| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| MADD and politicians: Alcohol detection device in EVERY vehicle |
| 2006-11-20 |
| Edited for brevity. Emphasis mine. The threat of arrest and punishment, for decades the primary tactic against drunken drivers, is no longer working in the struggle to reduce the death toll, officials say, and they are proposing turning to technology — alcohol detection devices in every vehicle — to address the problem. In the first phase of the plan, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, backed by a national association of state highway officials and car manufacturers, will announce here on Monday a campaign to change drunken driving laws in 49 states to require that even first offenders install a device that tests drivers and shuts down the car if it detects alcohol. Many states already require the devices, known as ignition interlocks, for people who have been convicted several times. Last year New Mexico became the first to make them mandatory after a first offense. With that tactic and others, the state saw an 11.3 percent drop in alcohol-related fatalities last year. Officials say interlocks for first offenders are not a panacea but will reduce repeat offenses. They say the next step will be a program to develop devices to unobtrusively test every driver for alcohol and disable the vehicle. More at link... |
| Posted by:Dar |
| #23 MADD is out of control |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-11-20 21:13 |
| #22 Statistically, each more people die in automobile accidents as the result of excessive speed as opposed to drunk driving. Do you have some evidence of that? My informed opinion is that speed is a contributing factor (after all, if the car is stopped it can't hit anything) but it's intoxication (alcohol or other drugs), inattentiveness, inexperience, and poor judgement that are the real problems. When speed limits are lowered, the death rate doesn't drop appreciably. |
| Posted by: KBK 2006-11-20 20:50 |
| #21 They say the next step will be a program to develop devices to unobtrusively test every driver for alcohol and disable the vehicle. And there goes the hot rod hobby, followed by the old car hobby. Pretty soon you won't be able to drive on the road without a certified car and you won't be able to get on the net without a certified computer. |
| Posted by: KBK 2006-11-20 20:43 |
| #20 Bad advice: |
| Posted by: Shipman 2006-11-20 19:33 |
| #19 There just appear to be some serious legal consequences to disabling a person's car. Perhaps it is the person who is disabled. The car simply won't function with a disabled by alcohol driver. One assumes the driver is aware of the consequences of attempting to start the car while intoxicated. Before getting intoxicated anyway. Fleeing harm can be done without a car. Particularly one that knowingly could not be started. |
| Posted by: Thinemp Whimble2412 2006-11-20 19:26 |
| #18 The ol Pan comes equiped with this device already, and it was made in 1949! It's called a kick starter. Ever try to start an old Harly when your too drunk to drive?? It'll win you a broken leg and a trip to the hospital. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-11-20 18:03 |
| #17 I have a good solution. DUI or refusal to blow? No drivers license for 5 years. Another one? No DL ever. There. Problem fixed! |
| Posted by: Mark E. 2006-11-20 15:52 |
| #16 we need to hear from DAMM. Where's Joe Bob Briggs when we need him? (You beat me to it, nmu.) This makes sense because the recidivism rate among drunk drivers can be great. You aren't kidding, 'moose: Drunk driving recidivism rates are high: approximately one-third of drivers arrested or convicted of DWI each year are repeat offenders. A 1994 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that drivers involved in alcohol-related fatal crashes were eight times more likely to have had DWI convictions in the previous 5 years than drivers randomly selected from the general population of licensed drivers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) indicates that in 1996, about one in six drivers with positive BAC levels who died in traffic crashes had been convicted of driving while intoxicated during the three previous years. And a 1995 California study suggests that 44 percent of drivers convicted of DUI in that State are reconvicted of DUI within 10 years. I have also heard a statistic bandied about that nearly 50% of DUIs are apprehended for the same offense within six weeks of their initial arrest. Wait for the first woman to be raped and murdered because the detector failed. Then watch the billion dollar lawsuit against MADD. Not just device failure, but what about a situation where an intoxicated person's only chance of escaping a life threatening situation (i.e., car-jacking, attempted murder, forest fire) relies upon them using their car? Without 100% effective police interdiction of crime, limiting a person's ability to escape violent assault or natural disaster may not be constitutional. I do not attempt to make light of drunk driving recidivism. It's persistence and negative consequences seem to approach that of predatory child molestation. There just appear to be some serious legal consequences to disabling a person's car. Interesting thought problem: What about a sober person with prior DUIs who legally starts his car and proceeds to drink to the point of intoxication while driving? Obviously, the control device cannot cripple the vehicle while it is still in operation. This is one of many corollary issues surrounding what is admittedly a thorny topic. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-11-20 15:25 |
| #15 "There seem to be enough of these There - fixed that for ya', #14 tu. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-11-20 14:32 |
| #14 There seem to be enough of these ladies around. Have one of them sit in my car until I'm done and then drive me home. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2006-11-20 14:18 |
| #13 Citizens should be jailed for driving drunk. Only politicians, especially Kennedys should be allowed to kill people or crash into barriers and pay no price for their drunkeness. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-11-20 14:15 |
| #12 "Wait for the first woman to be raped and murdered because the detector failed. Then watch the billion dollar lawsuit against MADD." Indeed. Happened in the 70s with a car that had an interlock with the safety belt. |
| Posted by: Mark E. 2006-11-20 10:14 |
| #11 Sorry...that should be: "each year" |
| Posted by: Mark Z 2006-11-20 10:12 |
| #10 Anonymoose: Statistically, each more people die in automobile accidents as the result of excessive speed as opposed to drunk driving. Are you in favor of court ordered installation of "governors" on first offender speeders? If not, why not? |
| Posted by: Mark Z 2006-11-20 10:11 |
| #9 You are guilty until you prove yourself innocent..... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-11-20 08:37 |
| #8 Wait for the first woman to be raped and murdered because the detector failed. Then watch the billion dollar lawsuit against MADD. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2006-11-20 08:34 |
| #7 While putting it in every vehicle would be ridiculous, I see no problem in mandating it to be put in every vehicle owned by the local family of a convicted drunk driver. Done at a judge's discretion, it does not impact the rest of the public. This makes sense because the recidivism rate among drunk drivers can be great. In addition to the hard part, having equipment installed in their vehicles, both their drivers license and their car licenses should reflect a conviction for DUI. The drivers license so that any drinking establishment that chose to could reduce their liability by not serving convicted drunk drivers, or by refusing to serve them more. The license plates so that police could quickly spot such a vehicle, then use an unobstrusive "one pass" key next to their anti-DUI unit that would confirm it is both working and has not been tampered with. The whole difference is philosophy. If you haven't been convicted of a dangerous crime, you should be left alone. But if you have been convicted of a dangerous crime with a high recidivism rate, they should own your ass. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-11-20 08:33 |
| #6 Gravy Detector.... Hahahahaha |
| Posted by: Shipman 2006-11-20 07:44 |
| #5 we need to hear from DAMM. (Drunks against Mad Mothers.) |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2006-11-20 06:52 |
| #4 Repetitio est mater studiorum, RD? ;-) |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2006-11-20 03:14 |
| #3 Allow me to introduce Badanov's Take a Sober Person for a Drive Program. |
| Posted by: badanov 2006-11-20 02:29 |
| #2 sure.. cars with alcohol locks today next cars with gravy ignition locks tomorrow and then cars with p0rn thought locks next year... Bawawwwwwaww! we're MADD and dooooomed! |
| Posted by: RD 2006-11-20 02:25 |
| #1 sure.. cars with alcohol locks today next cars with gravy ignition locks tomorrow and then cars with p0rn thought locks next year... Bawawwwwwaww! we're MADD and dooooomed! |
| Posted by: RD 2006-11-20 02:23 |