Drunk Driving Ingnition Interlock in Every Vehicle
In my “Technorati” bolg listing of “drunk driving” I found this very interesting blogpost on 10th November 2007, by Garth O’Brien a DUI Attorny. The full web address of this blogpost http://blog.seattle-duiattorney.com/archives/82
In this article the author argues in favor of a “drastic” measure to prevent the Drunk Driving (DD). It is to “install Ignition Interlock Devices (IID) in every vehicle operated on United States roadways”.
Here I would like to give my opinion about this particular DD prevention measure. First of all I welcome any rational DD preventions enactments. If it is possible to strictly or mandatorily install such IID in every vehicle then I agree it will definitely prevent most of the drunk driving offences that we see today.
However here I would like to point out some major obstacles, fundamental objection or opposition to it. Most important are the following:
There are vast number of people who don’t drink alcohol at all! Many of them would hate to submit to any such alcohol checking devise installed in their vehicle and vehemently oppose the thing that treats them as drunk (or not) every time before they starts their vehicle. I suspect it would also interfere with these people’s fundamental rights and so on!
People may feel apprehensive about its commercial aspect. Also its regular maintaining cost to keep it in condition especially on those who find these IID absolutely unnecessary for them.
What about installing it in the vehicles of those Very Important People (VIP). We know many of them drunk driving! Presidents, Ministers, Bureaucrats! Don’t they find it insulting so want to be exempted thus creating a big lacuna in the law?
To install IID strictly in every vehicle not only means cars but that includes bikes, trucks and so many other vehicles! So I doubt whether it is going to be a good viable or practical solution.
Nevertheless, if the Gov. authorities able to overcome all these major obstacles and make this IID installation mandatory in every vehicle then I believe it would become a great solution in the prevention of drunk driving.
However the IID mandatory installation in only those “repeat DUI offenders” cars would remain mostly ineffective or window dressing in preventing the DD. Because most of the DD accidents caused not by the repeat offenders. Ironically when they drunk drive they have suspended license and the vehicle does not happens to be a IID installed, probably it is of someone else’s!
Having said this, here I ask your opinion about my drunk driving accidents prevention measure. It is to prohibit all those high-alcohol drinks, that the authorities license in the name of Standard Alcohol Drinks (most popular is the regular beer containing around 5% alcohol), which causes ( as the alcohol epidemiological research points out) almost all drunk driving accidents.
First, please read my two recent blog post in this matter.
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2007/11/lads-success-in-dui-prevention-is.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2007/11/proposing-new-standard-alcohol-drinks.html
And most importantly read the following most important papers in my blog WebPages:
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2007/10/alcohol-research-misconduct-cause-drunk.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2007/10/standard-alcohol-drinks-sads-cause.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2007/10/standard-alcohol-drinks-sads-licensing.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2007/10/alcohol-prohibition-mission-failure.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2007/10/alcoholics-should-ask-compensation.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2007/10/drunk-driving-dui-facts-hidden-from.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2007/10/drunk-drivers-have-chance-to-fight-back.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2007/10/alcohol-drinking-is-it-matter-of-choice.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2007/10/drunk-drivers-alcohol-vulnerable.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-driving-with-high-bac-is-wrong.html
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2007/11/alcohol-bosses-real-culprits-of-drunk.html
Vallab
Alcoholics Curewell
Labels: DUI Drunk Driving
posted by val @ 8:02 AM
1 Comments
1 Comments:
Val,
Thank you for the visit and creating your own article. This is exactly why I maintain my blog. To stir up dialogue about drunk driving. Here are some of my responses to your article:
[1] "I suspect it would also interfere with these people’s fundamental rights..."
People in the Unitied States do not have a legal right to drive motor vehicles. The ability to drive is a state regulated privilege. Each state has an agency that regulates who can and cannot drive.
Washington State has the Department of Licensing. In order to secure your privilege to drive in Washinton State you must pass a written test and driving test. You must also demonstrate that you are not legally blind. Adding an alcohol detection device to your vehicle would be an additional requirement for people to take advantage of their privilege to drive.
[2]Also its regular maintaining cost to keep it in condition...
I agree this will increase the average maintainence costs of owning a vehicle. One must change the oil every 3,000 miles or 3 months. Depending on the technology, you may need to have the alcohol detection device serviced yearly. It is the responsibility of the drive to maintain their vehicle to a certain operational standard to be legal for street travel.
Auto makers add additional features to their vehicles yearly. No one complains about servicing their new fangled GPS system. On average 12,000 people in the US die from alcohol related accidents. I am not sure how many lives the GPS has saved, but I doubt it is many.
[3]What about installing it in the vehicles of those Very Important People (VIP)...
There will be no exceptions to this rule. VIPs are arrested for DUI daily. Celebrity DUI. Our current President was arrested for DUI. No exceptions.
[4]To install IID strictly in every vehicle not only means cars but that includes bikes, trucks and so many other vehicles!
Only motor vehicles need this requirement. Most states do not enforce a DUI law for bicycles. Further, there are not many drunk bicycle related deaths in the US.
Think of all the costs involved with a DUI. There are 47,000 DUI arrests each year in Washington State alone. It takes a lot of cops, judges, attorneys, court staff, licensing agency resources, jail staff, probation staff and more to prosecute a DUI crime. That is a mountain of tax dollars. Erase those arrests and redistribute those tax dollars elsewhere.
Every DUI caused accident will involve insurance companies. They jack up everyones' rates with each accident. Take away all the accidents caused by DUI.
Search in Google News "DUI." You will find police officers, prosecutors, doctors, politicians and many other fine citizens being arrested for DUI. Their lives ruined because of a simple mistake.
An 18 year high school graduate is going to prison for 4 years because she killed her best friend. They were at a graduation party and drank too much. There was an accident. Now we have one young woman dead and another young woman going to prison instead of college. If there was an alcohol detection device in that vehicle both girls would be attending college right now. Instead one is dead and the other a prisoner, and all of their friends and family are suffering.
We require seatbelts. We are slowly banning smoking. We regulate the legal and constitutional right to own guns. It is time to start regulating the privilege to drive for the safety of all people driving on US roadways.
Tough DUI laws and increased punishment is doing nothing to prevent DUI.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home