No Driving for Drunks in Six States

[3113]

Well, not in their own cars

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."

...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.

...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 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....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."

Edited article. Full article here.

 

[DeeZire]

I'll drink to that.

 

[slyc_willie]

I'm all in favor of restricting repeat offenders. They've created a precedent that they will drive drunk in the future. Having lived in Albuquerque, NM, where it seemed everyone was either an alcoholic, a drug user, or both, I've known people with more than a handful of DUI convictions who still drove a car -- more than occasionally drunk. Many actually considered their number of offenses as a sort of badge . . . until they plowed into a wall or caused an accident with another car.

Now, I've driven drunk in the past. The distant past. I've managed to gain some measure of responsibility and intelligence at my age when it comes to such things. If I plan on getting blitzed at a Halloween party or birthday bash, I'm going to arrive by taxi and go home the same way.

I don't think first time DUIs should be saddled with such a restriction as outlined above. Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone gets stupid once in a while. It's human nature.

Let them be stupid twice, then saddle them with a breathalyzer-controlled car.

Unless, of course, the first offense resulted in an accident. In such a case . . . sorry, bucko, but we (as a society) can't afford you to make the same mistake twice.

 

[Pure]

nice article 3113

it's known that most laws against drunk driving have lots of loopholes. it's as it no one really wants to prevent drunks from driving, since they might be one, themselves.

i might note that the device stops person A from driving his own vehicle (or maybe the first vehicle that he owns). if he drives his wife's or his son's vehicle, he not restrained. (correct?).

it seems there is almost no way to stop drunks from driving, if they are on the loose--outside of jail. IOW, suspending licenses and forbidding driving are NOT sufficient in themselves.

 

[rgraham666]

Hmmm. That seems rather excessive. The way that the law is implemented makes me thing the law was designed as an income stream for the state government than a deterrent for drunk driving.

Overall the scheme seems too typical. It's a punishment rather than a method of prevention.

 

[Cattypuss]

I have unusually stong view about drink-driving. Here in the UK, the legal limit for alcohol, measured by how much alcohol there is in your blood, equates to around two small drinks.

Personally I believe the legal limit should be zero alcohol in the blood (other than the trace amounts that can come from food). And that a two-year ban should follow the first conviction, and that a lifelong ban should follow the second conviction. ANY alcohol we consume is going to affect our judgement, alertness and relfexes. And a car is a lethal weapon.

I was of that view even before my brother was convicted twice for drink-driving - the first time knocking a wall down on a country road and severely damaging his car, and the second time causing a crash with another car that almost totalled both cars but miraculously left nobody with any really serious injuries. And now he's driving again and the same will happen again at some point. Only maybe next time someone will be permanently injured or killed.

My own personal solution would be police spot-checks on lots of roads and lots of different times of day/night. It would cost money, but it would save money in our (free to the patient) heathcare system. Only downer would be fewer young, fresh organs available for transplants

I'll stand down off my sopabox now!!

 

[Vermilion]

I don't think people should drive if they've had a drink. If you want to have a 'beer at a ball game' or ' champagne at a wedding' then either get a taxi or have a designated driver. Stop being a selfish fuckwit putting other peoples' lives at risk just because you haven't got the self control to go one night without a drink.

And I think the American Alcoholic Beverage Association, or whatever the hell its called, should be encouraging people to act responsibly, instead of saying - 'nah, it's fine if people have a few drinks then drive a tonne of speeding metal around'.

Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege and if you're stupid enough to abuse that then you deserve to have your license taken off you. Absolutely.

 

[jomar]

From what I recall of research back in the day, steep fines are the best deterrent for most people. I suspect repeaters would get the message better if they got jail time, not an interlock device. And some people will continue to drive drunk no matter if their license is revoked or they go to jail for awhile.

 

[R. Richard]

As has been pointed out, all a drunk has to do is to drive some one else's non-interlocked car.

If I wanted to drive drunk [I DON'T,] I would obtain a supply of cheap balloons. I would then blow up one before I started to drink. I would then use the pre-inflated baloon to fake the interlock.

The answer is not jail, per se. The answer is to sentence a drunk driver to hard labor on a road cleaning crew. Free room and board is a minimum punishment. Earning room and board with hard labor is a punishment.

 

[Cattypuss]

I wonder if there's a cultural difference or just a language difference on this matter between the US and the UK...

...you see, here in the UK, we call it "drink-driving", whereas you US guys seem to call it "drunk driving". To me, the former expression indicates a lower tolerance of driving when under the influence (as if in the UK it's wrong to drive after drinking, but in the US it's only wrong to drive if actually in a drunken state).

Like I say, it could be just a language difference with no deeper significance.

 

[midwestyankee]

I wonder if there's a cultural difference or just a language difference on this matter between the US and the UK...

...you see, here in the UK, we call it "drink-driving", whereas you US guys seem to call it "drunk driving". To me, the former expression indicates a lower tolerance of driving when under the influence (as if in the UK it's wrong to drive after drinking, but in the US it's only wrong to drive if actually in a drunken state).

Like I say, it could be just a language difference with no deeper significance.

There clearly is a difference in how the offense is described in the UK and in the U.S., but I don't know if there's a significant semantic difference based only on this information.

In the U.S., laws governing driving are enacted by each state. In my state, Illinois, the legal limit that driving with alcohol in your system is .08% alcohol in the blood. That's the equivalent of a little less than two drinks per hour. At that level one's perception and reflex/reaction time are somewhat impaired but one is not usually "sloppy drunk" at this point. I think that it would be fair to say that our laws in this matter are about driving while impaired rather than being about driving with any alcohol in the system at all.

What are the trigger points that define "drink driving" by law in the UK?

 

[Cattypuss]

This is the UK law on drink driving -

http://www.dft.gov.uk/think/focusareas/driving/drinkdriving?page=FAQ&whoareyou_id=

 

[midwestyankee]

This is the UK law on drink driving -

http://www.dft.gov.uk/think/focusareas/driving/drinkdriving?page=FAQ&whoareyou_id=

Thanks. The actual blood or urine levels seem to be comparable to those here, at least in Illinois, and the UK penalties appear to be somewhat more severe than ours. What matters most, of course, is the public's perception of how rigorously the laws are enforced since that is a primary factor in people's decision-making when it comes to combining drinking and driving. In the U.S., the perception seems to be that you have to be truly snockered in order for the police to stop you on mere suspicion based on your driving. Since most people think themselves to be capable drivers even when drunk, this doesn't act as much of a deterrent. The only other way to be found out, goes the common public thinking, is to be stopped for another road violation—such as speeding or causing an accident—and this, too, is perceived to be rare. My take is that here in the U. S., the perception is that it's fairly easy to get away with drinking and driving.

What's the public perception about enforcement in the UK?

 

[Cattypuss]

What's the public perception about enforcement in the UK?

Difficult question. What I would say is that I personally don't know anyone who, if they had to drive in the evening, would have more than one small drink with lunch (other than my off-the-rails brother). I know lots of people who won't drink at all at lunch if they have to drive in the evening. Being caught drink-driving is a big deal and if caught you WILL be prosecuted.

My perception therefore is that the US perception is more relaxed.

Now I'm thinking about lunch-time drinks, though, would I be right in thinking that the attitude in the workplace in the UK is more relaxed than in the US? In 20 years I have worked for 8 employers and in all but one of them it is seen as perfectly acceptable to have a couple of drinks at lunchtime and return to your desk. The exception was the only US-cultured company I worked for - Disneyland in Paris (mind you, they were utter control freaks - right down to fingernail-length and earring-size).

I love that word "snockered" - never heard of it before. I look forward to having an opportunity to use it in casula conversation!

 

[midwestyankee]

Difficult question. What I would say is that I personally don't know anyone who, if they had to drive in the evening, would have more than one small drink with lunch (other than my off-the-rails brother). I Know lots of people who won't drink at all at lunch if they have to drive in the evening.

My perception therefore is that the US perception is more relaxed.

Now I'm thinking about lunch-time drinks, though, would I be right in thinking thet the attitude in the workplace in the UK is more relaxed than in the US? In 20 years I have worked for 8 employers and in all but one of them it is seen as perfectly acceptable to have a couple of drinks at lunchtime and return to your desk. The exception was the only US-cultured company I worked for - Disneyland in Paris (mind you, they were utter control freaks - right down to fingernail-length and earring-size).

Disneyland-in-Paris is not at all a typical American company, at least with respect to their penchant for controlling the lives of their employees.

However, it has become increasingly rare for American businesses to tolerate the use of alcohol during business hours. The days of the fabled "three-martini-lunch" are mostly a matter of history now, though surely some people do have a glass of wine with some business lunches occasionally.

I think your take on the differences between the attitudes toward drinking and driving in the U. S. and the UK are spot on. Here the attitude seems mostly to be "I'm a decent driver when drunk and anyways, I'm not likely to be caught so why worry" whereas in the UK it seems as if the attitude can be described as, "Blimey, if I have a nip at lunch and then the coppers pull over me lorry on the way home they might toss me in the jig and throw away the key. No thanks, mate!"

 

[Cattypuss]

in the UK it seems as if the attitude can be described as, "Blimey, if I have a nip at lunch and then the coppers pull over me lorry on the way home they might toss me in the jig and throw away the key. No thanks, mate!"

Love your command of the venacular

 

[Vermilion]

Love your command of the venacular

ooh me too - I can hear Dick Van Dyck in every word!

 

[midwestyankee]

Love your command of the venacular

ooh me too - I can hear Dick Van Dyck in every word!

I was going for Alfred P. Doolittle, but I'll take the compliment regardless.