New Ignition Lock Laws Aim To Foil Drunk Drivers

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."

Other states with similar laws include New Mexico, Arizona and Louisiana. Most other states give judges the option of forcing convicted drunk drivers to use the devices. In practice though, they are rarely ordered unless laws mandate them, according to MADD.

Until now, that's been true in Illinois, said MADD national CEO Chuck Hurley.

Story continues below

advertisement

"Illinois has excellent law enforcement," he said. "But the judicial system leaks like a sieve. This law will change the catch and release system to one where people are at least caught and tagged."

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.

New Mexico was the first state to mandate the devices in 2005. Since then, according to MADD, that state has seen its drunk-driving deaths fall 20 percent.

Hurley said other states could see the same percentage decline within a few years.

DUI deaths nationally have plummeted to around 15,000 from around 30,000 annually in the early 1980s.

Malham, who supports the technology, said in the future even more advanced technology will enable cars to effectively sniff car cabins, scan faces and eyes of drivers or even test sweat on steering wheels to assess sobriety before engines start.

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 want sensible alcohol policies," she said. "We want 10 people to be able to come in and have one drink and not one person to come in and have 10."

She said current interlock laws could lead to more draconian measures.

"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.

The American Beverage Institute questions studies cited by advocates, saying they other factors, like education programs, also account for the declines.

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."

___

On the Net:

Mothers Against Drunk Driving: http://www.madd.org/

Illinois Secretary of State: http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/

American Beverage Institute: http://www.abionline.org/index.cfm/

Comments

[Grommitt]

Well, heck; before I went binge drinking, I would just blow up a few party balloons. Then before driving home drunk, I would "exhale" them into the "nanny device." Poof, I'm clean.

[Newsmonger]

This will discourage the ownership of cars; $80 initial downpayment for installation and a total of $110.00/monthly payment ($80.00 for device rental & $30.00 to uncle Sam.

Add that to monthly insurance and car note payment; it become too expensive to own. No wonder DUI deaths in states where this has been introduced are down. People are either now walking, biking or employing alternative means of transportation - offcourse, including cheating the device.

Another question, is there is not stopping one from bypassing the device and hardwiring the ignition? Laws, however sensible they sound do not keep us safe; sensible people taking sensible acts do.

[TheArtisan]

Not to play devil's advocate, but, again, why can't the existing laws be enforced??

Just another knee-jerk reaction by the Nanny State.

Funny how they are taxed too.

[mymatrix]

newsmonger, you need to read the article again. The device is not to be put in all cars, just the ones convicted of drunk driving.

[rbryanh]

The American Beverage Institute foresees "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..."

Then they're either hallucinating, or indulging in a straw man argument... No one is attempting to prevent us from getting smashed at a wedding: the laws and technology are intended to make sure we don't drive once we've done so. They object to a "zero tolerance" policy toward drunk driving. How much tolerance of DUI would they like?

We intone "driving is a privilege," but in practice treat it as a right. Speed limits are a similar issue. We know that speeding kills, and we have cheap, readily-available technology that could prevent, report, and punish it, but we choose not implement it.

In practice, driving is an area of experience where we prefer to kill people rather than limit our behavior. The freedom of the open road has always been the license to act without consideration of the consequences.

[Palemoon]

I have a better idea, outlaw cars. And I'd like one person to make a rebuttal justifying why we should keep automobiles around. After all, they say that driving is a priviledge and it's not a right or even a necessity. Fine, then let's outlaw cars. Force the police to ride bikes too. Or horses. I'd be riding a horse right now, if horses weren't outlawed in almost every city in Georgia. Funny, for a farming state, they think it should be illegal to own farm animals within city limits. And yes, they consider horses to be farm animals for some bizarre reason. Dogs are farm and hunting animals too, yet they are allowed in the city, go figure.

[frantaylor]

Some people think that legislation can solve all our problems. Don't like something? Pass a law against it. Not exactly deep thinking.

How about taking the capitalist approach instead? Create economic disincentives so that people will not want to drive.

[Palemoon]

It's the capitalist approach that is driving this problem. They want to profit off our driving on our own roads. It's all about making money.

[mymatrix]

As the daughter of an alcoholic, the sister of two alcoholics, the wife of an alcoholic, this device is a godsend. Of course it doesn't aim to deal with every hazard and of course it can be cheated, but it will reduce drunk driving. Most alcoholics who have to use this will be surprised (yes, surprised) that they registered above the limit and can't drive. Alcoholics rationalize and defy reality. This device simply states reality for them in non-ambiguous way.
And the Beverage Institute! My God, don't these people ever stop? Big tobacco fighting evidence with their science whores, Big Oil fighting global warming, cookie makers fighting transfat labeling for 18 years, GM fighting every auto advancement including rear view mirrors and CAFE standards, baby formula makers sabotaging breastfeeding around the world....don't they ever stop?
Tell them to SHUT UP. Tell them they are EVIL

[MakeAWish]

What prevents them from driving a different car than the one with the interlock?

[Jeffisok]

Nothing. These laws are so stupid. Rather than educate lets Legislate.

[fiberoptimist]

Sounds like more Big Brother to me. What next? We'll all be implanted with monitoring devices. If someone really wants to, I'm sure they can beat this device. I'd rather see cars that drive themselves.

[frantaylor]

There's nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing your right to drive. You are hurtling a 4000 pound object around in public. If you wish to engage in such behavior, the state has every right to restrict you. They are not looking to put interlock devices on walking shoes.

[fiberoptimist]

That's ridiculous. Who granted the car manufacturers the right to pollute our air. I don't see anyone rushing to put speed bumps and a breathalizer on ExxonMobile's bank account.

These forms of state monitoring have no end to their variety, and those who would misuse them are all to glad to flame the public's emotions towards their widespread adaptation.

[noralou]

First off, I think that all cars should just come equipped with them. Second, they can be adjusted to accept a certain percentage of alcohol in your breath. Right now my state does that to .02 in case of mouthwash or desserts with alcohol in them.
Third, I speak with authority. I am an alcoholic in recovery and at one time had to use one. I think they are totally justified. Driving is a right not a privilege. When we break the law, ie: driving while intoxicated, the state is justified in having certain conditions met before we get back on the road.
I also think that cell phones and such should have strong restrictions on them. When you are in charge of a ton of steel, you should be giving all of your attention to your driving.

[TheArtisan]

Well, for those of us who can control our drinking, as someone of legal age should before getting behind the wheel, we typically obey the laws already on the books or we call for a taxi.

It's called taking responsibility and by the way, driving is a privilege and not a right.

[noralou]

oops, I meant what you said. Driving is a privilege, not a right. I apologize for the error. As for controlling my drinking, I am an alcoholic, it is a disease and I cannot control it, so having learned from my stupidity, I no longer drink at all and attend 12 step meetings on a regular basis. I am not hiding behind the disease aspect. Just like smoking and cancer, I made stupid decisions that led to my drinking myself into a family disease. I have paid my debt to society and changed my way of living.

Thank you for the correction on my comment, but a good 10% of adults have the genetic material that makes us respond differently to alcohol than other people. Because I am one of those and I drank at my problems, I no longer have the privilege or right to drink at all.

[Celldumceen]

no matter home many laws we pass the retrict how people live their lives this will never be a perfect (no one ever dies) world! The road to hell is being paved with ideas like this one!

[Jellinek]

1) Driving is a privilege 2) It has rules which are predominately about safety 3) Violation of the rules revokes the privilege. Nobody has the "right" to drink and drive.

"The American Beverage Institute questions studies cited by advocates, saying they other factors, like education programs, also account for the declines."

Education programs? And since when can education treat a disease like alcoholism? That's like saying if you learn more about your cancer it'll not be a problem. I"ve met some of the smartest people in the world in treatment. They were there for their fifth, sixth and seventh times. The problem wasn"t the lack of information or quality thereof. The problem is the disease of alcoholism and it isn"t rocket science.

The American Beverage Institute? Is that like The American Cocaine Institute or The American Heroine Institute? The only difference is the drug they're selling.

Driving a car under the influence is a menace to society. It kills more people annually than that war in Iraq. In fact more deaths annually than the entire war thus far.

If an interlock saves just one life it is worth it. If anyone complains about that either 1) they are a sociopath or 2) they're a drunk worried about having their drive home from the bar impeded by inconvenient drunk driving laws - which by the way, are NO threat to any NORMAL drinker. Zero tolerance shouldn"t bother anyone except the practicing alcoholics and their pushers.

[SiberianRat]

"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." Actually, there are several countries that have zero tolerance policies. I have definitely been known to party (especially some years back), but I've always been very conservative about this. I support very strict drinking/driving laws and I wish that cell phone laws were better enforced too. Accidents caused by these are the height of selfishness and show a complete disregard for others. IMHO, they should get these gadgets the 1st time, and lose driving PRIVILEGES permanently if they re-offend.

[Jellinek]

I agree with you 100%

[NoCalDrummer]

As a person hit by someone using a cell phone (AFTER the No cellphone-use law went into effect in California) I definitely want that law enforced. No, I didn't get a license number, as her BMW SUV was still new enough to not have a license plate, so she got away scott-free. And probably will for two months or so, while her new plates are "in process". Fortunately for me, it was only a bruise, no broken bones... or worse.