the federal level, the contrast with H.R. 1137 is striking. While H.R. 1137 would repeal the national passive-technology mandate, another federal bill, H.R. 2788, the End DWI Act of 2025, would push states in the opposite direction by requiring ignition interlock laws for DWI offenders or risking federal highway funding penalties. H.R. 2788 is bipartisan, with Rep. Tracey Mann (R-KS) as sponsor and Democratic and Republican cosponsors. That suggests Congress may be more divided over universal passive technology than over offender-based ignition interlocks.

Partisan Patterns: Less Clean Than the Federal Fight Suggests

The federal bill is plainly partisan. H.R. 1137 is Republican-sponsored and, according to the BillTrack50 sponsor list, has Republican cosponsors. Its language fits a broader Republican critique of federal mandates, administrative discretion, surveillance, and technology-enabled regulation.

The state interlock bills do not follow that neat pattern. The bill map shows Republican and Democratic sponsors both active in this space. Republican-led bills appear frequently in mandate-expansion and compliance-cost measures. Democratic-led bills are common in DUI reform, proof-of-use, and adjacent vehicle-safety technology bills. A significant number of enacted or advancing measures have bipartisan sponsorship.

That makes political sense. Drunk driving is not a left-right issue in the usual way. Public safety, victim advocacy, law enforcement, courts, insurance, treatment, and transportation all intersect here. Conservative lawmakers may support interlocks as an accountability measure that lets offenders keep working while preventing reoffense. Democratic lawmakers may support them as a public-health and road-safety intervention. Bipartisan coalitions often form around bills that are framed as targeting convicted offenders rather than monitoring the general public.

The partisan line becomes much sharper when the technology moves from “specific offender after a DUI” to “every new car, all the time.” That is where civil liberties, federal power, regulatory discretion, and distrust of automated systems come roaring into the debate, headlights on.

Which Bills Are Moving?

The bills most likely to become law are not the sweeping anti-technology bills. They are the practical interlock bills.

The strongest progress appears in states updating established programs. California’s AB 366, Colorado’s HB 1242, Maryland’s HB 286 and SB 38, Tennessee’s package of ignition-interlock administration bills, Virginia’s HB 561, Wisconsin’s SB 248, Idaho’s S 1311, Louisiana’s HB 69, Minnesota’s HF 2130, and Kansas’s HB 2222 have all been signed, enacted, or adopted.

The next tier includes bills that have crossed chambers or passed one chamber, including Alabama’s HB 1, Louisiana’s SB 278, Missouri’s HB 1740, North Carolina’s H 789 and S 310, New York’s S 2517, Pennsylvania’s HB 1862, Rhode Island’s S 2708, and South Carolina’s S 52. These bills vary widely in scope, but they are generally working within the existing interlock model rather than trying to create a universal vehicle mandate.

By contrast, H.R. 1137 remains in committee. That does not mean the bill is irrelevant. Sometimes a bill’s function is less to pass immediately than to define the argument. H.R. 1137 gives opponents of the federal mandate a clean vehicle, so to speak, for arguing that NHTSA should not be allowed to turn a statutory safety goal into a nationwide system of passive driver monitoring.

So Will This Technology Become Common?

Yes and no, which is deeply unsatisfying but probably right.

Ignition interlock devices for convicted impaired-driving offenders are already common and are likely to become more common. The state trend is unmistakable. Legislatures are expanding eligibility, making installation a condition of restricted driving privileges, tightening compliance rules, building indigency funds, and requiring proof that devices are actually installed and used. That kind of technology has crossed the policy threshold. The debate is now mostly about when, for whom, how long, and who pays.

Universal passive impairment-detection technology in all new cars is a different story. It may eventually become common, but not quickly and probably not without a long fight. The safety case is powerful. Alcohol-impaired driving still kills thousands of people each year, and a reliable passive system could prevent crashes before courts, police, or grieving families ever enter the picture. But the reliability and civil-liberties problems are equally real. A device used after conviction can tolerate a different policy balance than a device installed in every new car and aimed at every driver.

The most likely near-term future is a two-track system. States will keep expanding traditional ignition interlocks for DUI offenders, because the evidence is strong and the politics are manageable. Automakers, NHTSA, safety groups, and researchers will keep developing passive impairment-detection systems, but the federal mandate will move slowly unless the technology improves enough to answer the false-positive, privacy, cybersecurity, and consumer-acceptance questions.

In other words, the breathalyzer in the car is here to stay. The car that quietly decides whether you are fit to drive is still waiting at the regulatory stop sign.

About BillTrack50 – BillTrack50 offers free tools for citizens to easily research legislators and bills across all 50 states and Congress. BillTrack50 also offers professional tools to help organizations with ongoing legislative and regulatory tracking, as well as easy ways to share information both internally and with the public.

IssueVoter is a nonpartisan, nonprofit online platform dedicated to giving everyone a voice in our democracy. As part of their service, they summarize important bills passing through Congress and set out the opinions for and against the legislation, helping us to better understand the issues. BillTrack50 is delighted to partner with IssueVoter and we link to their analysis from relevant bills. Look for the IssueVoter link at the top of the page.