Bill Overview
Title: Safeguarding Privacy in Your Car Act of 2022
Description: This bill repeals a provision relating to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration prescribing a federal motor vehicle safety standard that required certain passenger motor vehicles to be equipped with advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology.
Sponsors: Sen. Rounds, Mike [R-SD]
Target Audience
Population: Current and future passenger motor vehicle owners and occupants worldwide
Estimated Size: 275000000
- The bill affects regulations regarding technology in passenger motor vehicles.
- All current and future owners and occupants of passenger motor vehicles that might have been subject to this technology will be impacted.
- The global car-owning population is in the hundreds of millions.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects technology regulations in the automotive industry, which means it will impact drivers, car buyers, manufacturers, and safety advocates.
- Given the budget constraints and policy focus, the policy doesn't directly allocate resources to individuals but might affect them indirectly through safety, vehicle cost, and technology implications.
- We include a spectrum of individuals from regular drivers, car manufacturers to privacy advocates to show diverse perspectives on the impact of repealing the technology requirement.
- The policy's impact may be felt differently depending on how individuals prioritize safety, technology use, and privacy in vehicles, and the access to or interest in newer car technologies.
Simulated Interviews
ride-share driver (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I rely on technology for safety. Removing such requirements seems backward.
- I worry about potential accidents without such preventive technology.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 7 |
automotive engineer (Detroit, MI)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone who works on these technologies, I think keeping them would push innovation in safety.
- This change doesn't favor safety-focused advancements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 8 |
privacy advocate (Dallas, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Repealing this law is good for privacy, as less data will be collected from my vehicle.
- I support technologies that protect lives but draw the line at unnecessary data collection.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
corporate lawyer (New York, NY)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about overreach in surveillance, so this feels like a win for privacy.
- Security, however, is also critical. There's a fine balance to maintain.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
retired teacher (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Removing safety tech is disappointing; older adults can benefit greatly from preventive systems.
- I wouldn't want to drive without knowing my vehicle has maximum protection possibilities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
software developer (Austin, TX)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Advanced tech in vehicles excites me; I'm disappointed this might delay new safety features.
- It feels like a step backward in autonomous and futuristic vehicle technologies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 9 |
small business owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate anything that keeps costs low for maintaining my fleet.
- Advanced safety tech can help reduce accidents, but it shouldn't come at a prohibitive cost.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
automobile salesperson (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could slow down the adoption of high-tech, safer vehicles which are preferable.
- Concerns over privacy need to be addressed, but not at the safety technology's cost.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 8 |
data analyst (Seattle, WA)
Age: 43 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm interested in how this will impact consumer choices and tech trends in cars.
- Privacy is valuable, but so is innovation; the balance needs re-evaluation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
public transport user (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy does not impact me directly, but it highlights issues of privacy vs. safety.
- I observe how these changes affect my community's driving safety overall.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $300000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $500000000)
Year 2: $300000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $500000000)
Year 3: $300000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $500000000)
Year 5: $300000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $500000000)
Year 10: $300000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $500000000)
Year 100: $300000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $500000000)
Key Considerations
- Reduced production costs may lead to lower vehicle prices, impacting consumer decisions.
- Changes in safety technology requirements can alter industry standards.