Via KRQE News 13:
ALBUQUERQUE — New Mexico is being used as a national example in the fight against drunk driving, but this time it’s for the positive results of the state ignition-interlock law.
So far New Mexico is the only state in the nation to pass a law which requires first-time DWI offenders to have an ignition-interlock installed on their vehicles.Today the national headquarters of Mothers Against Drunk Driving announced it wants this to become a requirement in all 50 states.
“The main reason people continue to drive drunk today is because they can and because we let them,” MADD president Glynn Birch said at a Washington news conference. “MADD believes, and 65 percent of America agrees with us, that first-time offenders need and deserve an alcohol ignition interlock.””
The interlocks require a driver to blow into the device which only allows the car to start if it does not detect alcohol.
According to MADD, the interlock device has shown great promise in New Mexico and it believes this technology and other enforcement activities can eventually wipe out drunk driving.
Officials of the local MADD chapter told KRQE News 13 they have been working with the national organization for months on the issue.
Doesn’t sound like a bad idea, right? Well read on:
The idea to spread the interlock program nationwide came in June when MADD representatives and law enforcement officers from around the nation came to New Mexico to look at new DWI technology. MADD would also like to take the technology one step further.
“The second part of the plan is working with the auto manufacturers and looking at interlocks being standard device that would be in a vehicle,” Terry Huertaz of New Mexico MADD said. “Saab has already developed a prototype and in that country, in certain countries, these mechanisms and tools are already being used.
I think having these as “standard” in all vehicles would be a bad idea, for several reasons, primarily being: why should they be? Why should people nationwide have to pay for the crimes of those who do drink and drive? Another reason is the safety factor: what if you’re trying to get away from someone following and/or chasing you in a parking lot, and you make it to your car but have to wait to start it because you have to blow into a tube. That is precious seconds you could be getting away wasted.
I have a feeling that if MADD doesn’t get what it’s asking for with auto manufacturers nationwide, it’s going to take this to Congress. And, much like hate crime laws, this would be one of those “feel good laws” that politicians would have a hard time saying no to - especially because the advocacy comes from a sympathetic group.
In the meantime, here’s what Fresno, California is doing to crack down on drunk driving. Some think it may go too far. Others think it’s worth pushing the “legal limits” to catch drunk drivers.
What are your thoughts on what MADD is advocating and what Fresno is doing?
My “feeling” is that these interlocks should be standard. In “thinking” it through… law abiders would be buying these cars and the drunks would be buying the used cars that were pre-interlock standard.
Just like laws that make it harder for gun owners, the law breakers are the ones that need to be held accountable and held accountable to the maximum extent.
Comment by Baklava @ 11/22/2006 - 10:00 pm
The Libertarian in me says: “The heck with this.” (On another site, the words would be fewer, but stronger.) The daddy/grandpa in me says: “Why not?” Whatever makes me and mine safer, and doesn’t break some law, do it.
As for Baklava’s comment–true, but. Every auto improvement, be it for safety or performance, had to start somewhere with some model year. In ten years, alcohol interlock-equipped vehicles would have as good a shot at parity with their predecessors as airbags and ABS’ had before their introduction.
ST, you bring up personal safety via speed from key-in-ignition to pulling away. Arent’ a few seconds to blow in a tube worth keeping a drunk off the road and possibly killing someone/ruining a life/added burden to police and courts?
Comment by geezer @ 11/22/2006 - 10:46 pm
Bad idea.
It is not agaist the law for a drunk driver to own and operate a car. It is against the law for them to drive on public roads. That is why we are licensed.
Comment by TedintheShed @ 11/22/2006 - 11:22 pm
Don’t forget it’s not just MADD asking for it, it’ll be the lobbyists for the Interlock companies that stand to make tens, probably hundreds of millions of dollars off this legislation.
Wait ’til the public finds out (after the fact) that these devices are not specific for alcohol, produce tons of false postive results, and beep every 5 to 15 minutes to force you to continue to blow in the machine again and again while driving.
People need to at least know what they’re getting themselves into. And never mind that I’m against the whole police state aspect to this.
Comment by Jamie Spencer @ 11/23/2006 - 1:32 am
What would stop anyone from blowing-up balloons with non-alcoholic human exhale, and using it to override the interlock? LEO’s that administer sobriety tests have to be certified, and breathalyzers have to be recalibrated. I see a thousand law-suits on the horizon; for example, someone who has a sick child that needs to go to the hospital, and can’t get the family car started because they used a mouthwash containing alcohol.
Comment by Tom TB @ 11/23/2006 - 4:49 am
Well, it has become obvious that MADD has morphed into far more than a bunch of mother’s against drunks, it is the face of the modern, fanatical prohibition movement. The “we know better than you, we have absolute moral authority as we lost loved ones, it’s our right to tell you what to do, we have to ban demon alcohol” liberal mindset at work, Orwellian as can be, intent on telling others how to live. They’ve gone from a concerned group who implemented some needed changes to a single issue group of fanatics, as these “grassroots” groups so often do it seems. The drunk driving blood alcohol levels are in fact set too low in many places due to MADD, low enough that they sweep up people who aren’t really intoxicated, but then getting drunks off the road is no longer their main goal, it’s getting rid of alcohol period. They are in many ways no different than the humorless, fanatical prohibitionists of the 20’s. But they have absolute moral authority though! Bah.
Comment by Severian @ 11/23/2006 - 9:04 am
>looking at interlocks being standard device that
>would be in a vehicle
Just what we need: more nanny-state big-government intervention. More lobbyists shoveling money at lawmakers. More fat, bloated bureaucracies overseeing every aspect of the program. More government control over both auto companies and individual lives. More laws requiring more paperwork and less time for cops to fight actual crimes. More overcrowded courtrooms and blood-sucking lawyers playing legalistic games with peoples’ lives. The only thing we’ll get less of is personal responsibility.
Comment by CavalierX @ 11/23/2006 - 9:58 am
No Nanny State
Comment by Syberyenta @ 11/23/2006 - 11:05 am
Why is it whenever I hear or read that a certain percentage of Americans favors something, I’ve not been asked, and it’s something that will cost me money?
Use it for convicted drunks. Period. Otherwise MADD can start a fundraising drive and pay for it themselves!
Comment by benning @ 11/23/2006 - 12:04 pm
If you want to keep dangerous drivers from starting their cars, how about a simple reflex-testing device instead? (For example: it displays a random number and you have to key it back within 2 seconds.) It would also detect drivers who are too sleepy, too distracted, or just too slow-thinking to drive, as well as drunks, and would probably be cheaper to manufacture.
But I’m nervous about the whole idea. Where does it stop? Will we require GPS-based systems that measure your location and speed, compare speed with the appropriate speed limit, and report any violations? How about a device that detects people who make turns without using turn signals? Where does it stop?
Comment by david foster @ 11/23/2006 - 1:10 pm
David,
That GPS detection system is already in place in a lot of countries. It will be coming here soon. In fact some rental car companies use just that kind of thing to watch their customers.
Comment by Chris @ 11/23/2006 - 2:26 pm
I came perilously close to drunk driving last night. I’m thankful that God sent a little signal to keep me from doing so.
Interlocks won’t do any good. You can build a bypass device using a water bottle, drinking straws, and a bicycle pump. I imagine more sophisticated bypass devices will hit the market about 0.7 seconds after these interlocks are required. The only way to curb drunk driving is to make people realize the risks and the price. Some people will not take it to heart, but some people don’t take the dangers of swimming pools and bathtubs to heart, either. There is nothing that can be done about them but keep the message going and pray that they see the light before it’s too late.
Comment by Random Numbers (Brian Epps) @ 11/23/2006 - 4:06 pm
What about those fools who are drunk and have one of their kids blow in the tube?
I’m against it.
Comment by Retired Geezer @ 11/23/2006 - 5:22 pm
I can’t wait. The market to overide these things will be bigger than the market for booze during prohibition. Btw my grandpa was killed by a drunk driver and he definitely would hold my view.
Comment by Lip @ 11/24/2006 - 7:37 pm
And to think this all started from judges letting drunks off the hook for so many years. I knew a guy with multiple DUI’s and as long as he had the dough for the lawyer, he’d get off without more than a fine. In the meantime, he probably holds a record for most things hit by with a car. He’s hit several trees, a stop light, a few parked cars, and a house. Those are just the things of which I’m aware. He should’ve had his license revoked a long time ago (for good) and possibly a bit of his freedom as well. The only good is that he never killed or seriously hurt anyone. Not the case with countless others in the same boat, and it is that criminal leniancy on the part of judges and lawyers that has led to people like me being at risk because I had a beer two days ago and now want to drive.
Comment by Marshall Art @ 11/25/2006 - 3:22 pm