See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: New ignition lock laws aim to foil drunk drivers
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090102 ... i_legislation_ignition_locks_4
Published: Jan 2, 2009
Author: MICHAEL TARM
Post Date: 2009-01-02 14:59:31 by Jethro Tull
Keywords: None
Views: 3502
Comments: 150
CHICAGO – Motorists convicted of driving drunk will have to install breath-monitoring gadgets in their cars under new laws taking effect in six states this week. The ignition interlocks prevent engines from starting until drivers blow into the alcohol detectors to prove they're sober. Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Nebraska and Washington state began Jan. 1 requiring the devices for all motorists convicted of first-time drunken driving. South Carolina began requiring them for repeat offenders. Mothers Against Drunk Driving has been conducting a nationwide campaign to mandate ignition locks for anyone convicted of drunken driving, claiming doing so would save thousands of lives. But critics say interlocks could lead to measures that restrict alcohol policies too much. Users must pay for the fist-sized devices, which in Illinois cost around $80 to install on dashboards and $80 a month to rent; there's also a $30 monthly state fee. And they require periodic retesting while the car is running. "It's amazingly inconvenient," said David Malham, of the Illinois chapter of MADD. "But the flip side of the inconvenience is death." Other states with similar laws include New Mexico, Arizona and Louisiana. Most other states give judges the option of forcing convicted drunk drivers to use the devices. In practice though, they are rarely ordered unless laws mandate them, according to MADD. Until now, that's been true in Illinois, said MADD national CEO Chuck Hurley. "Illinois has excellent law enforcement," he said. "But the judicial system leaks like a sieve. This law will change the catch and release system to one where people are at least caught and tagged." In Illinois, the interlocks are mandated only for the five to 11 months licenses are suspended with a first DUI. Drivers can opt not to install them, but then would be banned from driving during the suspension period. Motorists in Colorado get a similar choice — install the devices or get a longer suspension. The law taking effect in Washington state actually relaxes penalties on drunk drivers, allowing them to avoid a previously mandatory license suspension by getting an interlock. The bill's author, Rep. Roger Goodman, said too many motorists were driving with suspended licenses. Motorists could try to skirt the devices by, say, having someone else blow into the detector or driving someone else's car. But if caught trying to circumvent the interlocks, they could go to jail. Within a year, up to 30,000 first-time offenders in Illinois could be using them, state officials estimate. New Mexico was the first state to mandate the devices in 2005. Since then, according to MADD, that state has seen its drunk-driving deaths fall 20 percent. Hurley said other states could see the same percentage decline within a few years. DUI deaths nationally have plummeted to around 15,000 from around 30,000 annually in the early 1980s. Malham, who supports the technology, said in the future even more advanced technology will enable cars to effectively sniff car cabins, scan faces and eyes of drivers or even test sweat on steering wheels to assess sobriety before engines start. Not everyone is as enthusiastic. One of the staunchest critics of interlock laws for first-time offenders is the Washington-based American Beverage Institute, a trade association representing restaurants and retailers. ABI managing director Sarah Longwell said the group backs interlock laws targeting repeat offenders and those arrested with high blood-alcohol levels. But she said laws advocated by MADD don't allow judges to distinguish between those who have a few drinks and go just over the 0.08 blood-alcohol legal limit and those who go way over. "We want sensible alcohol policies," she said. "We want 10 people to be able to come in and have one drink and not one person to come in and have 10." She said current interlock laws could lead to more draconian measures. "We foresee is a country in which you're no longer able to have a glass of wine, drink a beer at a ball game or enjoy a champagne toast at a wedding," she said. "There will be a de facto zero tolerance policy imposed on people by their cars." She argued that MADD puts too much emphasis on links between alcohol and traffic deaths, giving too little regard to the roles excessive speed and driver cell-phone use in deadly accidents. Proponents of interlock laws say studies back their approach. They cite a 2008 study by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation that found interlock devices in New Mexico helped decrease repeat offenses by approximately two-thirds. MADD also points to figures showing one-third of all drunk drivers have a prior DUI conviction. The American Beverage Institute questions studies cited by advocates, saying they other factors, like education programs, also account for the declines. Malham concedes Illinois' new law isn't perfect. For one, it only applies to drivers during relatively short license-suspension periods. "But perfection can't be the enemy of the good, to quote (18th century philosopher) Voltaire," he said. "I'd like to see more teeth in the law in the future. But this is a start."
Poster Comment: With all the car rentals, they'll also have to note the conviction on a persons drivers license. This will mean whenever a person uses their lic. for ID (as in a new job, etc) the conviction will appear.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 73.
#1. To: Jethro Tull (#0)
I'm in Washington State. Here, you can quite literally blow a .000 and STILL get arrested for drunk driving. No lie. It's just insane. So, when I do (rarely) go out, all I order to drink is soda or maybe orange juice. I'm not willing to pay out over $10,000 in fines and fees just because some cop decided that since I had one drink two hours ago, that I am therefore "driving drunk".
Maybe it's me, but I don't trust police breathalyzers and the portable blood testing centers located at DUI road blocks. Yep, they now have portable blood testing stations at these road blocks. I'm not making excuses for someone drunk and driving, but these methods aren't always accurate, nor are the lab tech always competent.
i agree. i don't know what is the best approach for dealing with DUI offenders.
i agree. i don't know what is the best approach for dealing with DUI offenders. I think Sweden has the best solution. Get busted for a DUI and your license is revoked for life. Of course I would favor a chance to appeal for reinstatement after ten years - wherein the individual must prove they were responsible in that time, and that any restitution has been fully made. EXCEPT that if the individual was involved in an accident where someone was badly injured or killed it is permanent with no reinstatement under any circumstance. PERIOD.
I don't trust government with that kind of power. There was a time I might have agreed, but not any more. No way. They can't be trusted to administer justice any more.
I don't trust government with that kind of power. There was a time I might have agreed, but not any more. No way. They can't be trusted to administer justice any more. I understand your viewpoint, and largely agree that I do not trust the current crop of JBT's to fairly and honestly administer the law. However, there is no excuse for drunk driving. It is a thorny issue GIVEN the untrustworthiness of the JBT's, but anyone convicted in a court, where the facts are proven, has no business on the road. They have proven that they ARE NOT responsible adults and are unworthy of trust themselves. If they can provide exculpatory evidence then they should be able to prove their innocence. While I feel sorry for them I see no reason to extend them undue and unearned courtesy of the doubt.
I'm not trying to pick a fight, but there is a certain arbitrariness in the system. Like all zero-tolerance laws, it'd be neat if it were applied evenly, but it isn't.
You are right that the zero tolerance laws are often asinine. However, when one takes an action, voluntarily, which puts the lives at others at risk just how tolerant do we want to be?
You are sounding like a Bush/Cheney record on skip. Oops, I'm showing my age. A good friend of mine doesn't approve of my smoking cigarettes but we are still friends. His dad died of lung cancer after a long struggle. I should quit smoking, but I haven't. I doubt that my smoking has killed any one.
You are sounding like a Bush/Cheney record on skip. Oops, I'm showing my age. A good friend of mine doesn't approve of my smoking cigarettes but we are still friends. His dad died of lung cancer after a long struggle. I should quit smoking, but I haven't. I doubt that my smoking has killed any one. Ever hit a pedestrian while lighting a cigarette? ;-) Also the lung cancer rate for non-smokers, and this would shock the anti-smoking Nazi's into disbelief, is only slightly lower than for smokers. Smoking may increase the risk, but not as much as the hyperbole would lead people to believe. However, that is another issue. Your simile though, like Critter's, fails as an accurate simile to the instance of someone engaging in a VOLUNTARY activity, drinking, who then, while impaired, puts the lives of others at risk by getting behind the wheel of a deadly weapon. When you smoke you risk your own health which, as far as I am concerned, you are free to do. When you get behind the wheel of a car impaired you are putting at risk not just your own life but the lives of others who did not consent to that risk.
What is impaired? Two bottles of beer?
What is impaired? Two bottles of beer? In my case one. I'm a cheap drunk. Two is my limit except under rare circumstance. However, in answer to your question it depends upon how many it takes to reduce your reaction time and affect your judgement. It could very well be 2 beers. My point is that it should not have to cost someone else their life because you couldn't be bothered to behave responsibly. There is nothing that says you have to drive a car after having had a couple of beers. It is an elective activity not a necessity. Alcohol IS an intoxicant. Any significant amount is going to have an affect on any normal person. If you're 6'9" and weigh 300 pounds two beers probably is not going to register. If you're 4'9" and weigh 100 pounds you are likely on the edge of drunk. If you're somewhere in between it is not wholly predictable because body chemistry plays a role. However, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, after two beers you are not as sharp as you were at no beers. That's why they call it "getting a little buzz on". I do not drive after even one beer without the passage of enough time for the alcohol to metabolize to the point where I am sure I am safe.
Crud! I ganked my Yahoo account for this?
Thhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhpppppppppp! Your mother wears combat boots. Na, na, - na, - na-na - na.
She did until she broke her shoulder anyway. Thanks for mentioning that.
There are no replies to Comment # 73. End Trace Mode for Comment # 73.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#7. To: Elliott Jackalope, chriatine, mark kamala, all (#1)
#10. To: Jethro Tull (#7)
Yep, they now have portable blood testing stations at these road blocks. I'm not making excuses for someone drunk and driving, but these methods aren't always accurate, nor are the lab tech always competent.
#25. To: christine, Jethro Tull (#10)
Yep, they now have portable blood testing stations at these road blocks. I'm not making excuses for someone drunk and driving, but these methods aren't always accurate, nor are the lab tech always competent.
#27. To: Original_Intent (#25)
Get busted for a DUI and your license is revoked for life.
#29. To: Critter (#27)
Get busted for a DUI and your license is revoked for life.
#32. To: Original_Intent (#29)
#35. To: Dakmar (#32)
#43. To: Original_Intent (#35)
However, when one takes an action, voluntarily, which puts the lives at others at risk just how tolerant do we want to be?
#50. To: Fred Mertz (#43)
However, when one takes an action, voluntarily, which puts the lives at others at risk just how tolerant do we want to be?
#54. To: Original_Intent (#50)
When you get behind the wheel of a car impaired you are putting at risk not just your own life but the lives of others who did not consent to that risk.
#65. To: Fred Mertz (#54)
When you get behind the wheel of a car impaired you are putting at risk not just your own life but the lives of others who did not consent to that risk.
#67. To: Original_Intent (#65)
Alcohol IS an intoxicant. Any significant amount is going to have an affect on any normal person. If you're 6'9" and weigh 300 pounds two beers probably is not going to register. If you're 4'9" and weigh 100 pounds
#71. To: Dakmar (#67)
Crud! I ganked my Yahoo account for this?
#73. To: Original_Intent (#71)
Your mother wears combat boots.
Replies to Comment # 73.