Ignition locks work, but will politics prevent implementation?
By JR Hoeft | Sunday, February 8th, 2009 | Policy
Christina Nuckols writes an op-ed today praising Del. Sal Iaquinto’s efforts to install ignition locks on vehicles belonging to convicted drunk drivers. The bill, which has support of the Mother’s Against Drunk Drivers, was reported out of committee with only one dissenting vote (Del. Ken Melvin, Democrat representing Norfolk and Portsmouth) of 22 cast, and is likely to pass the House with perhaps as many as 80 votes, is still probably DOA in the Senate.
Given that Democrats are often calling for trigger locks on hand guns, it is strange that they would suddenly oppose installing locks on another killing device (and one which does far more fatal damage than guns every year) – especially given the broad bipartisan appeal of the bill.
The bill says that a lock is installed on a vehicle belonging to a convicted drunk driver for a period of six months. The lock has a built in breathalyzer which prevents the vehicle from starting if the driver blows a 0.02 or higher (and also causes the horn to sound and lights to flash). This prevents the driver from driving drunk again, but it also keeps them out of jail and allows them to continue to live their lives – hopefully as contributing members of society.
Given Democrats recent desire to let felons out of jail early to save money, you would think this bill would be a no-brainer.
One has to wonder whether this has more to do with ensuring Democrats get credit for such a bill or whether they actually want to keep drunk drivers on the roadways?
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
Comments
14 Responses to "Ignition locks work, but will politics prevent implementation?"
The Governor, Lt Governor, Attorney General and Commissioner of ABC support the bill.
Right on, Jim. Unlike gun rights, driving privileges are not constitutionally guaranteed. The former can (and should be lost) for felons. it does seem a little silly to defend the right of drunk drivers to start their cars — a far more deadly instrument for someone under the influence than a gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen.
We should all let our Senators know that we want them to support legislation that will actually keep drunks off the road.
Only problem I would have with it would be with the 0.02 limit to be set on the ignition lock. The drunk driver might not be the only driver of the vehicle in the family.
If Daddy got the DUI, and then Momma has even a single glass of wine with dinner and tries to start the car? Let’s see, not only will the vehicle not start (for a legal and not drunk driver) but the horn will sound and the lights will flash.
Now if the limit was set at 0.08 (the legal limit) then even Momma shouldn’t be driving at that point and this would be more acceptable to me.
For those unaware, someone with low body weight (like me) risks blowing a 0.08 after only two cans of beer depending on how quickly it is drank. After even a single slowly sipped can of beer I’d blow a 0.02.
It’s meant to be painful, LD. It’s a punishment. After a DUI, no one should be driving after drinking…regardless of how little they’ve had.
J.R.,
But many families only have one vehicle. Why should Mommy be punished alongside Daddy? Mommy might be the new found designated driver, but she is not allowed to drink a single glass of wine.
Punish the guilty, not the innocent.
0.02 is ridiculous. You might as well set the limit at 0.00. Oh, I guess they are trying to allow for if you took cough medicine or used mouth wash.
You can probably see this already. Wouldn’t surprise me if D legislators (and Rs too) occasionally drink and drive. Its the same reason why it will never be a serious crime to drink and drive. Too many politicos do it.
Hey guys, gotta go.
I’m on the road making a living. I happened upon this free WiFi with a few minutes to spare. This is a rare for me while on the road. I still gotta get some sleep tonight and still have another website I want to visit.
God bless y’all.
P.S. this is huge for me to support this as a libertarian. The difference between this and smoking ban is there are plenty of bars/resturants and other places you can go if you don’t like smoke. Everyone shares the public road and its a private place of business.
Which raises the interesting question. What if the private greenway in Loudoun wanted to allow drinking and driving.
David, breaking the law can lead to some things that are damn inconvenient.
If a spouse wants to whine that she can’t drive after wine because of her DUI husband, maybe she can talk to the families of people who were killed by drunk drivers and explain how inconvenient it is.
“What if the private greenway in Loudoun wanted to allow drinking and driving.”
I imagine the private owners who decided to allow it would be the target of a pretty big lawsuit when someone is killed by a drink driver on the road.
Jim,
Thanks for the post. This is an important bill and I truly hope the Senate Courts of Justice Committee will pass it. If anyone supports this bill please contact the Senate members of the Courts of Justice committee. 12 States currently have this law in effect.
I want to be clear about this bill. It only applies if you are convicted of a DUI. We currently mandate an interlock after a first offense if you have a BAC of .15 or greater. My bill will make it mandatory for first offense DUI from .08 and up. The evidence shows that, in 1996, one forth of the fatalities from drinking and driving occurred with people who had a BAC of .08 to .14. Also keep in mind that the person only has the interlock on the car for 6 months! If they don’t violate the provisions of having an interlock on the car during that period it is removed.
For those of you who say that people who have one car will make it embarrassing because the spouse or teenager will have to blow into the device to use the vehicle are probably correct. I imagine that embarrassment is much better than killing someone.
The purpose of the bill is to keep people from repeat drinking and driving. In New Mexico, where they have enacted this law they saw a 60 percent reduction in repeat offenders.
The real question is: Does anyone doubt the effectiveness of the interlocks on vehicles? Even the people who don’t support this bill agree that the interlocks work.
Ignition locks work – let’s get the law in place to implement a regime.
[...] lately; increased participation has made it more important than ever to gain as sporting event or game as possible. When a sound method sports betting, the most important part is learning how much money [...]
I am a DWI court monitor for MADD in N.C. and it’s rediculous at those that
get away with it.In Boone some of the attorney”s try to turn it around and lay the blame on the officer for doing their job.It’s time the law helps the law and not the criminal.A case got dismissed due to a mess up with a fax machine.Had to do with a mutual aid agreement.The right person never recieved the fax.Another time was when an officer from another jurisdiction was hepling out at a DWI checkpoint sponsored by local law enforcement and he made a proper arrest but it was dismissed because the mutual aid agreement was said to not be in place and it was. You better believe interlocks would save lives and make attorney’s lose money
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.