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: 3946
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 # 91.
#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?
How many lives am I endangering when I make a beer run at .07776% BAC?
It depends upon how much your reaction time is slowed down and whether or not you hit an emergency situation where it slows you down enough to not avoid a preventable disaster. An automobile IS a deadly weapon in the hands of someone impaired. Of course I've seen a few idiots on the road, OK more than a few, who are impaired without being the worse for drink. The point, all joking aside, is that it is irresponsible to drive impaired by alcohol or any other intoxicant. Were it just your life at risk I would not think of interfering, but it is not. When you get behind the wheel of a car you have accepted the responsibility of handling it to the best of your ability. If the ability is lessened by some intoxicant then it IS an irresponsible act which could cost someone else their life.
An automobile IS a deadly weapon in the hands of someone impaired. Of course I've seen a few idiots on the road, OK more than a few, who are impaired without being the worse for drink. What do we do about the senior citizen problem? Or handicapped, or just bad drivers? I know far more elderly people who shouldn't be driving than drunks. How about we pull their licenses at 65, or for anyone who takes prescription meds, or once a person goes on the government dole which makes them a burden on society? I'm with Critter on this one, some risk is necessary in a free society. If a person is so safety obsessed, maybe it's them who shouldn't be driving.
#92. To: Esso, Original_Intent (#91)
DING! We have a winner! I drive between 30k and 60k miles a year depending on the year. I probably avoid 6 or 8 accidents a week just by watching out for the other guy. My safety is my responsibility. I feel the same way about the movement "Kill a biker, go to jail." On my motorcycle, my safety is my responsibility. Why should some old lady who didn't see me coming go to jail because she is an old lady who didn't see me coming? If, heaven forbid, my daughter is hurt or killed by a drunk or an old lady that didn't see her coming, I would hope that I was mature enough to get over it without needing to see heads roll. Now if some dipshit rapes her, I'll kill him myself. It's all about intent to me. Did the drunk or old lady intend to kill me or my kid? No. Did the rapist intend to hurt my kid? Absolutely. I'll kill the latter or forgive the former and try to get on with my life, either as a free man or behind bars for manslaughter. :)
How do you feel about responsibility? At what point do you receive the right to endanger the lives of others unnecessarily? Where do you receive that right i.e., upon what premise? Do you acknowledge or deny that the larger group has a right to protect themselves from the irresponsible actions of some? Please explain how it is the responsible thing to do to get behind the wheel of a vehicle when you are under the influence of an intoxicant, thus putting the lives of others at risk, - which is a VOLUNTARY activity? As far as I'm concerned you are welcome to "handle snakes", play "Russian Roulette, or join Free Republic, but those are individual choices which affect no one other than the individual concerned. When your actions have the potential to affect another person than yourself then it becomes a matter not just of personal choice but of reasonable action by the larger group to protect themselves from willfull individuals who take no concern as to how their actions might affect others. A free society does not mean a society without limits where the actions of one which adversely affect the liberties, and the enjoyment of those liberties, by others goes without restraint or restriction. You have no right to get behind the wheel of a car and then murder someone in cold blood, because that is what you are doing when you drive under the influence. Society has a right and a vested interest in protecting itself from the irresponsible and unethical. When you get behind the wheel of a car, a voluntary activity, you either accept responsibility for your actions or you do not? Which is it?
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)
#37. To: Original_Intent (#35)
#42. To: Dakmar (#37)
(Edited)
How many lives am I endangering when I make a beer run at .07776% BAC?
#91. To: Original_Intent, Critter, all (#42)
It depends upon how much your reaction time is slowed down and whether or not you hit an emergency situation where it slows you down enough to not avoid a preventable disaster.
Replies to Comment # 91. If a person is so safety obsessed, maybe it's them who shouldn't be driving.
#95. To: Esso, Critter, Dakmar, christine, Wudidiz, TwentyTwelve, James Deffenbach, Lodwick, angle, all (#91)
(Edited)
I'm with Critter on this one, some risk is necessary in a free society. If a person is so safety obsessed, maybe it's them who shouldn't be driving.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 91.