MADD and Ignition Interlocks

[Pangloss]

This story has been making the rounds the last couple days since MADD launched its new initiative. Basically they're pushing for legislation that would force all first-time DUI offenders to install ignition interlocks on their cars.

 

The story has gotten a lot of play, but with very little counterpoint. For example, the ACLU would presumably oppose this measure, which would set left against left in an interesting political correctness showdown. I haven't seen any discussion on that point. Mostly reporters are just rebroadcasting MADD press releases.

 

The idea does have a lot of appeal, but this interesting article from the AP wire today shows that this is perhaps not such a black-and-white solution after all.

 

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/52551.html

 

To summarize, New Mexico has been doing this for some time, but they've noticed that only roughly half of the offenders actually install the units. While that sounds like it would be something easily enforced, what's happening is that the offenders are lying to judges, saying things like "I don't own a car" or "I was just borrowing a friend's car", etc.

 

I suspect that this is one of those ideas that sounds great on paper, but in reality, as one person in the above article says, it has to be combined with other efforts, as part of a larger strategy. I'm sure MADD sees it the same way.

 

Incidentally, did you know that the president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving is a... father?

[Dak]

dont you have to register cars?

 

ie, if the DD says he doesn't have a car, could the judge not just look it up in a database and tell that the guy's lying?

 

incidentally -- and this is more anecdote than anything else -- but you americans seem to have an appauling attitude towards DUI. do most americans really think that DD is just 'one of those things that happens' and is an ok thing to do? that was the impression that i got when i went over there.

[Pangloss]

Right, but basically what they're saying is that they aren't registering cars. They're saying they don't have one, and then using one that's registered in someone else's name (say, a spouse) to do their daily commutes, etc.

 

What would have to happen to fix that would probably be creating a criminal penalty for aiding a convicted drunk driver in this manner. But that would be another example of a restriction that the ACLU would object to, because these things are expensive and obtrusive, and the person who would have to install it hasn't necessarily done anything wrong (yet). For example, let's say the drunk loses his job because of the DUI conviction and his car was totaled in the accident that resulted in his conviction. He has to get to work somehow and he can't afford a car at the moment.

 

I'm not trying to generate sympathy for drunk drivers, mind you, I'm just pointing out the inherent problems with this kind of approach. I think people are hearing what MADD is saying and thinking that it's a solution. It's not a panacea -- I think it has to be part of a larger strategy.

[GutZ]

How does this interlock work?

[Pangloss]

You blow into it and it measures your blood alcohol level. If it's below the threshold, it releases the ignition. I'm not sure how it actually detects blood alcohol level, but perhaps someone here can explain that part of it.

[Phi for All]

How does this interlock work?

IIRC, the interlock is like a breathalyzer and won't activate your ignition if it detects more than a certain level of alcohol on your breath. If you were thinking clearly enough you could probably pay someone else to breathe in it, or maybe use a balloon you blew up when you were sober.

 

Laws like this one are usually passed to placate voters and make them think something is being done. Then a big loophole usually ends up making the whole thing ineffective.

 

In Colorado you have to have a certain amount of insurance in order to get your license plates renewed, in an attempt at lowering the number of uninsured motorists. The proof that you have such insurance? Just your word of honor and a signature on a plate registration form.

[Dak]

Gutz: infra-red spectroscopy. same way that a fire-alarm tells the difference between smoke from a fire, smoke from a cigarette, and steam. IR is emitted at a frequency that is adsorbed by ethanol, so, if there's enough ethanol in your breath, it'll adsorb the IR and prevent it from reaching the sensor.

 

iirc, heavy-meat diets and (possibly) diabetes can cause false positives due to the presence of molecules with similar IR adsorption spectra in the breath. an inconvienience in road-side breathalisers, a bit more of a problem in this case.

 

----------

 

maybe a firmer hand is needed?

 

For example, let's say the drunk loses his job because of the DUI conviction and his car was totaled in the accident that resulted in his conviction. He has to get to work somehow and he can't afford a car at the moment.

 

this is what i meant about attetude. i really find it hard to understand how you (pl.) can take the oppinion that someone who gets in a car, which can kill people, and drive it whilst drunk -- let alone actually crash it seriously enough to total it -- should be allowed to continue driving.

 

from your source:

 

In 2005, the state was the first to require interlocks for all New Mexicans convicted of drunken driving -- one year for a first offense, two years for a second offense, three years for a third offense and lifetime use for those convicted four or more times.

 

in the uk he'd have lost his licence if he even drove his car whilst pissed:

 

http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/campaigns/drinkdrive/drinkdrive.htm

 

Driving or attempting to drive whilst above the legal limit or unfit through drink carries a maximum penalty of 6 months' imprisonment, a fine of up to £5,000 and a minimum 12 months driving ban.

 

The penalty for refusing to provide a specimen of breath, blood or urine for analysis is a maximum 6 months' imprisonment, up to £5000 fine and a driving ban of at least 12 months.

 

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/28.htm#5

 

Drivers disqualified for drinking and driving twice within 10 years, or once if they are over two and a half times the legal limit, or those who refused to give a specimen, also have to satisfy the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's Medical Branch that they do not have an alcohol problem and are otherwise fit to drive before their licence is returned at the end of their period of disqualification. Persistent misuse of drugs or alcohol may lead to the withdrawal of a driving licence.

 

39% of [acr=fatal road traffic accidents]FRTA[/acr]s in the us alcohol related

 

16% of FRTAs in the uk alcohol related

 

 

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/campaigns/drinkdrive/drinkdrive01.htm

 

cource, that might just mean the british are more prone to, say, speeding that you americans, thus overshadowing the DUI deaths, and theres also a lot of propoganda against DD (see last source) in the uk, but i think the wussyness of enforsement in the us -- the fact that lots of police dont have breathalisers(?), the fact that the punishments are more lenient, and the fact that it's less socially unnaceptable -- probably plays a significant roll in the problem.

 

if they drive whilst drunk, take their licence away for a while -- if they drive again after that, put them in jail, and possibly give whoever lent them their car penalty points -- by all means require them to have a breathalyser-lock for x years when their disqualification expires, but, by allowing them to endanger other peoples lifes and still continue driving, do you not think that you're sending out the message that DD isn't that serious a crime?

[GutZ]

Interesting how that works.

 

Do you think if they increase the accuracy (scans the enviroment of the car or something) of the instrument in the future they could have them standard for most cars? I am sure this idea has potential.

[Pangloss]

Indeed, thanks for passing along the technical bit, Dak, and the UK perspective. It does sound like there are a lot of differences between how that's handled over there versus over here.

 

I think part of the problem may lie in the fact that this issue has been tossed to the back burner in recent years. There was a sharp decline in DUI-related fatalities for a couple of decades, and Americans may have come to view the issue as "solved". But of course it wasn't, and as a result these kinds of accidents are on the rise again.

 

Another aspect of the problem lies in our reliance on the automobile as a mode of transportation. In most of the country that can often be the ONLY viable means of transportation between work and home. Obviously that's not true everywhere, of course.

 

One aspect of this that kinda surprises me is the psychological angle of skirting the interlock. If something like this were to happen to me I would *embrace* the opportunity to prove myself sober and responsible again. I'd want that sucker installed in my car as fast as humanly possible. Sure, there's embarassment involved, but I'd see that as part of the price I'd have to pay for my MONUMENTAL failure to take responsibility for my actions.

 

The point being that I think we're seeing a psychological aspect of the problem displayed in these numbers. People don't want to admit they made a mistake, try to hide that error from people, and prefer to pretend like it never happened. Which of course is exactly why it happens all over again.

[Dak]

Indeed, thanks for passing along the technical bit, Dak, and the UK perspective. It does sound like there are a lot of differences between how that's handled over there versus over here.

 

nil problemo.

 

Another aspect of the problem lies in our reliance on the automobile as a mode of transportation. In most of the country that can often be the ONLY viable means of transportation between work and home.

 

you might have a point there. in the khn'ree (english countryside), theres much less of a social stigma against drink driving, simply because:

 

a/ everywhere is so far from everywhere else, and

b/ theres little public transport.

 

everyone considers it ok to drive home from the pub, unless your absolutely legless, because how else are you going to get home?

 

If something like this were to happen to me I would *embrace* the opportunity to prove myself sober and responsible again. I'd want that sucker installed in my car as fast as humanly possible. Sure, there's embarassment involved, but I'd see that as part of the price I'd have to pay for my MONUMENTAL failure to take responsibility for my actions.

 

which probably makes you one of the people who don't need this measure to make you drive responsably in the first place

[bascule]

I have an alternative solution: revoke driving privileges for life

 

Anyone driving drunk cannot be trusted to operate an automobile

 

I mean, call me a bike riding hippie who lives in bicycle paradise (we even have a bike parade every thursday!) but... if you're going to drink, ride a goddamn bike, dumbass

[YT2095]

iirc, heavy-meat diets and (possibly) diabetes can cause false positives due to the presence of molecules with similar IR adsorption spectra in the breath.

 

I don`t know about the meat diet, but with diabeties a hypoglycemic attack will lead to the emission of Ketones on the breath (a pear drop type smell). which isn`t all that bad, as you shouldn`t be driving in that condition anyway.

[Tetrahedrite]

I have an alternative solution: revoke driving privileges for life

 

Anyone driving drunk cannot be trusted to operate an automobile

 

I mean, call me a bike riding hippie who lives in bicycle paradise (we even have a bike parade every thursday!) but... if you're going to drink, ride a goddamn bike, dumbass

 

You can be charged for riding a bicycle while under the influence in Australia.

[Saryctos]

I have an alternative solution: revoke driving privileges for life

 

Anyone driving drunk cannot be trusted to operate an automobile

 

I agree. I believe German law is exactly that, and they know something about roadways =P

[bascule]

You can be charged for riding a bicycle while under the influence in Australia.

 

Technically you can here too. I've seen a guy on a bike pulled over by two patrol cars. I think he was a little more than drunk though.

 

I ride my bike drunk all the time. I'll say this: someone on the receiving end of a car is in a hell of a lot more danger than someone on the receiving end of a bike.

[ParanoiA]

I don't agree with punishing others for lending their car to someone who gets caught drinking and driving. That's passing the buck unfairly. It's unrealistic and downright wrong and backwards thinking to expect someone to know of someone else's history of convictions or drinking problems. You're asking the common public to play part of the role of law enforcement. If they fail, then they are punished. For a job they never asked for and are paying someone else to do.

 

This reminds me heavily of the all-impacting approach that corporations and governments use on everything nowadays. For example, 2% of the company's employees have a tardy problem, so the company introduces a new rule that everyone must sign in at the front desk each morning - creating lines and more delays. They impact everyone to resolve the actions of a few. That kind of problem solving is so rampant that I doubt anyone here actually recognizes that as an insulting practice.

 

To me, this is just as insulting as manufacturer's websites with FAQ's and support pages where YOU do the work in solving the problem with your software or hardware - they've eliminated the need to pay someone to fix their stuff - you are doing it for them. This is so common and accepted today. But you wouldn't stand for that if you took your new car into the dealer to get something fixed under the warranty, only to be directed to a self-service shop with "help pages" to dig through so you can fix it.

 

So, keep the problem between law enforcement and the offender and don't offend the rest of us by making it our responsibility to pick up where they can't. It's not our fault.

[YT2095]

it`s made all the more offensive in respect that Who in their right mind would lend their car to someone Knowing the likely outcome. and yet it assumes this.

 

excuse me sir, I see you`re chopping down trees, may I borrow your axe?

 

why Yes of course you can Mr. Axe Murderer, it would be my pleasure!

[ecoli]

it`s made all the more offensive in respect that Who in their right mind would lend their car to someone Knowing the likely outcome. and yet it assumes this.

 

excuse me sir, I see you`re chopping down trees, may I borrow your axe?

 

why Yes of course you can Mr. Axe Murderer, it would be my pleasure!

 

Sure, but you don't always know who the axe murderer is.

[ParanoiA]

Sure, but you don't always know who the axe murderer is.

 

I think we all know what Jack Nicholson looks like by now....

[YT2095]

Sure, but you don't always know who the axe murderer is.

 

That was exactly my point.

 

can you say: eye-ron-eee *sigh*

[Dak]

I ride my bike drunk all the time. I'll say this: someone on the receiving end of a car is in a hell of a lot more danger than someone on the receiving end of a bike.

 

i dunno man... i've seen cars nearly crash from swerving out of the way of crap cyclists, and a kid/OAP getting hit by a cycle could still get limbs broken.

[Mokele]

Another aspect of the problem lies in our reliance on the automobile as a mode of transportation. In most of the country that can often be the ONLY viable means of transportation between work and home.

 

Good, that'll give permanent license revokation some teeth. If they get caught, they lose their license, forever. If that's an impediment, tough shit, they need to either learn to bike, or they need to move to a city with public transport. Yeah, that sucks, so does being killed by irresponsible drunk drivers.

 

Hell, I'd even go so far as revoking their ability to collect welfare if they become jobless as a result of these restrictions.

 

To be brutally honest, I think any drunk driving fatality should be *required* to be prosecuted as first-degree murder, with no option of parole or plea bargain. They chose to drink, they chose to drive, therefore they made the choice to kill another person.

 

Mokele the Merciless

[ParanoiA]

To be brutally honest, I think any drunk driving fatality should be *required* to be prosecuted as first-degree murder, with no option of parole or plea bargain. They chose to drink, they chose to drive, therefore they made the choice to kill another person.

 

Mokele the Merciless

 

I agree 100%. It is attempted murder to drink and drive. If you kill someone, then that's a successful attempt at murder.

[ecoli]

not murder but manslaughter. Murder implies that it the killing was calculated. with manslaugter, you are still responsible for killing someone, but it's not like it was your idea all along. It justs slightly more reasonable to charge a drunk driver with manslaughter. And if they don't actually kill anyone, attempted manslaughter.

[YT2095]

the bit that REALLY Pi$$es me of if that this:

 

go to a junk yard, and take the bumper off a car, walk in the street and beat someone to death with it (drunk or not) and you`ll get Life!

 

now take the precaution of attatching this bumper to a car and doing the same, and you`ll get off with a couple of years at best!