Senators want drunk driving convicts to pass breathalyzer before starting cars

[babylonsister]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/73133-senators-want-drunk-driving-convicts-to-pass-breathalyzer-before-starting-cars


Senators want drunk driving convicts to pass breathalyzer before starting cars
By Michael O'Brien - 12/20/09 04:18 PM ET


Two senators plan to introduce legislation Monday requiring convicted drunk drivers to pass a breathalyzer test to start their cars and drive.

At the height of the holiday season, Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) will introduce a bill requiring the use of an "ignition interlock" for convicted drunk drivers.

The bill would mandate convicted drunk drivers to pass a breathalyzer test in order to be able to start their cars, and coincides with a time of the year when fatal accidents in which alcohol is a cause spike.

Behind the scenes of the bill is a furious lobbying war on both sides of the technology that has been simmering for months.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) had pushed for funding into research into the technology and will accompany Lautenberg and Udall at the press conference on Monday. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers has also been working with MADD and lawmakers to reduce drunk driving through interlocks and other technologies.

The American Beverage Institute (ABI), an industry group supported by a number of chain restaurants and other businesses, has long been working against the interlocks, however. The ABI blasted a provision in the Highway bill mandating interlocks as "the first step in a campaign to require interlock technology in all cars," and complained that the interlocks law does nothing to distinguish between first-time and multiple offenders, or whether or not a suspect had a high or low blood alcohol content (BAC).

"We will gladly stack up the credibility of MADD versus the credibility of these groups any day," MADD President Chuck Hurley said about ABI in an interview with The Hill in May. "Obviously, they're funded by the angry wing of the alcohol industry."

[mmonk]

1. Isn't that hypocritical?

They should be required to also but then they couldn't get home for the holidays.

[Lerkfish]

3. you think senators drive their own cars?

I'd like to see the numbers on that. It would be interesing.

[MH1]

28. You're saying those two Senators are convicted drunk drivers?

I really don't think so.

[mmonk]

39. No. Hence the reason. Should it only be required of those caught?

[Berry Cool]

2. This isn't a bad idea.

It might make people think more about the whole drinking-driving thing. Obviously, leaving it up to people's personal self-judgment is not going so well.

[Lerkfish]

6. until the first lawsuit....here's a dangerous scenario

first; I'm dead set against drunk driving, and I don't drink anymore, BUT

I can see a scenario where this puts someone in real danger.

Where do people drink? in bars. Where do a lot of violent encounters happen near bars? in the parking lots.
Imagine a fight starts in the parking lot and the victim needs to get away fast. Try a quick getaway from a gunman.
how quick would the breathalyzer allow them to drive away?

[MindPilot]

11. Or someone has to take their kid to the ER.

The car won't start because you just used some mouthwash.

[Berry Cool]

13. Yeah, I can see kids dying all over America right now because their parents had to drive them to ER

but--the horror of it all--they had just GARGLED!!!!!! :sarcasm:

[pipi_k]

22. Who knew Listerine could be so dangerous?

And people need to watch how much Vanilla Extract (contains alcohol) they put into the homemade desserts...

"Oh my god...I shouldn't have had that second tapioca pudding!"


:7

[blueamy66]

24. Have you had ANY experience with

an interlock device?

[HopeHoops]

19. Bingo. Waiting for an ambulance is not always the best option.

Besides, even the best breathalizers will give a high rating if you have just had a sip of wine or liquor, and as you mentioned, mouthwash. The interlocks they use for cars are designed to kill the vehicle at close to trace level. And what about the spouse or other family member? They might be below .08 but be locked out because of the target person.

On top of that, the things are expensive to buy and install. When you switch cars, it has to go along at another cost.

All of that aside, the real issue here is an effort to make ALL cars have them. That would punish everyone by eliminating their ability to drink anything with dinner or at a bar. I understand that a lot of people consider that a good thing and it is their objective, but there is such a thing as "drinking responsibly" and the kill switches don't make any such distinction.

[pipi_k]

23. I agree that making all cars have them is not reasonable...but..

if there were a way to make them more accurate, then yes...people with at least two DWI convictions should have them on their cars.

In which case, they would need to make some sort of arrangements for emergency situations in case they couldn't drive their own cars.

[HopeHoops]

25. I think most of them do have a "start once" feature now.

But then you have to have it towed to an authorized location that can reset it and it costs a lot of money. Apparently there's also a lot of paperwork involved and in some places you can't get the car reset until you appear before a judge (which can take months). Sure, it might get you somewhere in an emergency, but that's just a bunch of bullshit to go through afterward.

[MH1]

29. Yeah, I wouldn't want anyone to have to go through a bunch of bullshit

to avoid driving drunk and killing or maiming other people.

[HopeHoops]

31. So your spouse uses mouthwash before work, has to use the start once...

to get to work on time and then the car is dead until you can spend a lot of money and possibly have to appear before a judge and that's just fine with you? They want to put the damn things on all cars.

[MH1]

33. THIS bill says it's for people who have already been convicted of DUI

and yeah, if married to someone fitting that condition you'd have to know that risk was there. I'd tell my spouse he should have ridden the bike to the train station.

[HopeHoops]

36. THIS bill, sure. That's not the point.

The purpose is to get a foot in the door for mandating it on ALL cars. Their approach is similar to what is used by the anti-abortion groups. Get the federal government to have a little control and then go for the actual goal.

The issue has nothing to do with repeat offenders being required to install the devices. Some states already do that. Even at the state level they are trying for universal installation (California in particular), but if the federal government gets involved they'll have the momentum to push for it nationally. The prohibitionists are as unrealistic now as they were in the 20's and they're the ones behind all of this. They just hide behind MADD and pretend they're just trying to prevent drunk driving. By the way, how's Reagan's "war on drugs" going?

[Winterblues]

38. This law has been in effect for five years in my home town and not a single kid is dead, in fact

The case can be made that many are still alive because many drunkl drivers could not start their cars. They got around the loop hole of the drunk getting someone else to blow into the machine for them by making the driver blow into during their drive at random times. Nobody seems to be complaining about the law either.

[dysfunctional press]

46. actions have consequences.

their kid's (supposed)death in such a scenario would be the fault of their drunk-driving, not the law.

[Berry Cool]

12. So we can't have breathalyzers because people get violent in bars?

Somehow that doesn't wash for me. I see no advantage to jumping in the car and driving away from a guy with a gun if you've been drinking. You could end up smacking into someone else, or a tree, thanks to the combination of fear and alcohol.

A person with a gun is unsafe to be around, but running back into the bar may be a safer solution than trying to jump into one's car and pull away before the guy fires a shot. Yeah, if he's angry and boozed up enough, he'll follow you right back in and shoot at you or anyone else, but if he has one iota of brain still functioning, it might occur to him that that would be a bad idea, especially with so many witnesses armed with phones capable of calling 911.

[Lerkfish]

16. so, because someone drinks they deserve to die?

that's what your post seems to be saying here.

at any rate, I'm just foreseeing a potentially dangerous scenario.

[dysfunctional press]

47. my aunt's second husband shot & killed a guy he had been fighting with in a bar parking lot...

from the passenger side of my aunt's car as she was driving away, after picking him up at the bar because he didn't have a license.

and- it was on christmas eve.

he barricaded himself in the bathroom of their apartment after the police dogs had been sent in.

iirc- he actually did less than 4 years total time in prison for it.

[pipi_k]

20. How fast is the victim?

How quickly can the victim run to his own car, pull his keys out of wherever they are, find the proper key, unlock the door, fit the key into the ignition, start up the car, put it in Drive, and peel out of the parking lot?

And all this while he's supposedly terrified...his hands are probably shaking because he's trying to get away from a maniac with a gun. And he's probably had a few himself so his eye/hand coordination isn't so great. Can he do all that BEFORE the guy with the gun can run over within gunshot range and shoot him?

I'm thinking probably not...


:shrug:

[derby378]

4. I'm going to need more info on this bill

Their hearts may be in the right place, but I smell trouble ahead.

[dmallind]

5. I wouldn't stack up MADD's credibility against Madoff's. They lie. A lot. NT

[jdlh8894]

7. Aren't driving laws

(and privileges) up to each State? Not the Feds?

[taterguy]

8. They should be but the Feds have gotten more involved

The way they usually do it is say that no federal highway money will go to states that don't pass certain laws.

That's what was done with the 21 year old drinking age and open container laws.

It's an offer almost no state can refuse

[AngryAmish]

9. And this is how a Federal problem?

Tey have the right to regulate this - but should they? Drunk driving should not be the subject of federal regulation.

BTW, MADD gets a lot of money from these device manufacturers. It is like having the cigarette industry passing smoking laws.

[jmowreader]

37. I would have used a different simile...

MADD has become the Anti-Saloon League of the 21st Century. Did you know Candy Lightner, the woman who founded MADD, has broken ties with them? She says she didn't found an abolitionist group, which MADD has become.

[MindPilot]

10. Maybe if they ever develop an interlock that actually works.

The ones that are currently mandated for convicted drunk drivers are notoriously inaccurate. Lots of false positives, and making someone do the "rolling test" which is where the device randomly requires a test while you are driving, is probably as dangerous and distracting than actually having had a couple.

[Berry Cool]

14. Improve the technology, then.

It's the fair thing to do. But, seriously, until this country gets more serious about protecting the rights of drunk-driving victims than it is about protecting people's "right" to drive, we're still going to have lots and lots of drunk-driving injuries and deaths.

[MindPilot]

18. So in what other situations is prior restraint acceptable?

Perhaps it would be ok to go bomb another country because someone in that country might possible be planning to attack the US?

Maybe we should limit the sale of ski masks because bank robbers use them?

Look, you don't restrict the rights of ordinary citizens because somebody *might* commit a crime.

[MH1]

30. Someone convicted of multiple drunk driving offenses is no more an "ordinary citizen"

than a pedophile is.

And yeah, I think prior restraint is considered justified in that case.

A serial wife-beater? Yeah, you can get a protection order for that too.

All of us are potential victims of drunk drivers. The bill is targeted at those who have ALREADY committed a crime. (Personally I think it should be only for multiple offenses because the first offense can come from being young and stupid. But a non-drunk can wise up pretty quickly.)

[pipi_k]

35. I know...why do people think they have a "right" to drive...

and that their "right" includes being able to drive drunk?


Seriously, I don't get it.

And as the mom of two kids who were both nearly killed (by drunk drivers) in separate accidents, I don't give a rat's hairy ass about the "rights" of people to drive drunk. Or even on "two beers"...the standard answer they give when someone asks them how much they've had to drink.


Drunk drivers get no pass from me. No pity. No sympathy and no empathy.

[MindPilot]

49. Someone with multiple DUI convictions shouldn't even have a license

If for no other reason than they have repeatedly demonstrated they are too stupid to avoid getting caught.

So I don't see any point in mandating a device that still allows them to drive especially when there are people who think this would be a good idea for all cars.

[jdlh8894]

15. Like texting?

:sarcasm:

[MindPilot]

17. Why the sarcasm?

Yes, having to do the rolling test is as distracting as texting.

[jdlh8894]

21. Sorry

Meant:evilfrown:

[blueamy66]

26. Exactly.

You know of what you speak...or type.

[Arctic Dave]

27. My friend came up with this idea, if you get a DUI you have to forfeit your

liscense with one that is orange, this would mean that you are not allowed to purchase alcohol. Lot cheaper then all this stuff they are trying to pedal in this article.
Most DUI charges mean you have to do some kind of schooling and you're not allowed to drink anyways.
I thought it was a different approach, what do you think?

[MH1]

32. I don't care if someone wants to be an alcoholic

as long as they don't get behind the wheel after drinking.

So I wouldn't support the not allowing them to buy alcohol thing .

[Arctic Dave]

44. Wouldn't the alcoholic most likely be the one continually drinking and driving?

Once is learning experience, after that, that person is a public hazard.

[taterguy]

40. So I have longer waits to buy beer while everyone digs out their license?

I don't think so

[Arctic Dave]

43. Don't you have to do that now?

I thought that was the law everywhere.

[taterguy]

48. In NC you only get carded if you might be underage

General guideline is that if the seller thinks you look under 30 they'll card you.

And of course regulars don't have to dig out their license every time.

Under your system they would.

[madinmaryland]

41. I don't know about you, but I have not been carded in 20 years at a

liquor store, bar, or restaurant that sells alcohol.

Might work for 20 year olds, but not older people.

[Arctic Dave]

42. Really? Up here it's no ID no alcohol, period. The seller is liable of they don't ask.

[gmoney]

34. Can't you just get a sober friend to blow in the tube?

"Honey, blow in the magic straw for daddy so we can go to Liquor Barn!"

[Forkboy]

50. LMFAO!

That is so wrong it's right! :rofl:

[nemo137]

45. They either have or are considering this here in IL

Total cost of first DUI is something like 15K, with fees, fines and getting a breathalyzer installed, IIRC.