Smart Start Ohio designed an interlock system that includes a small camera that would make it almost impossible for someone else to enable a drunken driver.
Lock out drunks
Proposed state laws would further discourage driving after drinking
May 7, 2007
Ohio lawmakers in both houses soon could be considering new ways to end the scourge of drunken driving. Given that Ohio is home to more than 33,000 hard-core drunken drivers, defined as those who have been convicted five or more times, legislators shouldn’t waste any time.
Good ideas are circulating to deal more effectively with repeat offenders and to make first-time offenders less likely to become repeaters.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving is pushing a bill being prepared in the House that could dramatically reduce the number of first-timers who become second-timers.
The bill would be modeled after a New Mexico law that mandates that even first-time offenders equip their cars with ignition interlock devices. These require the driver to blow into a sensor that reads blood-alcohol content and won’t allow the car to start if the reading is higher than 0.025 percent. The level at which a person is legally considered drunk is 0.08 percent.
Ohio law allows judges to require interlock devices for multiple-repeat offenders, but the penalty is invoked rarely. The Dispatch has urged lawmakers to make interlock devices mandatory for repeat offenders, even though some drivers might cheat their way out by borrowing someone else’s car or getting a sober friend to blow into the device.
Research compiled by MADD, however, offers hope that imposing interlocks on all offenders, including first-timers, not only could protect the public better from drunken drivers, but also could help some offenders beat drinking problems.
While some might wonder if imposing such an obligation on a first-time offender is extreme, MADD argues that this isn’t the first time most of these people have driven drunk, it’s simply the first time they’ve been caught.
Advances in interlock design have made them harder to fool. For example, blowing compressed air into the tube no longer works, because it senses temperature and air pressure and will know the air isn’t breath. Some models include digital cameras to photograph the person using the device, thus discouraging attempts to have a sober friend activate the interlock on behalf of the drunken driver.
Beyond keeping a drunk from driving, interlocks create an electronic record that helps courts and treatment professionals assess whether offenders are changing their behavior. Someone who repeatedly fails the interlock test obviously isn’t.
MADD sensibly recommends that laws requiring interlock devices also stipulate that offenders should have to maintain the device until they have remained sober “for a significant period of time.”
For the majority of first-time offenders, many of whom are problem drinkers and alcoholics, that would mean the interlock would stay on until they changed their behavior. For those few offenders who truly are social drinkers who made one mistake, the device could be on for only the minimum time.
Interlock devices don’t keep drunks from drinking but can help stop them from driving. Along with saving lives, this pragmatic approach offers an alternative to revoking driving privileges and impounding cars, which can cost jobs and disrupt families. Enabling only sober driving allows troubled lives to get back on track.
Senate Bill 17, sponsored by Sen. Timothy J. Grendell, R-Chesterland, focuses on repeat offenders with a provision that people who have two or more convictions for drunken driving cannot refuse to take a blood-alcohol test if they are stopped again under suspicion of driving under the influence.
Observers say the forced-testing provision dooms the bill’s chances of passage. If so, that’s unfortunate. While the prospect of someone being restrained while a blood sample is taken is repugnant, far more so is the carnage committed on Ohio highways by drunken drivers, many of whom are repeat offenders.
Critics are off-base when they say that mandating blood-alcohol testing based only on a police officer’s word is unconstitutional. Obtaining a driver’s license entails implicit consent for such an investigation.
Stopping drunken driving means deterring those who can be deterred and jailing those who can’t. MADD’s idea could help change behavior, and Grendell’s, by removing a roadblock to convictions, could take the most incorrigible drivers off the roads.
Pennsylvania: Proposal Mandates Ignition Interlocks for All Cars
Legislation before the Pennsylvania House of Representatives would mandate DUI interlocks on all cars.
Legislation before the Pennsylvania House of Representatives would mandate DUI interlocks on all cars.
3/27/2007
A bill introduced last week in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives would mandate that every car sold in the state be equipped with a breath testing device. State Representative Paul I. Clymer (R-Bucks County) insists that every motorist must prove that he is not drunk before starting a vehicle.
Clymer’s proposal would require that, by 2009, all new cars sold in Pennsylvania have a device installed to estimate the amount of alcohol on the breath of a driver. If the machine believes the driver’s BAC is greater than .025 percent — significantly less than the legal limit of .08 percent — the car will not start. By 2010, all motorists would be forced to install the devices on existing cars before being able to sell them as used vehicles.
Several states have mandated ignition interlocks for those convicted of drunk driving, creating a booming business for manufacturers of the devices. Court-ordered interlocks generally cost up to $200 to install with $125 in monthly maintenance fees. Permanent installation of such devices would add more than $1000 to the cost of new vehicles. The Sens-O-Lock brand, for example, lists for $1595.
Article Excerpt:
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA
HOUSE BILL No. 875
Session of 2007
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA
HOUSE BILL No. 875
Session of 2007
INTRODUCED BY CLYMER, MARCH 22, 2007
REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, MARCH 22, 2007
AN ACT
Amending Title 75 (Vehicles) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, mandating ignition interlock systems.
The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hereby enacts as follows:
Section 1. Title 75 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes is amended by adding a section to read:
? 4538. Ignition interlock systems.
(a) General rule.–Every motor vehicle manufactured for use in this Commonwealth on and after December 31, 2008, and every secondhand motor vehicle sold in this Commonwealth on and after December 31, 2009, that is capable of having an ignition interlock system installed shall be equipped with a functional ignition interlock system.
(b) Existing motor vehicle.–Every motor vehicle shall be retrofitted to equip the vehicle with an ignition interlock system by December 31, 2009.
(c) Definition.–As used in this section, the term “ignition interlock system” has the meaning given that term in section 3801 (relating to definitions).
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Pennsylvania Code (existing law)
? 3801. Definitions.
The following words and phrases when used in this chapter shall have the meanings given to them in this section unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
“Adult.” An individual who is at least 21 years of age.
“Ignition interlock system.” A system approved by the department which prevents a vehicle from being started or operated unless the operator first provides a breath sample indicating that the operator has an alcohol level less than 0.025%.
“Minor.” An individual who is under 21 years of age.
The following words and phrases when used in this chapter shall have the meanings given to them in this section unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
“Adult.” An individual who is at least 21 years of age.
“Ignition interlock system.” A system approved by the department which prevents a vehicle from being started or operated unless the operator first provides a breath sample indicating that the operator has an alcohol level less than 0.025%.
“Minor.” An individual who is under 21 years of age.
New Device Proposed To Stop Drunken Drivers
May 02 2007
COLUMBUS, Ohio – Members of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, lawmakers, law enforcement and victims’ families gathered at the Ohio Statehouse on Wednesday to discuss new technology to combat drunken driving.
Ohio Rep. Bill Seitz said he was drafting a bill to present to lawmakers. If the new law is passed, a device called an Ignition Interlock System would test the driver’s breath for alcohol. If alcohol is detected, the car would not start.
A crash with a repeat drunken driver claimed the life of Otterbein College student Caitlin Leasure. Her sister Nicole Leasure, a 10TV employee, said the man had been arrested five times for drunken driving.
“It’s a revolving door,” Nicole Leasure said. “They get pulled over and get a slap on the wrist and get out to do it again.”
Smart Start Ohio designed an interlock system that includes a small camera that would make it almost impossible for someone else to enable a drunken driver.
MADD said that New Mexico, the first state to pass a similar law, has seen more than an 11 percent reduction in drunken driving fatalities.
Also Read:? Pennsylvania: Proposal Mandates Ignition Interlocks for All Cars
