Will I Have to Install an Ignition Interlock Device?

One of the more common questions I get when someone has been charged with a California DUI is whether they will need to install an ignition interlock device. Unfortunately the answer is not straight forward and depends on several things.

An ignition interlock device, in short, is a breathalyzer that is installed into the dash of a person’s vehicle that must be blown into before the vehicle can be started, but only if the breathalyzer does not detect alcohol.  Not only must the ignition interlock device be blown into before someone can start their vehicle, but it must also be blown into at random times throughout the drive.

There are a number of things that a person can be sentenced to following a DUI conviction, some of which are mandatory and some of which are imposed at the discretion of the judge. Amongst the discretionary terms of a California DUI sentence is the requirement that a person install an ignition interlock device.

However, if you are arrested and convicted of a California DUI in Los Angeles, Alameda, Tulare or Sacramento Counties, the installation of an ignition interlock device is mandatory following a license suspension and before a person can drive again.

As of January 1, 2010, Assembly Bill 91 became law and created a pilot program in those counties.

The law, California Vehicle Code section 23700, in part reads:

"Before a driver’s license may be issued, reissued, or returned to a person after a suspension…of that person’s driving privilege that requires the installation of an ignition interlock device…"

How long a person has to install an ignition interlock depends on how many prior DUI convictions the person has had. A first time offense carries a 5-month installation period. A second time offense carries a 12-month installation period. A third time offense carries a 24-month installation period. A fourth time offense carries a 36-month installation period.

If a person is required to install an ignition interlock device, they must certify to the California DMV that the device has been installed and they must take their vehicle to the provider of the ignition interlock device every 60 days for maintenance.

The law provides for an exception to the pilot program for those who do not own a car or otherwise have access to one. If that is the case, a person must complete and submit an “exemption form” to the California DMV. A person can then completely avoid the ignition interlock device by waiting out their suspension plus the period during which they would have had the ignition interlock device installed. If, however, the person obtains a vehicle in that time, they must have the ignition interlock device installed.

The pilot program is set to run to January 1, 2016. By July 1st of this year, the California DMV will report to the Legislature on the pilot program’s effectiveness in reducing repeat California DUI offenses. If the data from the pilot program indicates a reduction in repeat California DUI offenses, we may see the installation of an ignition interlock device as a requirement following a DUI conviction throughout California.

This entry was posted on Monday, March 9th, 2015 at 12:35 pm and is filed under Duiblog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Continue Reading...

Guest Post: MADD, the Interlock Industry and the Future of DUI

The following is a guest post by Patrick Mahaney, a DUI attorney from Alabama, who wrote a great piece about MADD and the ignition interlock lobby getting very cozy lately, to the extent that MADD is now advocating eliminating driver’s license suspensions and criminal sanctions in favor of requiring ignition interlock devices for everyone. Before you read this, let me point something out to you that was recently pointed out to me by another lawyer: US Headquarters for Draeger Ignition Interlock: 4040 W. Royal Lane Suite 136, Irving, TX 75063 US Headquarters for MADD National Office: 511 E. John Carpenter Freeway Suite 700. Irving, TX 75062 Yes, they both just happen to be located in the same town, less than 10 minutes from one another according to Mapquest. To suggest that these two aren’t working hand in glove is ridiculous. Here is what Pat has to say: I have the advantage after nearly forty (40) years professional life in criminal justice of seeing both sides of the equation involving DUI enforcement and DUI defense. In the first part of my adult life, I was a state trooper and saw the early stages of the “war on drunk driving” or “war on drunk drivers” (take your pick)…in the early 1980s, the concern really was “drunk driving” and I have no disagreement with the concept that drunks ought not be driving on the public highways. I have no qualms whatever about arresting drunks (or substantially impaired persons) for driving a motor vehicle on a public highway. Drunk driving is both dangerous and irresponsible. MADD was established in 1980 to argue for the rights of victims and sought some needed reforms in our nation’s traffic laws. It was probably needed at the time, but times changed and changed quickly. MADD evolved in just a few years from a citizen support group into a very slick public relations entity and highly profitable private organization with no public or private oversight or accountability, yet receives millions of dollars every year in revenue by promoting electronic monitoring devices for the after-market installation on motor vehicles, with this nation’s law enforcement officers and the judiciary serving as the enforcement mechanism for these devices. Basically, with the advent of mandatory ignition interlock laws across the United States, MADD has ‘co-opted’ the nation’s judiciary into serving as the enforcement mechanism for a national private industry – the interlock industry. After its inception in the early 1980s, MADD became increasing strident in promotion of alcohol counter-measures and became increasingly adept in seeking out politicians looking for an easy news headline. Every politician running for Governor, Attorney General, or district attorney seemingly became part of the MADD bandwagon. Statute after statute was passed and enacted into law, often with contradictory results. MADD quickly realized there was a tremendous sum of money to be made in the DUI racket. MADD is no longer a “support group” but has evolved into a highly profitable money-making business. A tax-free money making business! Over time, MADD ‘sold out’ to the interlock industry and became the de facto political action arm and very vocal public relations front for the interlock industry. As of 2015, the interlock industry is poised to earn literally millions and millions of dollars annually with the present statutory scheme now in place in every state, but can easily double or triple the industry’s income by pushing for a national .05% agenda and “interlock for all” on first offense. As a nation we are at a point where the “war on drunk driving” is just about over. The government won and the drunks lost. But there is far more money to be made by all – the evidentiary breath test instrument companies, the PBT industry, and the interlock companies (often one in the same), the probation services support staff, the towing and recovery industry, and the various municipal and state courts that need the cash income from convicting “drunk drivers” – although the defendants are no longer “drunks” but a respectable citizen who had, at most, two or three beers at a social event or two glasses of champagne at a wedding reception, and then is stopped for an innocuous traffic violation (or maybe no violation at all) and made to blow into a hand-held PBT, then placed into custody and charged with DUI/DWI. That is the challenge we as DUI/DWI criminal defense lawyers are facing today – we are defending citizens from a spurious crime that is no crime at all, but a politically generated, heavy-handed assault on the basic rights of our citizens, all driven by the economic self-interest of MADD and the interlock industry. MADD learned early-on to scam the IRS Code, both as a non-paying, tax exempt entity and as a ‘pass-through’ organization primarily focused on industry advertising and political funding. Under the IRS Code, if a tax-paying entity, such as an interlock company, contributes to a 501(c)(3) “non-profit, educational” entity, the entire contribution is off-set for tax liability. If SmartStart, as example, gave $1 million annually to MADD, the full $1 million is deducted from the corporation’s yearly tax liability. [Or it could be $10 million – no one except MADD and SmartStart know for sure. We do know that MADD received $17 million in 2012 from “private” (unnamed and unlisted) entities.)] For the interlock business, that basically means MADD is the highly visible advertising arm for the interlock industry, and the nation’s tax-payers are paying for it in the form of lost tax revenue. The real question – the answer that is not readily available – is exactly who are the “private contributors” (the descriptive term used on the 2012 IRS return) that gave $17 million dollars to MADD. Exactly 50% of MADD’s total income of $34.9 million in 2012 was from “private contributors” – and I don’t think it was the public. I strongly suspect that it was Draeger, the nation’s leading manufacturers of fuel cells (used in both SmartStart and the Draeger models) and SmartStart interlock and maybe one or two more industry giants. Do the math – even in a low arrest state like Alabama, where only 20,000 DUI cases are made annually, under the new 2014 DUI law, 75% or 15,000 convictions will require interlock but another several thousand can “elect” (the word used in the new DUI statute) to install interlock to avoid a 6 month driver license suspension. If the interlock industry has its’ way, it will soon be interlock for all – every conviction will require interlock….then move forward a few years, and the NTSB/NHTSA federal bureaucrats, supported by MADD and the interlock industry, will push via federal highway construction dollars to a national .05% standard by the end of this decade. Such federal mandate to enforce the current .08% presumptive standard has previously been upheld in federal court as being well within the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution to withhold money from non-compliant states, or to award “incentives” to states that adopt the federal guidelines. Again, the ‘carrot or the stick’ approach – adopt the MADD program of .05% national standard for a DUI/DWI offense and require interlock for all, or forfeit your state’s highway dollars. The federal statute is already in place and will need only a few Congressional tweaks to enforce such move from .08% to .05%. [See, Title 23 U.S.C section 164.] Very few state legislatures have the political fortitude to withstand the simultaneous pull of “free money” under the section 164 incentives or the sting of forfeiting millions of dollars each year from the state’s roadbuilding programs for non-compliance. It’s pretty easy to see the outcome of that contest. By lowering the present .08% per se level for DUI/DWI offenses to a much lower .05% level, the probable outcome for the interlock industry will double or triple – or maybe quadruple – in total interlock devices required if this nation goes to a national .05% standard and the federal road money requires interlock for all (currently required only for second offense convictions). Such result would be a tremendous money maker for the interlock industry and the MADD team would see a steady, and hugely increasing stream of revenue.   Patrick Mahaney Law Office of Patrick Mahaney 8191 Seaton Place Montgomery, Alabama 36116 (334) 277-3974 www.mahaneylaw.com

Google+

Continue Reading...

Study Reveals that Ignition Interlock Devices Don’t Do Any Good

The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) recently undertook a study for a report to the California Legislature about the effectiveness of ignition interlock devices for people who had been convicted of DUI. The bottom-line conclusion of the DMV was that ignition interlock device requirements for first, second or third time DUI offenders did not reduce the risk of the person re-offending in the future. In other words, ignition interlock devices don’t make any difference. You can read the report here. The report cites to a previous study from 2005 that had “mixed results” and found that ignition interlock devices actually INCREASED the chances of risks of drivers crashing. Presumably, this is because ignition interlock devices require not only that the driver blow into them to start the car, but also require “rolling tests” while driving. So, every 15 minutes or so you have to blow into the thing while the car is moving – which sounds dangerous. So, the “traffic safety” benefits of ignition interlock devices are “questionable” at best. In the California study, ignition interlock did nothing to reduce the number of DUI offenses or convictions.

Kansas is one of the few states that requires the installation of an ignition interlock device for a first time DUI conviction or suspension. A few years ago the Kansas Legislature passed laws requiring the ignition interlock device for 6 months for people who blow between .08 and .150, and at least one year for those that blow over .150, on their first offense. If a person refuses to take a test, the length of restriction to an ignition interlock device is for 2 years on a first offense. The years of required ignition interlock device go up from there for subsequent test failures and refusals. The ignition interlock lobby is very strong and is extremely active in getting laws passed that benefit the ignition interlock companies in states around the country. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) has the requirement of ignition interlock devices for every DUI offender listed as one of their primary goals for each state. As I said, Kansas has already fallen in line with the ignition interlock requirement and not only restricts every DUI driver to a period of ignition interlock, but requires that the driver show proof that he or she actually had the device in his or her car for the required time period before the driver’s license can  be reinstated. The legislature has made sure that the interlock companies get paid.

The California study showed that 74% of all DUI offenders were first-time offenders and that they had the lowest rate of recidivism. Ignition interlock devices did nothing to generally deter the public from drinking and driving and did not have any effect on that rate of recidivism for those once convicted. I would imagine that the numbers in Kansas would be the same. People who have never had a DUI in Kansas are not aware that ignition interlock will be required if they get one, and studies show that people don’t pay attention to that kind of information even if it were widely publicized. So, the overwhelming majority of people have no idea that ignition interlock may be required if they get a DUI, the devices do little to nothing to reduce the incidence of DUI and may actually make the roads less safe. The ignition interlock campaign does nothing to address the 74% first-time offenders. In fact, all of the harsher punishments, longer suspensions, requirement of ignition interlock, the criminalizing of refusals and other increasingly draconian measures implemented in the past decade or two have had zero effect on the incidence of DUI. To the extent that traffic fatalities have decreased, this is more an effect of airbags, better road design, and better car design. We cannot jail or ignition interlock our way out of the DUI issue. The government’s gameplan is to keep ratcheting up the consequences instead of focusing on actual prevention. We’ll see what California does with this study.

Google+

Continue Reading...

California Lawmaker wants Ignition Interlock Devices for All DUI Offenders

For those of you who are unfamiliar with ignition interlock devices (IID), it is a device which is installed on a vehicle’s dashboard. The device works like a breathalyzer that must be blown into and provided a breath sample. If the sample is registered as being below the preset blood alcohol content level, the vehicle will be allowed to start. However, if the sample is above the preset limit, the device prevents the engine from being started.

The IID requires further breath samples at random times after the vehicle has been started. The purpose is to prevent someone else from blowing into the IID just to start the vehicle and ensure that the driver is sober throughout the drive. If a sample is not provided or if the sample contains alcohol above the preset limit, the device warns the driver, and initiates an alarm (flashing lights and honking horn) until the vehicle is turned off or the IID is provided a clean breath sample.

Currently, IID are required for first-time drunk driving offenders in four California counties participating in a pilot program. Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Tulare counties require installation of an IID for five months in all vehicles that a driver operates following a California DUI conviction.

Senator Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, has proposed a bill that would expand the IID requirement for first-time offenders throughout California.

“California needs to do a better job of reducing deaths and injuries from drunk drivers,” said a statement from Hill. “Ignition interlocks save lives and can be an effective counter measure to reduce DUI recidivism.”

The issue is personal for Hill whose best friend was killed by a drunk driver thirty years ago.

“It’s something that’s personal to me. I know the pain his family and we felt… I hate to see other families go through that.”

In addition to the other thousands of dollars associated with a California DUI conviction, people required to install the IID will have to pay between $50 and $100 per month to have the device installed. This can prove to be quite a financial burden on some. This, however, is the least of my concerns with IIDs.

Not only can they be inaccurate for a number of reasons, just as breathalyzers can be, they can also be dangerous.

Talk about distracted driving. Having to blow into a device installed on the dashboard whilst driving sounds more dangerous than talking on a phone while driving. And how dangerous is it to drive with the lights flashing and horn honking because a sample is not provided in time?  That would most certainly prove to be a distraction for the driver of the vehicle with the IID as well as a distraction for other motorists on the road. 

That’s a big risk for something that does not even tackle the underlying cause of DUI-related fatalities, which is what Hill claims the new law will prevent. The majority of DUI-related fatalities do not come from first-time offenders who register a blood alcohol content of between 0.08 percent and 0.15 percent. Rather, the vast majority of DUIs that cause death or injury come from repeat offenders who register well over 0.20 percent blood alcohol content; drivers with serious alcohol problems, not social drinkers.

I’m not against getting drunk drivers off of the road, but Hill’s legislation misses the mark.

This entry was posted on Monday, January 5th, 2015 at 8:42 am and is filed under Duiblog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Continue Reading...

Will I get an occupational license or an Ignition Interlock License?

THE DUISEATTLE.COM BLOG : Will I get an occupational license or an Ignition Interlock License? THE DUISEATTLE.COM BLOG Your Community Resource for DUI and Criminal Traffic Defense in Washington State. Writings of Seattle DUI Lawyer and Seattle Criminal Lawyer W. James Kotlowski. A Discussion of Washington State DUI, Physical Control, Reckless Driving, Negligent Driving, Deferred Prosecution, Department of Licensing and Criminal Traffic Law Issues. 20 years of experience. Call or Text - 206.335.2422 for a Free Consultation. HomeArchivesProfileSubscribe Lawyer Walter Kotlowski | Top Attorney DUI How many days do I have to appeal a DOL Decision?How many Jurors will be in my DUI Trial?Do DUI attorneys offer monthly payment plans?Will my Seattle PD DUI arrest be recorded?Can I record the DOL Hearing?Can I do another deferred - if for mental health?Will I get an occupational license or an Ignition Interlock License?Can I get my Deferred Prosecution be dismissed early?A day to be Thankful and ResponsibleWill I receive credit for SCRAM? Search OFFICEContact Information
Law Office of W. James Kotlowski PLLC 1411 Fourth Avenue,Suite 1130Seattle, Washington 98101 Tel: (206) 395-2004james@duiseattle.com www.DUISeattle.com
FREE ONLINE CASE EVALUATION
December 2014 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31       AboutDISCLAIMERPLEASE NOTE:This blog is made available by the lawyer publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog publisher. The linked sites are not under the control of the Law Office of W. James Kotlowski PLLC and the Office is not responsible for the contents of any linked site. The Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state. W. James Kotlowski is licensed to practice law in the State of Washington only.ArchivesDecember 2014November 2014October 2014September 2014August 2014July 2014June 2014May 2014April 2014March 2014More...

Categories20 day hearing notice2012 Boating opening day2013 Boating Under the Influence2nd deferred prosecution60 days ABOUT THE AUTHORAlcohol ReportAlcohol/Drug EvaluationalcoholismArraignmentAttorney FeesBAC LimitBailBail Bond CompanyBail HearingBoating chargesBoating under the influenceBreath Test RecordsBUICanadaChanges to the Law Choosing an AttorneyCommunity Serviceconditions of releaseCost of DUICourt CostsCourt ProcessCourt Recordscoverage areaCriminal History (DCH)Current AffairsCustodydeferred prosecutiondeferred sentenceDifferences in JurisdictionDifferent JurisdictionsDOL administrative hearingDOL HearingDOL IssuesDOL SubpoenasDraegerDrivers LicenseDriving TestDUI arrestDUI arrest DUI arrest videoDUI BailDUI BlogsDUI Deferred ProsecutionDUI filingDUI JailDUI newsDUI Payment PlansDUI preventive measuresDUI ProbationDUI Probation violationsDWLS/3EHDEHMEmergency Vehicles Employer ExemptionevidenceExpert Expunge DUIFelony DUIfinesGamesHelpful TipsHiring an attorneyHit & RunIgnition Interlock LicenseIIDIILImmigration ConsequencesIMPOUNDImpound LawInterstate drivers license compactinvestigationJailjurisdictionJurorsJury Trialmental health deferredMissed DOL Hearing NVOLOccupational LicenseOfficeOne a lifetimeonline case evaluationPayment PlansPBTPlea BargainPractical TipsPre-arrestpre-trial hearingsPrescription DrugsProbable Cause to StopProbable Cause to Stop ProbationProbation Probation OfficerPunched LicensequestionsRALJReckless DrivingReinstate LicenseRelapseRestricted Licenserevoked deferred prosecutionRight to AttorneyRoad BlocksSCRAMSeattle Municipal CourtSentencingSentencing OptionsSOCSOLSPDSpecial Series: DUI 2012 Law ChangesSR-22 InsuranceState ID statementsStatementssuspension period expirestalk to policeTow feesTracking InfractionsTraffic SchoolTravelTravel to CanadaTreatmentVacate DUIVacate recordvideoviolation of conditions or releasewaiveWarrantsWashington State DUI NewsWashington State Ferry WitnessesDUI NewsNew award recognizes DUI officers doing exceptional work | www.kirotv.com
This victim impact panel is for young people charged with DUI - Chicago Tribune
http://www.kvewtv.com/article/2014/jul/18/summer-kick-dui-patrol-results-released/
Funding shortage could put DUI drivers back on road - NBC News
App-based ridesharing a possible DUI game-changer | Regional Voices | The News Tribune
Extra DUI patrols to remind drivers of Federal Way teens killed by drunk driver - Federal Way Mirror
Colorado launches campaign to stop stoned driving - Yahoo TV
Man blows 0.00 on breathalyzer, gets arrested for DWI | Odd News - Yahoo News
No Easy Answers For DUI Concerns As Marijuana Gains Support : NPR
Repeat DUI offenders to get strict monitoring in Chelan County
WASHINGTON STATE DUI LEGAL RESOURCES AA Meetings
Alcohol Drug Evaluation (Seattle Metro)
Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device
Alcohol/Drug Treatment (Western WA)
Alcohol/Drug Treatment (payment plans available)
Court Date: Seattle Municipal Court
Court Date: Washington State Courts
Criminal Record: Washington State Patrol
DOL Driver License Questions
DOL Driver Licensing forms
Driver License Status: Real Time
DUI Victims Panel
ECR -King County District Court
Ignition Interlock License Application
Insurance SR 22
Issaquah Jail and Inmate Info
King County District Court
King County District Court Online Payments
Lynnwood Municipal Online Payments
Traffic School: NTSI
Vacate Traffic Conviction Record
Vern Fonk Insurance (SR-22)
Warrant? Procedures - King County District Court
Washington Snohomish County Jail Register
Washington State, King County Jail Register
CELEBRITY DUISManziel’s bodyguard arrested for DUI, while driving Manziel’s car | ProFootballTalk
Snooki's Husband Jionni LaValle Pleads Guilty to DUI After Wedding - Us Weekly
Rapper Xzibit Arrested for Alleged DUI Shortly After Getting Married - Yahoo
Amanda Bynes pleads no contest to 'wet reckless' in DUI case - latimes.com
Justin Bieber Reportedly Rejects DUI Plea Deal | Celebrity-gossip.net
Justin Bieber DUI Case Update: Plea Deal Rejected | ExtraTV.com
Vikings LB Henderson arrested again for DWI - Yahoo Sports
Motion to dismiss Marshawn Lynch DUI case denied | Seattle Seahawks | The Olympian
Lisa Robin Kelly of 'That '70s Show' arrested on suspicion of DUI - latimes.com
Amanda Bynes Is "Fine," Reports in NY "Exaggerated," Says Lawyer : People.com
DAILY READINGCapitol Hill Times | Serving Capitol Hill and First Hill Since 1926 - Seattle, WA
Dallas Morning News
Front | Tri-City Herald : Mid-Columbia news
Madison Park Times | Serving East-Central Seattle Since 1983 - Seattle, WA
Melbourne Herald Sun
New York Times
Politico.com
Queen Anne & Magnolia News - Seattle, WA
Redmond Reporter - Local News, Sports, Entertainment
Saint John Telegraph Journal
Subscribe to this blog's feedLEGAL REFERENCE Arizona Criminal Lawyer and Phoenix DUI Laws and Criminal Defense
bulk.resource.org
Business.gov - Official Business Link to the U.S. Government
Data.Seattle.Gov | Seattle's Data Site
General Name Change Information
King County Bar Association
Law Dictionary
Legal Research, Casemaker
Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon State Bar
OTHER LEGAL BLOGS/SITES Avvo Blog
Civl Litigation Attorney
Employment Law Blog
Family Law: Collaborative Divorce (Eastern Washington)
Index of Legal Blogs
Professional Licensing Issues
Real Estate/Estate Planning Attorney
« Can I get my Deferred Prosecution be dismissed early? |Main| Can I do another deferred - if for mental health? »

November 29, 2014 Will I get an occupational license or an Ignition Interlock License?It depends on the reason you were suspended. In other words, which license are you eligible for. If it is for failure to pay fines, FTA's on traffic tickets or other financial reasons (i.e. accident judgment) you will likely receive an Occupation Restricted License (ORL). If your suspension or revocation is from a DUI arrest then you will receive an ignition interlock license (IIL). Obviously, to receive the IIL the ignition interlock must be installed. Both require SR-22 insurance. 

Posted at 05:16 AM in DOL Issues, Drivers License, Ignition Interlock License, IID, IIL, Occupational License, Practical Tips, Restricted License | Permalink

Reblog (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e553da03ec883301b8d09275dd970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Will I get an occupational license or an Ignition Interlock License?:

THE DUISEATTLE.COM BLOG Powered by Typepaddocument.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + (document.location.protocol == "https:" ? "https://sb" : "http://b") + ".scorecardresearch.com/beacon.js'%3E%3C/script%3E"));COMSCORE.beacon({ c1: 2, c2: "6035669", c3: "", c4: "http://duiseattleblog.typepad.com/dui_seattle/2014/11/when-will-i-get-an-occuaptional-license-instead-of-an-ignition-interlock-license.html", c5: "", c6: "", c15: ""});

Continue Reading...

Is MADD Pushing for Interlock Devices in all Vehicles?

New legislation contains a provision for research into ignition interlock devices to be installed as standard equipment in automobiles.  Is this really just research or are there bigger motives behind this?

Is MADD trying to put interlock devices in all or our cars?

A recent article on Politico highlights the on-going battle over installing technology in vehicles to test for alcohol.  The current legislation calls for research into this technology.  While there is no mandate in the current legislation, many experts who have followed drunk driving legislation are concerned that we are headed for mandatory interlock devices for all cars.  This would be a horrible  step.

The current breath testing machines, whether it’s the handheld machines used by the police at roadside or the “advanced” machines used for the official state tests, are truly a flop.  The technology is old and makes far too many mistakes to be considered reliable.  This could cause some serious problems.

If you eat a sandwich and want to drive, forget about it.Brush your teeth and use mouth wash like Listerine and want to drive, forget about it.For instance, if you’re a husband and your wife has suddenly gone into labor, a faulty breath test could freeze your car from starting which could threaten the life of your wife and child.What if someone who was trying to assault you was chasing you and you rush to your car only for it not to start because of  the time it takes to process the breath test?

Then there is the question of our freedom.  Why do you have to blow into a machine to prove that you’re not a criminal in order to start your car?  What ever happened to the presumption of innocence before proven guilty? Whatever happened to the notion that we are a society built on the freedom from government?

Who will calibrate these machines?  The police can’t keep their own machines properly calibrated so can they be trusted in this regards?  Will people have to do it themselves?

There are many question that need to be answered and issues that need to be carefully studied and well-thought out before mandating this technology on all automobiles.  While MADD and other lobbies will argue this is the “magic potion” to end DUI forever, we hope that lawmakers will make rational decisions about this program.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Congress Launches Study into DUI Ignition Interlock Technology

By guest-writer

The U.S. Congress has launched a study into the effectiveness of “in-vehicle” technology, such as ignition interlock systems, when trying to prevent drunk drivers from starting their cars, according to a report from Politico.com.

In a recent transportation bill passed by the Senate, politicians subtly inserted a provision that asks the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to study the potential effects of a “more widespread deployment” of in-vehicle devices.

The research will be conducted by the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, which is a joint effort between the automobile industry and the NHTSA to reduce the overall occurrence of drunk driving.

The goal of the research is to design technology that is “far less intrusive” than the current ignition interlock devices, which require drivers to blow into a breathalyzer device that is attached to the car’s dashboard and wait up to a minute for the breath sample to be measured.

Several states require repeat DUI offenders to have these devices installed in their cars, and some states have even proposed laws that would require first-time drunk drivers to blow into these machines before starting their cars.

Of course, the efforts by Congress to develop better DUI prevention technology have been met with some resistance from civil liberties advocates, as well as the alcohol industry itself.

According to Sarah Longwell, the managing director of the American Beverage Institute, the bill could eventually lead to a mandate that forces all car makers to insert these devices into their cars as original equipment.

This, naturally, upsets the American Beverage Institute, which represents alcohol distributors and restaurants that sell alcohol, because the presence of alcohol testing devices in cars could dramatically reduce the number of people willing to go out on the town to drink.

In response to these concerns, those who support the bill claim that car companies would not necessarily have to insert these devices into every new vehicle.

According to J.T. Griffin, a senior vice president with Mothers Against Drunk Driving, “car companies right now are trying to figure out how to do it and if it can even be done. The goal is this would be a voluntary technology.”

However, Griffin also said his organization believes that, ultimately, “every parent in America is going to want this on their vehicle.”
If this prediction proves correct, alcohol detection systems could eventually become as common a car feature as radios, windows, and air conditioning.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...