I DONT THINK SO

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."

 

driving even slightly under the influence is mega stupid...

Find a damn DD or grab a cab!!

 

This is one little AP story making the New Year's rounds that is cropping up all over. Maybe it's part of the New Year's Day self-righteousness that those of us not nursing hangovers feel at this time of year. Actually, six states have JOINED the movement for DUI enforcement that includes breathalyzer ignition locks. Many states have had these statutes on the books for years. While they make the state legislators look all concerned about drunks on our highways, the "sentencing option" is simply not being utilized.

States currently leave this "option" for DUI enforcement up to the local judge. In Texas, the option has been exercised only a handful of times over the past ten years in thousands of convictions. Typically drunks are being slapped on the wrist and told to "go and sin no more". Obviously that isn't working.

DUI is a pretty common offense and certainly first-offenders should be given something of a break, but it is common for serious alcoholics - or simply irresponsible people - to gather repeat offenses like some people collect PEZ dispensers. How many times do we hear of innocents being killed in accidents caused by a drunk driver? How many of these drivers have been reported to have had 5, 10, 20 DUI convictions? At some point, people demonstrating such callous disregard for life need to be imprisoned. Somewhere short of that point judges have technological tools to prevent drunks from starting their engines. Now, if they would only use them.

One answer would be to make these ignition interlocks mandatory upon a second or third conviction in - say three years. Certainly there are plenty of ways to circumvent the system, including driving another car, or have another person blow into the breathalyzer for you, but at least then, by compounding the offense, any reasonable judge would throw the book at you when you are pulled over.

Most repeat DUI offenders are not just people who've had a couple of drinks at a party. Most are alcoholics that require serious treatment and lifelong support. Punishment is not effective for these people, they are out of control and do not even consider "punishment" as a deterrent to driving. We have the technology to keep some of these people off the road - an electronic monitor that will prevent them from starting their car while they are over the state-mandated limit. Ignition interlocks are not there to punish drunks, they are tools to help ensure the safety of the rest of us. Now, if we could only get our judges to use these tools in our defense.

 

yes Bob, but in TX, get a 3rd DUI, and you can never again hold a Drivers Liscense in the state of TX.

 

Buzz? That sounds like a Saturn.

 

I'm with MADD here, as I am on most issues. We have been far too lax, over the years, with DUIs/DWIs. That has only recently begun to change.


A bogus and incorrect arguement....it doesn't matter. States set DWI 0.08-0.10 BAC levels for a good reason. At that level, testing has shown that most people cannot drive safely. So, whether they have 0.08 in their system, or two or three times that level, it doesn't matter....they are a hazard either way.



Again, untrue, and incorrect. Having ONE drink...or maybe a couple of beers......and driving home will not necessarily make you a DWI, or even a DUI. People just have to drink responsibly, and know when to quit. But the law is aimed at those it SHOULD be aimed at......those who drink and DON'T know when to quit.

 

I wish it were that cut and dried. The laws on the books are pretty specific, but there is no mandatory sentence for DUI, leaving misdemeanor cases often in the hands of local JP's who are usually extremely lenient.

Texas DUI by the book:

First offenders are charged with a Class B misdemeanor, the penalty for which is a stay at the graybar hotel not to exceed six days and a fine of up to $2000 plus costs. License is suspended for one year, but this may be waived if the offender attends "DUI School".

Second offenders are charged with a Class A misdemeanor, resulting in a jail term of up to one year and a $4,000 fine. Again, the license is suspended for up to two years - and the offender is required to complete a 32 hour "DUI School".

Third strikers are handed a Third Degree felony ticket that includes up to 10 years in the state penitentiary, a $4,000 fine, and "DUI School". Upon conviction, the driver forfeits his license for a period up to two years, but at no time is the driver's vehicle impounded.

On top of these charges and penalties, there are "other" circumstances like BAC in excess of double the legal maximum, minors, commercial vehicles, that can add significantly to the penalties.

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/d.../texas-dui.htm

While all of this sounds like we are getting tough with drunks on the road, in fact, the punishment is meted out by judges and juries, and has historically been far more tolerant in practice than the available law provides. Sadly, just this past month a drunk driving an F-150, ran a red light and T-boned a young couple in a Charger on Hwy 6, killing both.



The driver of the pickup was traveling forty miles an hour over the speed limit with three times the allowable BAC. According to her friends, she had a serious drinking problem and a long record of DUI arrests. She was belligerent and combative when under the influence, and that night refused assistance as she left the bar.

If indeed she had a DUI record (which will not be known until she comes to trial), you have to wonder what deterrent effect all of the fines, license revocation, and jail time had on this determined alcoholic. A person so determined to drink heavily and get behind the wheel will not be deterred by a fine (usually noncollectable) and a license suspension. They will drive as long as they have access to an automobile - and they will be on the public roads with us.

 

man that sucks. but i guess its for the better

 

They have been doing that crap in AZ for a while now. I know someone who has a daughter who got an aggravated DUI and had to have one of the ignition devices installed

 

Anyone seen they had this installed in the movie the 40 year old virgin

 

I really have major problems with MADD. The drinking age they insist upon only leads to kids binge drinking and doing stupid things. Of course, they refuse to consider otherwise. This is yet another idea of their conservative mentality. I'm sure they have the best intentions in mind, but they go about their agenda the wrong way, in my opinion.

 

Why blame MADD for dumb things that kids do? The fact that they make dumb decisions is not MADD's fault. It just shows that we have not impressed the dangers of alcohol strongly enough upon them. For instance, I had some beer, wine, and an occasional drink in my teen years, but never enough to get drunk. I was taught well by my parents and school, and knew when to quit. In fact, I stopped drinking altogether in my early 20's.

 

this is why i loved japan, awesome subway system and capsule hotels near bars in case you miss the train. when will the US learn that there is life without cars.

 

Mike makes a good point, a number of these terrible accidents are caused by youthful drinkers who made one or more bad decisions. I suppose at some level that has to be expected. Most of the time these kids who refuse to believe the stats have to learn from their errors. Hopefully, those errors are not fatal, but too often they are. While they might drive drunk a few times, it is not a daily ritual. It is a matter of risk exposure. Worse than the "recreational" drunk is the habitual drunk who consumes a large quantity of alcohol three or more times each week, then tries to navigate his way home. It's not because his "sin" is any greater, he just puts in more hours each week while heavily impaired at the wheel.

Drinking and driving is to say the least, unwise whether you are a recreational or a habitual drunk. Whether it's your first experience with alcohol or you are a veteran of the Bacchanalian wars, either way you are a drunk. We see the results of driving under the influence in our newspapers every day. Lives haunted or destroyed in an instant of irresponsibility seem to be commonplace. In our youth we believe we are immortal, that a major accident that cripples or kills people is simply not possible - not to us . . . then the awakening comes. . . . usually too late.

MADD has done a wonderful job of keeping the issue before the press - we cannot ignore the senseless slaughter of thousands of our citizens on our streets and highways caused by alcohol. According to the NHTSA, 13,491 of our citizens were killed in 2007 ALONE by drunk drivers. Had they been killed in a natural disaster we would be screaming for the government to investigate - had these lives been lost in a war, we would move heaven and earth to put an end to it.

 

Once again americans should throw down their egos and look towards examples set by other countries. Compare the car deaths per capita cuased by young drunk driving in European states compared to the MADD states of America. We are so backwards thinking in our stubborn mentality so often it makes me clinically ill. Why is it acceptable for a child to go into a war zone age of 18 armed with an automatic machine gun taking human life yet when it comes to cracking open a beer it's deemed morally wrong and unacceptable? That's the only morally "outrageous" factor I see here. I completely empathize to my fullest capabilities with loosing a son or daughter to an intoxicated driver, yet they are acting upon this in the completely wrong direction, one which only exasberates the larger issue at hand.