E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSConnecticut motorists convicted of drunken driving are the latest to face mandatory use of ignition interlock devices, a step seen by some as steering the nation closer to requiring alcohol detection systems as standard equipment in all vehicles.
Pushed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Connecticut on Jan. 1 joined 14 other states with ignition-interlock mandates for drivers caught with blood-alcohol content above the legal limit, even for first-time offenders. A similar pilot program is under way in four California counties.
At least 24 other states mandate Breathalyzer-like locks for so-called hard-core drunken drivers who include repeat offenders or those caught with alcohol levels of .15 or more.
MADD
This chart from Mothers Against Drunk Driving shows the status of ignition interlock laws across the country. Legislation is pending for interlock mandates for even first-time offenders in Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Wisconsin.
Other states leave the penalty of interlock ignitions to the discretion of judges. Some states, such as Nebraska, reduce license revocation periods for convicted motorists who agree to use ignition interlocks.
States in general require convicted motorists to pay for the devices.
NBCConnecticut.com: First-time drunken drivers to get ignition locks
MADD launched its 50-state effort to eliminate drunken driving in 2006, when only one state, New Mexico, mandated ignition interlocks for even first-time drunken drivers, said Frank Harris, MADD’s manager of state legislative affairs.
Previously the focus was on hard-core drunken drivers and suspending their licenses, a punishment ignored by up to 75 percent of convicted motorists, he said.
"It makes me sick to my stomach to see people drive drunk with a BAC of .08 to .14 and not be categorized as hardcore drunk driving offenders," Harris said.
"DUI or DWI laws are very complicated," Harris said. "The ignition interlock is just part of the approach to assure the offender must prove sobriety and assure swift punishment," he said.
The devices are designed to prevent a car from starting if a driver who blows into it has an alcohol level above a certain point. Technological advances – including cameras on the device – make it tougher to get around the systems. People previously thought they could have sober friends blow into the devices to get their cars started.
Legal reforms with ignition-interlock mandates not only reinforce a state’s commitment to halting drunken driving, but also effectively reduce re-arrest rates by 67 percent, said Harris.
The recidivism figure is also cited by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mandating ignition interlocks is the CDC’s top recommendation for reducing the approximately 11,000 alcohol-related driving deaths yearly, which it says is about a third of all driving deaths.
But the American Beverage Institute fears mandates go too far and it wants judges to stay in the picture, said Sarah Longwell, the restaurant trade group’s managing director.
"There is a distinction between somebody who is one sip over the legal limit and the type of person who has 10 drinks," Longwell told msnbc.com. "The judicial system should be involved in those cases," she said.
"Restaurants prefer 10 people come in and have one drink each than one person order 10 drinks," she said.
A 120-pound woman who has two glasses of wine with dinner metabolizes alcohol differently than the 10-drink offender, she said.
A judge, not legal mandates, should decide about ignition interlocks at the lighter levels, she said.
The spread of mandates and discussion of ignition interlocks will "prime the public" for the day when the government requires auto manufacturers to install even more-sophisticated alcohol-detection devices as original equipment, Longwell said.
The Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, funded in part by automakers and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, says it is working on "potential technologies that could detect alcohol from air samples in the vehicle passenger compartment, through the driver’s skin using tissue spectroscopy, from emissions through the skin, from eye movements, and from driving performance." (Wired takes detailed look at DADSS.)
"Why wouldn’t you want that?" Longwell asked.
The problem is in the details of where maximum alcohol levels are set. They won’t be at .08, she predicted, because if someone drinks five shots and hops behind the steering wheel, the driver's blood level won't cross the .08 threshold for a while. No one has the answer yet on how low to set cutoff sensors, she said.
Leave a Comment:
F**k MADD
They serve their purposes, but I don't think any other drivers should suffer for the actions of the few.
So, how many guys will get punched in the face for asking a woman to come out to the parking lot and "blow start" them?
BIG AL, You obviously haven't lost your Mom to a teenage drunk driver! Your comment is completely unnecessary.
Judges are placed there to JUDGE, not to be robots and just follow a mandate; if you want Robots, then do away with Judges, Jury's and have a computer program sentence everyone the same.
Eliminating drunk driving is like a successful war on drugs.
Here's an idea, take the pot smokers out of jail and replace them with the drunk drivers. I never hear stories about pot smokers causing any harm to anyone yet they get years in jail just for smoking it. On the other hand, how many stories have you heard about people with 6, 8, 10, 12 DUI's. You want them to stop being a weapon on the road, lock them up for more than 90 days. 5-10 years would sober them up.
Guess we need the tax dollars of those drinkers so we have to set them free. Cigarettes and alcohol, Uncle Sam's drugs of choice, are helping to kill off Americans all in the name of tax collection. We will only make legal what we can control. You can make alcohol and cigarettes but it is much easier to purchase it prepackaged. Since you can grow pot in your vegetable garden it can't be controlled therefore the revenue is lower.
I'm not pushing to legalize pot, just making a point. I have heard the reasons not to legalize and the main is it's a gateway drug. Well, I have known a lot of potheads and occasional smokers in my time and that's all they do. On the other hand, alcohol is a gateway to accidental homicide, assault, murder, spousal abuse, child abuse, poor decision making etc.........but hey, that's okay.
Sirlafalot
Only if the guy in question didn't know the name of "Bouncies" husband; what's his name???
MADD does do some good, but if you actually do a history on it, the mother who started it now is an advocate for the alcohol industry. She wanted too much money from MADD (non profit) so she left and got hired on by alcohol industry to fight against her own organization.
I think its just more crap to put into a car that isn't going to work anyways.
People will find a way around it anyways, its electrical, it can be figured out to bypass the system.
I see several issues with implementing this as standard equipment on all cars. Cost is one. How much is this going to cost me to buy a new car because of this system? Second, there are people out there who have conditions that may mimic drunk related symptoms. A friend of mine has twitchy eyes due to a tumor he had removed. If a system looks for eye twitches, he might not be able to drive a car even while sober. If you are looking for alcohol in the air of the car, you may be disabling a car from being driven even if the driver is sober, and the people with him/her are the drunk ones. If you are testing alcohol coming off the skin, what happens when a drunk guy wears gloves? There are countless issues with each system, and to mandate a system that might prevent sober people from driving is unacceptable.
Judges should be in charge of deciding when alcohol testing devices are installed in cars. If we blanket America with laws to prevent every crime because some minority of people commit them, then we will have a country where nobody has any freedom. It goes from a country of innocent until proven guilty, to assumed guilty till proven innocent. Break out your chastity belt people, your cars need alcohol detectors, an chip implanted in you will detect if you smoke, another will detect if you lie.
Hmmm, now that I think about it, maybe all Americans should be implanted with a chip in their hand, or in their butt that detects blood alcohol levels, and either their steering wheel, or their seat has a scanner that detects those chips and constantly monitors them. As long as it only detects chips within a few inches of it's sensor, then at the very least, the butt chip would know the person in the drivers seat was the driver, and if they were drunk. Everybody line up for a butt chip that detects your BA.
Interlock for 3rd time offenders works for me. What I don't agree with is "Checkpoints" That just doesn't seem constitutional to me.. You should never be pulled over or detained for doing nothing wrong PERIOD.. .08 seems a little low to be considered under the influence to me too..??
Typical punish the innocent. Here where I live a drunk/speeding driver just killed a man. He currently has something like 35 speeding violations currently on the court's docket. Take away the judges discretion first DUI ignition lock the car. The second DUI in your lifetime one year in jail. Drunk drivers kill a lot of people. So do texters, Cell yappers, and other distracted drivers. Not to mention the idiots that have to do 90 MPH instead of just leaving alittle earlier.
Everyone should read their 4th, 9th and 14th amendment rights. Driving may be a priviledge, but, the right to invade your privacy is not a right. With the passage of this law it may have become a right. Most assuredly this will be challenged. The state of Ct and other states should be taken to federal court and challenged based upon the breaching of Constitutional law. This is a step towards Facism.
jchayward, most likely they tell the dui offender you can either go to jail or have a breathalyzer on your car which then makes it the offender's choice and not a privacy violation.
I say He!! no to the manditory lock on all cars, because those of us who use asthma inhalers becomes screwed when driving. Most machines see the propellent in these inhalors as hight content alcohol... This would end up costing alot of money do protect my right to drive(I DONT DRINK).
MADD is an evil organization that has been working to oppress the People for years. This technology must be considered to be unconstitutional especially if they try to force all new vehicles to implement this or similar technology to undermine the privacy of innocent people. This isn't about keeping people safe. This is about controlling our lives. These people need to be stopped.
I live in NM, one of the first states to mandate the interlock for 1st time offenders. Here's my problem with them:
#1 They permanently damage your vehicle. The people installing these interlocks are NOT mechanics-- they're government employees paid to do this one thing. As a result, they have a tendency to break things while installing it-- things like your transmission, your starter, your ignition. My stepdad is a mechanic and he says he has to fix people's cars all the time because of poorly installed ignition-interlocks. These repairs are costly and unnecessary-- essentially a result of poorly trained government workers with little oversight.
#2 They are set off by mouthwash. Hello-- a lot of people have to get places in the morning and most people (I hope) use mouthwash before walking out the door. This is an obvious problem.
#3 The police in my city are corrupt* and will seek a conviction by any means necessary. I know someone who was arrested, and convicted, of DUI after having a single glass of wine with their dinner-- that is f*cking absurd. Until the draconian nature of the enforcement is addressed, I can't in good conscience condone stiffer penalties for anyone convicted.
*I just wanted to indicate that this is not an indictment against each individual officer-- I've known several that were stand-up guys-- but I have seen first hand, and have heard/read reports of some rather disturbing manipulation of evidence and covering up of misconduct, etc. I still respect the law (mostly) and always treat officers with respect-- but there is a problem and it is not being addressed.
#4 Government attempts to punish vice are, historically, ineffective. People will find a way to bypass these systems. A better, more cost-effective method of combating drunk driving? Public Transportation Infrastructure. In NM, we basically don't have any mass-transit that is effective, so everyone drives. Related to this: allow the Native Americans to drink on their reservations, damnit! As it is, they drive 40-60 miles into town to get hammered, and then drive back 40-60 miles to their reservation drunk as anything at speeds in excess of 80 miles an hour. I realize that this is a sovereign issue to be determined by the reservation's government, but c'mon chief, you have to know that you're putting their, and our, lives at risk by doing this.
Well, that's all. That's my two cents. Cheers-- be safe. Don't drive drunk. Use your head. Thanks all.
There is no way that these devices should become mandatory equipment on all cars. That would be the equivalent of saying that everyone is guilty of DUI unless they can prove they are not. This goes against everything our legal system stands for, innocent until proven guilty. I also do not think that the installation of these devices should be made mandatory based solely on a DUI conviction. The judge should have some discretion as to when mandating the installation of one of these devices is warranted or not.
As for the technologies that could detect when a driver is drunk or not, I see numerous problems with these. First of all, many of the proposed solutions could be easily defeated. For example, the skin sensor could easily be defeated by wearing gloves and the cabin air sensor could be defeated by keeping the windows open and the heat/AC going full blast. Second, many of these devices could incorrectly determine that the driver is drunk do to some medical condition or other factors. The propellants in many inhaled medications will incorrectly read as alcohol. Some people have vision problems that cause eye twitching even when they are cold sober. You could have drunk passengers that would show in the air in the vehicles cabin even though the driver is sober. Also, what happens when someone is sober at the start of a drive and the system detects that they have become drunk once the car is moving. This could occur either because they had that last drink that put them over right before leaving the bar or because they were drinking while they were driving (a big problem I saw in some southern states particularly). You can not just disable the car in the middle of the trip, so you would still have people who are drunk on the road. You obviously can't shut down a car while it is moving as this could cause far more accidents than it prevents. Even disabling the car when it stopped in the middle of the trip could endanger peoples lives even more by stranding them in the middle of nowhere.
I fully support efforts to curb drunk driving, but this is not the solution. Stricter enforcement is a far better alternative. I have no problem with probation for a first offense, particularly for someone who is barely over the limit. A second offense should come with a mandatory jail sentence of at least 90 days and up to one year at the judges discretion based on things like how far over the limit they are and how long since the first conviction - and they should have to serve it all. A third offense should land someone in prison for five years and result in the permanent loss of their driving privileges. Getting caught driving after that should result in at least ten years in prison whether the driver is drunk or not.
I agree!
There are no more guaranteed rights left in this country, whereas the US Constitution is nothing but a withered old piece of paper, penned with meaningless words, and no longer serves a legitimate purpose as the decendent of the Magna Carta and later Declaration of Independence. The People seemed to have forgotted it was created to protect our rights, freedoms, liberties and protections to ensure no Government (federal, state, local, etc.) can take them from us! Geesh.
I laugh when Americans tout we're a country of "liberty and freedom" and everyone should live like us while at the same time give more of them away every single year in the name of so-called "security" all the way down to what type of "low-flow" toilets they demand we must use! Our citizens eschew all Common Sense (read Thomas Twain below) because they've grabbed onto some warped ideology (think politicians) that our Government's purpose is to save everyone from themselves and/or others. WRONG---Guess what, that's wholly opposite of everything we've learned from history! Why should 96% of society be punished for something the other 4% does? Driving is a PRIVILEDGE, not a right -- so if one wants the priviledge of driving then they must follow ALL driving laws and if they're incapable of doing so, our society has provided law enforcement and our judiciary to act on our behalf and take that priviledge away!
Enough said....
"SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher." [Thomas Paine, 1776]
duplicate
spry, i laugh when people think cause one part of group says something that the entire group thinks the same way.
any man who would sacrifice freedom for security deserves and will have neither. - benjamin franklin
I'm trying to figure out what's worse! A drunk driver or some one that has a phone glued to the side of they're head!
Pretty soon a car will cost $200,000 and included devices to keep us from texting, calling, driving drunk, falling asleep, getting into distracting heated arguments, and a host of other functions....
I have no problem with requiring these devices on those who have been convicted of drunk driving (at their cost), but forcing it on the 99.5% of us who have never driven drunk is just one more step in the grand "nanny state" plan whereby government controls everything we do.
Hey Washington, leave us alone to live our lives!
Actually, they should install these in all cars, along with some type of recognition device. Reduce thefts and get rid of the drunks at the same time.
As to the "nanny state" comment, many of those who are now raised by a nanny are because one of their parents was killed by a drunk driver. Is one life worth adding a few hundred dollars to the cost of a car ?
I think it's perfect just the way it is. I'd be willing to bet that the prospect of how humiliating and revealing the ignition lock would be for a potential drunk driver has already taken a huge bite out of amount of drunk drivers on the road in my state. I wish we would take it a step further and do the lisence plates as well. It's like putting a tattoo on an offender's head that reads "I take no issue in killing you".
I like knowing who the murderers are. Don't put them in every car.
I predict you will see a lot of vehicles left running outside of the bar, potentially leading to more vehicle theft.
I wonder if I could get a breathalyzer on my keychain so I can still use my remote start when it is cold outside?
What if you don't drink alcohol..and your partying ways is being stoned and on cloud nine from drugs..how does this system stop them from driving?
Need to change MADD to MADD&DD
That doesn't justify what they're proposing here.
If you are against this, are you also against airline checkpoints? It's really no difference.
If the sensors "sniff" the passenger compartment, they'll also detect drunk passengers and shut down, even if the driver is sober. This kind of defeats the purpose of a "designated driver."
You can't have a law for every act of irresponsible or dangerous behavior. Enforcing the laws, already on the books, would be much more effective. Careless driving is an offense that requires paying a ticket with no court appearance in my state. Many drivers walk away with that ticket even after causing a fatal automobile accident. That is so wrong on so many levels.
Careless driving should require a court appearance, after extensive investigation, with a very broad range of penalties. What caused the careless driving( for example: Did you swerve to miss hitting a pet dog or swerve because you were texting)? Were there any fatalities, injuries or property damage because of this offense? Would there have been serious consequences of this offence under slightly different circumstances (for example: driving on the wrong side of a busy highway in the late evening vs. during rush hour). That's why we need competent judges and juries. Mandatory sentencing negates those crucial elements of justice.
My job required extensive driving for over 40 years in Florida. From experience, I can tell you that the most dangerous drivers are seriously impaired elderly drivers. Not because of alcohol, but because of their naturally declining senses, judgement, reflexes and possibly medication. The next most dangerous are definitely cell phone drivers that mistakenly believe they can multi-task. The distant third most dangerous are drunk drivers. I say distant third because they are usually easily detected and the easiest to avoid by an alert driver.
Impairment comes in many forms and all forms are potentially lethal to innocent unimpaired drivers in all respects. I don't understand our attention to focus on only one form of impairment (with very harsh penalties) vs. a mere slap on the wrist as the only penalty for equally impaired drivers that pose much greater risk because of their much larger numbers.
Modern technology, instead of more laws, may be much more effective in removing dangerously impaired drivers(of all forms) from our roadways. Many cities and counties employ cameras at select locations to fight crime and traffic offenses. Use these devises to record the tag numbers of obviously impaired drivers.
An even greater opportunity of modern technology is the capability of cell phones to capture videos of impaired drivers. 75% of us have such phones. Offer an incentive to passengers of all vehicles to record such impaired drivers and surrender the videos to law enforcement. The incentive could be something as simple as a free meal to the passenger and his family at a local establishment. This would provide local businesses with very inexpensive advertising in support of a most serious cause.
Contemplation about how to resolve a serious problem, while expending the least amount of distress on the general population, is much more effective than backing your favorite grandstanding politician.
MADD had it's day and brought awareness to all of us. I thank them. They have outgrown their usefulness by wielding too much power in government to punish all of us for the crimes of the few.
The interlock devices are very expensive. Once a person has their license suspended or revoked for a dui or multiples thereof,no one will hire them because they now dont have transportation to work,and anymore employers want people to have a drivers license to drive a fork truck in a ware house. Same goes for heavy equipment operators,it dont make sense,your not even operating equipment or machines on government highways.So even if you lose your license and could get a ride to an from work,you could still be pretty much screwed. Even if your not looking for work check out the help wanted ads in multiple sites an see what the requirements are for 90% of them now.Its a scam in a sense because of all the lawyers,judicial systems and states that are making tons of money off of this,and the offender is ruined for life,destined for poverty. Because by the time the offender pays all fines,court costs,lawyer fees,reinstatement fees,rehab fees,etc,they are broke an have nothing left. But yet all you people who seem to think you know it all think they should be put in prison or shot,or whatever.Beleive they are paying an suffering every day of their life,even when they quit drinking.
There are ways around almost anything. Like example, the canceling of drivers' licenses. That doesn't stop someone from getting behind the wheel.
Any drunk drivers should just have their cars taken away, period.
In addition, anyone else notice how the penalty for "vehicular manslaugher" (i.e. you killed someone when you were drunk driving) is exceedingly light compared to other forms of manslaughter? They get like a few years and they're back out. It's a travesty.
Exactly, ignition lockouts can be circumvented by just blowing up a balloon or two prior to drinking, then use the balloon on the ignition breathalizer. What, will they ban all balloons next? This would be an idiotic law with absolutely no effect in the real world.
I totally agree with you. A kid killed my Mom he was a teenager at the time and intoxicated as was everyone else in the vehicle. During the over 2 years it took to prosecute him and send him to jail, he still had his drivers license and there were not modifications made to his vehicle. It was as if nothing happened. He was sentenced to 3 years of which 85% he will have to serve, then he will have 2 years probation.
That last post should have said...I agree with you Ruken.
I like your idea too. Take the car away. I also think specific laws targeting a specific crime only confuse the legal system and make it easier for an offender to get away without punishment. Wreck your car and cause property damage? That's "gross negligence" pure and simple. Kill someone? That's "manslaughter"...no "vehicular" or "impaired". Simplify the laws and better educate the prosecutors, the public and those who are at risk for offending.
- Edge
I agree with you, but it only works if the whole system works. Here in Montana a drunk driver who killed another woman walking down the road was found innocent. The cops held her in a cell for 3 hours before ever having her take a blow test. Even then she was way over the legal limit. The judge threw her case out since the cops screwed it up. Everyone knows it was because she knew the cops, chief of police and such.
UDunnoBro - Ignition Interlock doesn't work that way (re: balloon). It doesn't operate like how it's portrayed on the movie "40-Year-Old Virgin".
Any shade tree mechanic can easily disarm the interlock devise with a couple of alligator wire clips. They have been doing this for years and big government doesn't even know it. MADD has gone mad, and you are totally ineffective with your Draconian laws. Whatever electronic devise that is installed on a motor vehicle will be removed and trashed by any consumer who doesn't want big Republican Government looking over their shoulder or have it disarmed and altered in a non permanent way. Makes me laugh when they sing their success to raise more money from the stooges that really believe that they are making a difference.
I agree with you Ruken, But I have a big complaint the there are Teenagers out there still drinking... TAKE THERE CARS PERIOD..... Arrest there Parents for letting them drink.
First off, let's not even entertain some fantasy about having breathalzyer ignition locks as standard equipment in all cars. That is never going to happen. Guilty until proven innocent may work for DUI road blocks, but it would never work in this case. As someone already stated, what if you have to get to the hospital and the darn thing breaks?
Now... when it comes to installing these devices in a vehicle owned by someone convicted of DUI, I'm all for it, even after the first offense. Why? I've seen first hand how effective they are. My buddy Steve is a stone cold alcoholic. The man can drink and eventually, fate caught up to him (after several DECADES of driving over 0.08 virtually every day). They installed the device on his car, and it was such a ROYAL PAIN IN HIS ARSE, that it truly worked at stopping him from drinking and driving. My friends and I are ALL amazed at how effective this thing was at reigning in our friend Steve. It's been two years since he had it removed and the thing is still working.
As for the "balloon" theory... that's a fallacy. You have to blow into the device and HUM (yes, hum) while you blow into it. It also has quite a bit of resistance as you blow into it. No way a balloon is going to work. Even a compressed air canister won't work as you still have to hum (yes, hum) while you blow into it.
What I don't know is if they calibrated it for his "hum". In other words, if I blow into it and hum (yes, hum), does the device recognize that it's not his voice? That I'm not sure of. However, in the full 12 months my buddy had this device, he never once asked any of us to blow into it (leading me to believe it was calibrated for his hum). What he did do during those 12 months was NOT drink and drive.
He also had to pay for installation of the device. It was embarrassing, costly, and a huge inconvenience. It turned the 2-second task of starting your car into a 2-minute task. Doesn't sound like much, but it is when you realize that everyone else but you can start their car in 2 seconds.
THESE DEVICES WORK. Mandate that DUIers have them in their cars.
First of all, not EVERYONE DRINKS ALCOHOL. The people that want to put these devices in every car in the US is HIGH. So if u do not drink u have to pay extra for something u dont use???????? Im not perfect, i currently have one of these devices in my truck right now and it was my first DUI. That thing is a pain in the ass, but i have to deal with it and i learned my lesson very well.
Great post Harold!
I visited by half-sister over a year ago and she too was convicted of a DUI and had one of those devices installed on her car. I remember thinking to myself what a pain in the arse that would be as it was not an easy task to get the car started!!! Now that I think of it, I think she hummed too, and didn't ask me to blow in it when she had drinken a glass of wine and her car wouldn't start because it must have detected alcohol, so I think you may be right about it being calibrated to each individual.
I would fight any law that mandated such a devise for drivers who have never been convicted of a DUI, period. I still have a HUGE ISSUE with mandated seat belt and helment laws, although I do believe it should be mandatory for children under 18 as they don't have the maturity to make life or death decisions or understand the consequences of risks, like driving. I understand the primary intent was to lower the costs insurers were paying for injuries under the guise of "saving lives", but we as society, namely called "The People" are the ones only one's with the power to determine societal rules, yet companies and private groups now have a lot of lobbying leverage and poltical sway with those who pass these laws to appease their contributors or voting block.
Is 2 minutes of your time, plus the cost (greatly reduced as more of the devices are produced) of a device too much if it saves even one life ?
Have a little bit of fun, look up how many deaths by drunk drivers were caused by people who had never been convicted of drunk driving before. How many deaths caused by drunks who were just a little bit (.01 to .05) over the limit.
Unless there is an extreme necessity, there is no reason, EVER, to drive drunk. Inconvenience be damned, I don't want to scrape part of a family member or friend off the side of a road due to a drunk driver.
Another federal law? Good grief, it'll take Congress numerous meetings & designating commissions and even more tax $$$ to study the need, and even then, they won't come to an agreement.
The whole thing will turn out to be a political football and definitely become a partisan issue. Please, it'll take them away from the work they aren't even able to do + increase the cost of a vehicle!
Just perhaps, lobbyists hired by a device manufacturer have been knocking on their doors? Don't peddle this ruse 'to save a life' and say it'll stop drunk or impaired drivers. It won't!
People need to understand that when they imbibe in either drugs or alcohol, they use a designated driver or take a cab home.
Don't peddle this ruse 'to save a life' and say it'll stop drunk or impaired drivers. It won't!
My experience has been the opposite of what you proclaim. This device was such an embarrassing pain-in-the-arse for my friend that he DID stop driving under the influence. I'm not talking driving "drunk", I'm talking about driving under the influence of 2 beers. I've seen this device change the habits of a 30-year functional alcoholic, who drinks 3-6 beers after work every day and 3 times that on the weekends. If it worked for my friend, that's proof enough to me that these devices WORK.
Plus... who said anything about a Federal law?
Ignition interlock should be mandated STANDARD on all new vehicles sold in the US. Moreover, it's in the best interest of insurance companies to offer discounts ABOVE the price of installing it, running for life of the car year after year to get older cars retrofitted once. Or, alternatively, interlock may be removed (deactivated) for the price of insurance premium hike (and it should be MANY HUNDREDS of dollars, year after year).
Yes, some medications may trigger it, and even I heard that some people naturally have something in their breath that always triggers the breathalyzer even when they don't drink (though it looks like yet another urban legend). Just for that occasion, the interlocks may have alternative mode, like entering captcha in a limited time, or even a blood test (diabetics do it all the time for sugar). And also the police may be equipped with manual override device to help out sober drivers stranded because of interlock malfunction.
Then they steal a car. For whatever reason -- maybe their internal wiring is just bad -- someone that is determined to drive drunk will do it. They seem to be positive that they are not impaired in any way and can 'handle their alcohol.'
Suspending their license or impounding their car, doesn't work. They will find a way. If they don't care already that driving drunk is dangerous, not to mention, illegal, they won't let a little thing like no license or 'borrowing' a car stop them.
I've had the sad experience of having a house-mate that was a chronic drunk (but he could stop anytime he wanted to! He just didn't want to....) and a co-worker I don't think I ever saw sober some years ago. The co-worker ended up in prison after his 4th or 5th DUI conviction -- heaven only knows why it took that long to lock him up! The housemate wrapped his car around a tree. Didn't manage to kill anyone, but he's brain-damaged and partially paralyzed. Pity that's what it took to get him off the road.
I believe if you've been caught drinking and driving it is a fitting punishment. The device isn't error-proof though. It still is capable of giving a false reading based on temperature or the presence of mouth alcohol (not in the lungs). Even with its fail points, I think repeat offenders should have to deal with the risk of a false reading.
As a standard in all vehicles - HELL NO! Come back to me when the device is completely infallible and then we'll talk. Until then, why punish people with the hassle when they've done nothing wrong? Who really has time to wait for the cops to come and override the results when you need to get to work? It is a completely unreasonable proposal!
I think it should be for those that party and drink all the time. I do not drink, so why should I or anyone else be punished for those that do drink and are alcoholics.
Install them in all new cars made, but leave my car the hell alone.
MADD is getting a little big for their britches.
Or too big for their bitches.
Yes, how DARE they try to stop drunk drivers. Terrible, terrible people they are.
MADD is overreaching and they need to be challenged immediately!
melanie, they are trying to enforce something on everyone cause of a few idiots. how would you like it if your boss at work fired everyone cause 1 person was stealing?
HATR-HURTER, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. DO NOT support any such law as this! The establishment will make everyone comply! Would you like a camera forcibly put in your house by the state or the federal government because your neighbor complained you made too much noise the previous evening?
jchay, i think you misinterpreted what i said. i believe this idea goes too far.
How about upgrading our public transportation so we can have a few and not have to drive. Sure would love to be able to go out have a few and know I really don't have to worry.
This is over stepping the boundaries. More laws more intrusion more big government
Once again we consider penalizing the many for the acts of the few. This idea makes no economic sense nor is it consistent with a society built on invididual liberty and freedom. You HAVE your freedom and liberties unless and until you relinquish that right through poor behaviour.
This kind of crap is getting totally out of hand. Even giving this idea a second thought just demonstrates how far toward nanny state-ism we have traveled.
I will go along with the interlock system when they devise one that detects open lipstick containers, Big MACs, good looking women walking down the sidewalk, open containers of anything that distracts a driver. Oh, and add crying, fighting kids to the list too. It would be just as easy to ban cars, roads as to really implement an interlock that could not be overridden. How stupid can we get in our zeal to make a completely risk free society? Next thing we know we will be required to wear hardhats just in case a meteorite falls from the sky.
Dasvet, the difference is a distracted driver can alter his/her state in an instant. A drunk driver is still drunk and no more competent than he was 5 minutes ago. Yes people do stupid things when they are driving, but as long as they are not chemically impaired they can snap to attention if a situation arises that warrants it. Not so a drunk.
enough, auto accidents happen in a split second most of the time, so your argument that it is better to die in an accident caused by chemicals, rather than stupidity doesn't hold water.What difference does it make?.
Some folks won't be happy until we are all living in "safe" little cocoons.
This is "crisis du jour" reasoning we have come to expect from zealots of all spots.
MADD acts like there are 100,000 people getting removed every day by drunk drivers. News flash for MADD, and every other necrophobe, we're supposed to die as it is our reward for life. Dying in a car wreck, road side bomb, or tickled to death by Richard Simmons, you're still dead and that was your Fate.
Also, we are TOO MANY. We're @ 7 billion + and the VAST majority of us are just mediocre humans whose greatest contribution will actually be our timely demise. Really. We are TOO MANY w no predators. Let us prey on ourselves.
Derek, I agree that MADD can seem more than a little zealous at times, however over 20,000 people are murdered every year by drunk drivers. The thing is, over half of those had previous DUI convictions and drove yet again because THE LAW DOES NOT COMMUNICATE THE GRAVITY OF DRUNK DRIVING.
Personally, I was hit head on by a speeding drunk driving in a Hummer. The night was such a nightmare. The girl didn't even call the cops despite the fact that I could've been dead in my car...she called her daddy and his money got him out of it. It kills me everyday that she almost MURDERED me, but served NO jailtime for such a violent act. Also, a quarter mile from my crash my friend's sister had been killed by a drunk driver...how do you think the family feels knowing he only received 6 months in jail?! 6 months for murdering a 12 yr old?
Yes, tradegies happens so what, but the victims and families need a sense of JUSTICE afterwards. Please watch the "Driver Aplogizes for Crash That Killed 12-Year-Old and consider being more sensitive next time.
Lisa,
State where you got your number of 20,000. I only found half of that, and the source does not say that alcohol caused all of those deaths, just that the driver had a BAC of .08 or higher.
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html
"In 2009, there were 10,839 fatalities in crashes involving a driver with a BAC of .08 or higher – 32 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year."
Most of you have got to be, either kidding or just plain dumb!
NOONE should be allowed to operate a car after drinking, PERIOD!
How many lives must be lost because of those that kill others while driving and drinking?
This is NOT a right that anyone has, ONE life lost due to the stupidity of another is too many!!!
Tom, with all the laws on the books now, there wouldn't be any alcohol related deaths, if those laws really worked. More laws don't mean crap, if they are unenforceable. How many stupid, unenforceable laws will be enough for you? Endless number, don't you think.
Derek: are you volunteering to reduce the surplus population by one, being you ?
After a career in Law Enforcement when I was younger I learned that the police, the government nor society take drunk driving seriously. In LAPD we had 75-100 officers per shift per 18 divisions working at any given time, and you know how many were doing DUI enforcement.......2, maybe 3 and motor officers. Patrolmen hated DUI because it is a misdeomenor offense that takes three to four hours of your time. Watch commanders did not like it because they lose a beat car for half a shift and have trouble responding to calls for service. This was large metropolitan police. Small communities may have only a handful of officers on duty and highway patrol even less. So even if there is strict enforcement out of every 100 drunks on the road you may catch half a dozen. If this were burglary or robbery stats people would lose their jobs over it.
Courts do not take it serious either. The jail time is often probationed or plead out, the suspect will lose his license but the court will grant a temp license for "work" driving and in the end nothing changes.
People leave bars and resturants every night drunk but very seldom does one lose a liquer license......
IF you are convicted of drunk driving 1st offense you should lose the "privilage" of driving a vehicle for several years. No angles, no pleas, no temp hardhsip license. You dont get to drive anymore. You are a danger to the public.
If you walk down the street firing a gun into the air at random, not targeting anyone just shooting up into the sky, you will be arrested for a felony and will not get to own or possess a firearm ever again.
Yet the chance of killing or injuring someone while driving drunk is far greater than a stray bullet hitting another person, yet one is taken far more serious than the other.
Drunk driving kills and maims, BUT the government makes far to much tax revenue off of alcohol to ever seriously target its after effects. They talk tough at election time, police throw up a few public DUI check points through out the year...but in the end nothing changes and DUI violators are fined and coddled by the system and it is not even looked at as a real crime in most courts.
Until that attitude changes, DUI will not change and they will continue the smoke & mirror B.S. like this article will effect everyone, except the real violators.
Drunks should not get ignition locking devices, because they should NEVER be behind the wheel for any reason.
Good post Azrancher. However I think the penalties are quite a bit stiffer where I live, in Florida. Then again we're also the state that will send you to prison for 14 years if a roach is found in your ashtray, but we'll let baby killers go free.
It really should be the job of those charged with DUIs to scrape dead bodies off highways and freeways and work in the morgues. Children's bodies should be the ones they start with. It's common sense. A second DUI shows blatant disregard for public safety and should be viewed as terrorism, because a drunk on the road puts EVERYONE's lives at risk. I support the death penalty for second+ DUIs.
Good post. You have to punish the OFFENDER, not the VEHICLE. Especially if the offender doesn't own the vehicle.
Requiring these stupid things on ALL cars is beyond ridiculous. I drink very little and NEVER drive with any alcohol in my system. Why should I have to pay for intrusive add-ons that have nothing to do with me, and everything to do with idiots that shouldn't have a driver's license in the first place?
The problem is that the interlock devices simply do not work and give false positives.
I had to take a friends car for service when he could no longer drive. Interlock device was in place and even though it was 4 WEEKS since my last drink and I take no medications of any kind, the interlock device would respond with 'non human sample' or 'alcohol detected' or 'max attempts exceeded' even on the first try. At that point, the vehicle was completely disabled and had to sit for about 12 hours before the computer would work as it was supposed to. Interlock computer and sensors were replaced FOUR times, same result with each set of hardware. Remember, this was not my car nor was I the one convicted. Just moving it from A to B for service. This technology does NOT belong in every car because it simply does not work as advertised. These analyzers do not work in below freezing temps to the unit has to be brought indoors during the winter and installed before attempting a start. People are talking about building this INTO the car?? No, that just doesn't fly. Yes, this was a modern interlock unit sold and installed in 2011 so were all the replacements. If this becomes a mandate for all cars, I will simply not buy a new car ever again as the technology is simply too inaccurate.
All of that said, I do not condone drunk driving but there has to be a better way than crippling cars and punishing those who drank NOTHING AT ALL.
I'm sure that I will get flamed hard for these comments but bring it on.... my two cents,
T
How many of you discussed not driving New Year's Eve because of all the drunks on the road? And who hasn't said to themselves we're so lucky we got home some nights?
We DO NOT take drunk driving seriously as a society and those that are caught are just the tip of the iceberg. The carnage on our roads we take for granted is deplorable. IMHO this would be a novel and effective way to deal with this epidemic. How can anyone argue against this...it's my right to drive drunk??? Just say that after every objection to this being listed here and you get an instant rebuttal.
Vehicle safety equipment has evolved (air bags, anti-lock brakes, etc.) and we've all benefited from it. I'd love to see anyone drunk not be able to start their car, wouldn't you? And wouldn't you be more comfortable knowing the other drivers on the road with you are also sober?
Let the mandate begin and let technology evolve with it. Perhaps our next steering wheel will be able to detect our BAC and hence our ability to drive, simply by holding onto it. We obviously can use some help. And for anyone who hasn't lost a loved one to a drunk driver, just wait. Your time will come unless we do something drastic now.
Traffic deaths are at a fifty year low at the present time. Would you be happy if every citizen, young or old was implanted at birth ,with an alcohol monitor? Of course we could implant numerous monitors for every substance we touch in our lifetime? You would fit well in a totalitarian society, others would not.
How is it not considered attempted murder when you knowingly drink and then get behind a steering wheel? You have a choice, and being too plastered to have insight about safety implications is no excuse. If my husband drank beyond the legal limit and drove, I would leave him, because he is a safety hazard by choosing himself over the safety of others, and I would expect the same treatment from him toward me. THIS is the intolerant mentality Americans need to assume regarding DUIs. It would be no different from my husband coming home drunk and waving around a loaded gun. The issue is not that drunks get behind the wheel, but that we think it's normal - even cute - when we drink ourselves to the point we have no control over our own minds and bodies. Unacceptable. really, it's fun to get too impaired to take care of your responsibilities? Then you're a burnout.
So people who don't drink at all should be penalized by having to use a breathalyzer everytime they need to drive? That's the issue here, I doubt many people will argue that drinking and driving is dangerous. The violators of existing laws should be punished, not the people who are abiding by the law.
Did you hear about the pirate that got home to his wife so drunk that he had a steering wheel hanging from his genitals? She asked, "Do you realize you have a steering wheel hanging from your genitals?"
He exclaimed, "Rrrrrrrrrrrr.... and it' driving me nuts!"
I see more women driving around on the cell phone, drinking coffee, eating breakfast, putting on makeup, primping their hair do's, looking at kids in the back seat, shooting the crap with their passengers and generally oblivious to anything in front of them.
How about we put a lock on just being f*****g dumb a$$es.
We don't need any more regulation in this country, it's already getting like a police state.
And MADD needs to STFU and get it's nose out of everyone's business.
What the hell ever happened to personal responsibility in this country?
I can see it now; 'oh, I'm so sorry this happened. I can't understand why my car let me drive if I wasn't able to safely.' It'll become the car makers fault for not having a tough enough system.
And no I don't think they should be standard equipment. Why should I have to have some piece of equipment in my car that is only there because a very small percentage of people can't or won't be responsible for themselves?
Then some whiney lib could sue the car company.
Drunks
Against
Mad
Mothers
Legalize Pot.
Let's just keep going with these nanny laws until the entire concept of personal responsibility and accountability for behavior is gone. If the Founding Fathers could see what a joke this country has become, they would have paid the damned tax on their tea and gone back to their homes, and we'd still be singing "God Save the Queen". Constitutional Republic, where art thou?
All you MAD at MADD should really THINK TWICE. What if you are the VICTIM and or victims.
NOW! What about CELL PHONES ??????
There should be a MANDATORY device (Sensor) in the AUTOMOBILE along with all PORTABLE PHONES SOLD with a transmitter chip on the main boards inside phones ( Tamper Proof ). If phone is not powered on the IGNITION works. If phone is powered on the Car sensor picks up the phone as on and shuts the IGNITION OFF and automatically turns emergency lights on. That should deter CELL PHONE USAGE before and while attempting to driving.
This is my Idea do not copy without permission !!!!!!
lol My integrated bluetooth says "no"
I sure hope this was intended as sarcasm.
For your information Alain, I lost my best friend in high school when she and her family were hit by a drunk driver! But punishing the majority for the minority choice is just plain WRONG!!
As for your cell phone idea - It is also wrong! I use a blue tooth with moto-speak and never have to touch my phone while I am driving to place or answer a call. I have witnessed people talking with a passenger in their car and looking at the passenger more than the road. Are you honestly going to tell me that me driving with my totally hands free blue tooth is more dangerous than a person driving with a passenger in the car?!?
Cell phones are now the biggest threat to public safety. The studies have shown distracted driving is a bigger problem than drunk driving which has consistently fallen. Calls made or received even with bluetooth are a problem. Cell phones are the biggest problem in distracted driving, but there are other activities that fall under this category such as personal grooming. Distracted driving is getting bigger every year and it is not confined to cars. We have had train accidents because engineers were using heir cell phones. Police have cracked down on seatbelts and drunk driving. It is time to crack down on distracted driving. Putting in interlocks on all cars is ridiculous. Are we going to require cars disable cell phones or interlocks for seatbelts?
Alaine,
Since your are so adamant about the government being so involved in your personal life, I suggest we require every pregnant woman to be evaluated. She must pass a battery of tests both physical and psychological, and supply complete background information for her entire family. If she is determined to be a candidate for "possibly" producing a "sub-standard" baby it must be aborted. This way we can ensure a population of only law abiding responsible people.
If we could only make it retroactive to test your parents, we wouldn't have you here to spill your drivel.
disabling cell phones in cars would mean passengers couldn't even use them even though they aren't driving.
Hatr... OMG, then they would have to, what, like actually converse with the people in the car or maybe listen to the radio.
How did the human race ever get to where it is now without the ability to talk and text 24/7 ?
Dirp, you must not have kids. I'd rather have them in the backseat texting than driving me nuts with their complaining.
dirp, you really think the extremely high %(i would guess well over 60%) of people who use them in cars are going to be happy about that? you think the politicians are willing to go against that very high % of voters? you chose a good name for yourself there if you believe that at all.
You'd probably have them shooting up heroin or smoking crack as long as they're not under your feet or bothering you.
Why did you have kids in the first place.
The poll question was: "Should ignition interlocks be mandated for all motorists convicted of drunken driving, even first-time offenders?" NOT "should ignition interlocks be required in ALL cars and force each driver to pay for his/her car's own device even if they have never been DWI?"
It's the opening paragraph of the article which alludes to them being standard issue in cars that kind of has people cringing, and the title at the top of the page which reads:
Pretty vague if they mean all cars or just all convicts' cars.
Tell me how you "interlock" a drunken driver? You can't. The interlock has to be installed in a vehicle that does not have the ability to drive drunk by itself. Therefore, the whole issue makes no sense at all.
So a non-drinker would have to blow into that every time they start their car? No. But if a judge convicts you of DUI then yes.
The breathalyzer ignitions have a fundamental flaw: they don't determine if 1) the breath is the driver's and 2) the breath is right now (ex. like a balloon as someone else posted).
That's why I think other courses of actions should be taken. Canceling licenses has proven itself time and time again to be unsuccessful, which is why I think they should just their cars away. You drink and drive, take away the entire means to drive. Maybe they'll think about it next time.
It's my understanding that bartenders and party hosts can be held accountable for people that are "over-served" and drive. I would like to see family members that are aware that other family members have had their licenses suspended and are still driving held accountable also. And I agree, take the offenders vehicle.
Let's blame the breweries and the bottle makers. How about, let's prosecute offenders mothers for giving birth to them.
Let's just give all our civil liberties away, ban cars altogether.
Get a life dip-$hit!
@Ruken - the ignition interlock units that I've seen do not suffer from those "flaws". The units I've witnessed 1) are installed in conjunction with a camera that takes a series of pictures of the person blowing into the unit, and 2) require you to "blow" then "hum" into the breathalyzer (thereby avoiding the balloon, or more realistically, compressed-air circumvention).
Yea, I was just re-posting what someone else said. I've never even seen one and don't know how exactly they work. All I know is that most devices are still fallible to criminal ingenuity.
As I said most breathalyzers don't or can't distinguish between medicine or allcohol. Also taking ones car would be helpful, but I see those people not paying their car loans anymore and the lienholders getting screwed. New question for auto loan applications, Have you every had a DUI/SWI?
One drink is to many when you're driving,IMO.Also put down the damn phone.
I can not believe that anyone in their right mind could possibly support such a ridiculous and unconstitutional proposition as to eventually require these things on all vehicles!! Requiring them for convicted drunk drivers - suffer the consequences of your choices - I have no sympathy!!
It is absolutely wrong to punish the masses "just in case" by even proposing this type of mandate! Make all the penalties for DUI and DWI much more severe instead of just being a slap on the wrist so that law breakers are punished appropriately!
Bottom line is that people need to be held accountable for their own choices and the effects of those choices. Responsible, law abiding citizens absolutely should not be punished or treated like criminals because of a few drunk idiots!!! That some people actually support this nonsense scares me for the future and of our Country being able to keep the few freedoms we have left!!
I'll drink to that!
If you're talking about a freedom to drive while drunk then NO you don't have that freedom to put others at risk or kill others.
NOONE has a right to drink and drive, EVER!
Yes, heaven forbid they spill their drink while they are driving.
Oh but seriously, The article was about putting these devices on previous offenders, NOT every car. Every person who has ever received a ticket knows, they were doing something wrong, and usually it is the 100th time they did it when they are caught. (Speeding, DUI, Illegal U-turn, left turn, weaving in and out of traffic, failure to come to a complete stop, running a red light, not yielding to oncoming traffic, etc.) A dui driver has driven in their condition before, or they wouldn't be doing it now.
If you are convicted of DUI, you should have the device on your car (AFTER your license has been suspended/revoked for at least 5 years.) You should probably be monitored for the first year, with court ordered visits to AA. If you are convicted a second time, you should lose your car, and any possible driving priveldge for the remainder of your life. The minimum penalty for the second dui should also include court ordered AA, Community service, and minimum jail time of 2 years. A third conviction, should follow the three strikes rule, and you'll be removed from endangering yourself and the community. If you are convicted of dui, that results in death, It should be a felony, negligent homicide, which should carry 25 to life. If the drunk driver thinks thats unfair, then they should think about the life, or lives they took while driving intoxicated.
In the mean time, Im going to enjoy my beer, in the safety of my own house, while reading the rest of the blog about DUI, and enjoy what is left of our minimul freedoms in the great U S A.
All of this outrage about Constitutional rights being infringed upon, etc, is, in my opinion, more emotional melodrama than reality. Having to satisfy a breathilizer on a car is no more a penalization or infringement on your rights than requiring you to possess a key to start the engine, a credit card number to make a purchase, or a password to access your online accounts. Granted, all of these things limit access to your own private property, but they're all in place for good reason and I'd argue that the benefits of having them far outweigh any drawbacks to them.
That said...I definitely WOULD NOT be keen on paying the costs associated with providing a breathilizer on my next car! Cars are already difficult to afford, and I really don't want to pay for yet another required safety feature!
Scuromondo, a little education is in order here. Do you know the difference between traveling and driving? Every citizen of the U.S. has the RIGHT to TRAVEL the public highways in this country. When you apply for a license and obtain it you have effectively turned your right into a priviledge. If you are not using the public roadways for commerce, or, for making money then you are a traveler. Theoretically, if you do not have a licence or registration and you are traveling you cannot be stopped. The one exception is, if you should injure or cause the death of somebody while traveling. Most people don't even realize they're giving up their right to travel when they get a license. This new MADD law is a further reduction of your right to travel.
jchayward44-1:
You seem to be making a better case against your arguement than for it!
You make the point that there is a difference between traveling and driving, and that driving is a priviledge not a right. So how does a breathalizer, which restricts the privelidge of driving, affect your right to travel?
You make the point that the only reason travel should be restricted is if it should injure or cause the death of someone. So why doesn't a breathalizer, which restricts only an intoxicated driver who would potentially cause the injury or death of someone, fall into that category?
Anyway, I'm not arguing for breathalizers. As I said, I'd be against installing these things as standard equipment on all cars simply because I'm not convinced that their cost/benefit tradeoff makes sense at this point and I don't really want to pay for them. My argument is mostly selfish I guess.
Unfortunately !!! for all who think and are responsible. you are the FEW.
The MAJORITY of AMERICANS are not capable of intelligence and responsibility at the same time. SO LAWS AND REGULATIONS ARE NECESARY to avoid INNOCENT PEOPLE from being victimized.
Example: The financial Bubble, Mortgage buster, Wall street scamsters, Corporations, even our own government and all the ones holding offices and or going for election.
Innocent, honest people need to be protected period no questions asked !!!!
This country needs to be protected from people like you. If you want to live in a police state move to Russia.
So you believe that without a paternalistic government we'd all just destroy ourselves and each other? You've certainly swallowed that line, and its one that allows creeping intrusion in every aspect of our lives...and TPTB are emboldened by the increasing number of people who (like you) are convinced(!) that they and their peers don't know how to take care of themselves and need state authority to do it for them. You see it as protection, but what it really is is restriction. People like you will bring this down on us.
How did humans ever survive before the Patriot Act? How did we solve crimes before every level of government could tap phone calls without a warrant? How did society exist for so long, since human beings aren't capable of taking care of themselves?
Also, and not incidentally, virtually all of your examples resulted from poor regulation and resulting unintended consequences, not a lack of it.
In which case if protecting people from others is the sole priority then we should probably start by banning guns. As you might be aware, someone could kill someone with one of them just as well as with a car. Making more rules to protect people from what other people MIGHT do is something we do not need. Guns first, then interlocks for cars. Now I hear of deranged people in California using gasoline to start fires so I guess gasoline will be banned next?
Just in. ARSON Banned in CA. Shocking.