An Ignition Interlock In Every Car?

ryeguy-nm writes "Monday the New Mexico House of Representatives passed a bill that would require every car sold in the state to have an ignition interlock. This device is essentially a breath analyzer that prevents the car from being started if the driver is drunk. The bill would require that every new car sold be equipped with an ignition interlock by 2008 and every used car by 2009. Ignition interlocks require a breath test, which takes 30 seconds to complete, to start the car as well as random 'rolling retests' to discourage others from taking the test for you. These rolling retests require the driver to take the test as the car is moving. If the driver fails a retest, the horn sounds and the lights flash until the car is turned off. The bill's lead proponent is Dem. Ken Martinez who believes the bill is a quick fix for New Mexico's drunk driving problems. Opponents of the bill argue that it penalizes car dealerships and law abiding citizens who have never driven drunk. The bill makes no mention of who will have to pay for the device, but it will most likely be auto dealers and citizens who have to sell their cars. It seems to me that impinging upon the liberty of an entire state is a little bit too extreme. Perhaps tougher penalties and larger fines for people who actually drive drunk would be a better idea."

Part of the Problem

[vjmurphy]

I lived on or around the Navajo reservation for a long time while growing up in New Mexico. Part of the problem for communities in those areas is that alchohol was not allowed to be sold on the reservation. So, every Friday and Saturday, you had a great number of people hopping into their cars and trucks, making the 30-70 mile trek to the closest bar/liquor store.

Then those people would drink and drive that 30-70 miles back to the reservation. Trust me, you did NOT want to be on those roads at night those days.

I'm not sure this plan will help that situation at all: generally, when one is drunk and weaving in and out of the lane, having the horn and headlines turn on and off probably isn't going to stop you at that point. And on the reservation, at least, you won't be seeing that many cops on the road.

Perhaps a lot has changed since I left (I know, for example, that drive through liquor stores are no longer allowed). But I do know that there is no quick fix for the problems of drunk driving in New Mexico.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[Tassach]

Until I take it out.

A few problems with that plan:

1. It will probably be a crime to disable the device. This could turn a simple speeding ticket into a trip to the pokey.
2. New Mexico has periodic (annual, IIRC) vehicle safety inspections. If your interlock were disabled, you wouldn't get your inspection sticker and couldn't legally drive your car.
3. As you mention, interlocks now are used by court order only. This is Constitutional and reasonable. Someone needs to re-educate Mr. Martinez about the Constitution:

   Amendment V

   
   No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

A better use

[marcopo]

would be to require breath analysis for coding. that should improve source quality. And of course a "rolling retest" for every compiler warning.

While this is clearly a ludicrous proposition, increasing penalties may not be the best thing either. Various studies (which I'll have to search for) show that by a large margin the most significant deterrent to crime is the probability of being caught. This is considerably more influential than the expected penalty. Surely there are better ways of finding drunk drivers other than such silly annoying measures (e.g. more patrols looking for people who drive dangerously).

Re:Good luck trying to leave in a hurry...

[cdrudge]

Did you actually watch that episode? In case you didn't, the one guy swished around some mouthwash, he blew a .48 BAC. Note that the legal limit is .08 in most (all?) states. Now that .48 tapered down quite quickly, but it still obviously effected the results and brought in doubt as the the true accuracy of his BAC. Most likely a cop would retest after a few minutes of observation if a person belew a .48 since many wouldn't even be conscience at that level.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[phiala]

New Mexico has periodic (annual, IIRC) vehicle safety inspections. If your interlock were disabled, you wouldn't get your inspection sticker and couldn't legally drive your car.

Depends on where you are... I lived in Las Cruces for 4 years (way down south), and was never required to have my car inspected. Albuquerque/Santa Fe area does have inspections, I think. But you wouldn't believe some of the things I saw on the road in Las Cruces... cars with no hoods, no windshields, (no wipers was common)...

It's also dirt cheap for license & registration, I think $25 for registration and $18 for a licence (6 years ago).

New Mexico does have a really horrible drunk driving problem, and enforcement is just about useless (even the cops admit it). The court system is overloaded, and the worst offenders just don't pay their fines & drive without a license.

I'm glad I don't live there any more.

Re:Good luck trying to leave in a hurry...

[DivideX0]

The mythbusters episode was using mouthwash to HIDE the presence of alcohol. There are instances where mouthwash gives false positives for alcohol. This was not covered by mythbusters. In fact, some brands of mouthwash do contain alcohol such as Listermint.

life-saving?

[verrucagnome]

I have to admit that this does seem very draconian, but imagine how much good it could bring. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/imp aired_driving_pg2/NM.htm An estimated total of 18,710 crashes in New Mexico involved alcohol which killed 206 and injured an estimated 6,700 people. Alcohol is a factor in 35% of New Mexico's crash costs. he estimated cost per injured survivor of an alcohol-related crash averaged $98,000. Moreover, whilst it may seem expensive to implement, attaching an interlock to a car for a year after its operator is convicted of driving while intoxicated would reduce recidivism by an estimated 75% and alcohol-related fatalities by 7%. It would save almost $8,200 per vehicle equipped. Including equipment and case management costs, interlock costs would total approximately $990 per vehicle. The above numbers can't be easily worked into a system where *every* car had an interlock installed, but it does show that installation costs can be retrieved. I also thought that www.vv.se/traf_sak/t2000/909.pdf was interesting. It says that whilst using Ignition Interlocks on *just* the cars of those with DUI, is effective, but not ideal because 50% of these people have access to non-interlock cars within their family. Also, existing interlocks have security features to limit circumvention, e.g. by measuring CO2 concentrations to make sure it's expired human air. At the end of the day though, you might find some way around the interlock. In that case you'd just prosecute more heavily in those who'd circumvented and had an accident. On the other hand, 30 seconds to start your car is ridiculous. There's no reason this couldn't be reduced in the future. My diesel VW Golf takes about 10seconds to start. It seems to me that if this device was properly implemented it could almost eliminate the 6700 annual injuries that occur because of drunk driving, and at almost no cost to the end-user. Just my 0.02

Big Hole in Plan

[Wyatt Earp]

The Indian Reservations.

This law wouldn't apply to thier cars on or off the Reservation.

In New Mexico there are alot of them.
http://www.fema.gov/graphics/tribal/indian_ reserv_ r6.gif

Some New Mexico Background

[esm]

I live in New Mexico (Los Alamos). The ignition interlock bill is indeed moronic; it's a poorly conceived feel-good shock tactic by ignoramus politicians.

But NM does really have a high incidence of DWI. Partly because distances are enormous and there are no alternatives to driving: no bus service, no taxis, pretty much no public transportation of any kind. Partly because population density is fairly low: this results in a low probability of any given drunk-driving session resulting in a crash, so stupid people think "hey, I've driven drunk before and had no problems, I'll just keep doing it". A large part of the problem is that penalties [aol.com] are nearly nonexistent. A mild slap on the wrist.

The current legislature has just passed a measure increasing penalties: you might get 2-3 years for your seventh conviction. Whoa, that will sure get the drunks off the road! Oh, incidentally, the rules aren't always too well [santafenewmexican.com] enforced [santafenewmexican.com].

Ok... Hypothetical situation here...

[Caeda]

3 Situations actually... 1.. You take off too fast and kill the car as your pulling through an intersection... Can you restart the car and take off? Nope... gotta wait 30 seconds by which time the light has changed 1 or 2 times and everyone is staring at you, in the middle of the intersection... all because of a stupid device... 2 Your car stalls on railroad tracks... a train is coming. Thanks to this device, you cant start your car no matter what you try because theirs a 30 second start up time... 3 Your a single woman... man.. teenager... whatever, in the year 2009... Your in the parking lot, heading for your vehicle, and you notice someone is following you... You run to your car, they run after... you jump in, turn the key and... nothing... Why nothing? Because even though you have never once driven drunk, and you werent even anywhere near a place you could drink, you have to wait 30 seconds longer to start the car because someone put a stupid device into it... and so, the person who was chasing you catches up, axe murders or rapes you or otherwise, and all because they decided to fuck up a perfectly good ignition system... Sounds nice doesnt it?

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[l810c]

I've always read it as .09 Percent, which would actually be .0009. Then .9 Percent would be .009.

This must be true as I don't think we could handle anywhere near 9% alcohol in our blood.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are assuming each and everyone of us are unable to drink alcohol in a moderate way.

No, I think he was assuming that each and every one of us could recognize sarcasm. Obviously he was wrong.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[sparcv9]

I hope that you mean .09 since .9 would imply that 90% of your blood is now alcohol and you die somewhere around .4 or .5.

No, the BAC rating is grams of alcohol per deciliter of blood. If we fudge the weight of alcohol and estimate it to be the same as water, then we can equate grams with cc, giving us 100 grams of alcohol to the deciliter. A rating of .10 means a tenth of a gram per deciliter, or one tenth of one percent. Even a rating of .90 is still less than one percent.

Seeing as the average adult male has anywhere from 10 to 12 pints of blood (we'll use 10 to make the math easier), your numbers would mean that the most common legal limit (.10) is equivalent to donating a pint of blood and replacing it with a pint of pure grain alcohol! That level of BAC would do more than just make you incapable of driving a car.

If you lived here...

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in New Mexico and am happy to report the bill has been shot down and stands no chance of becoming law... this time. We have a huge problem with idiots driving drunk here and one might argue the number of alcohol related accidents cost the taxpayers plenty, so it's not the issue of additional costs involved with ignition locks being installed in all vehicles that bothers me, it's the inconvenience imposed on those of us who are law abiding citizens. If there was a system that could be implemented that would not require user participation (short of getting in the car and starting it as usual) to determine whether or not the driver is sober I would support it 100% even if it added $5,000 to the price of a vehicle. And to make it clear, when I mention our drunk driving problem I am not referring to Joe Schmoe who had a couple of drinks and is legally over the limit because I feel that by routinely lowering the blood alchohol level permitted by law we aren't doing anything to stop the real problem which is the habitual 12 pack a day people who continue to drive and end up taking innocent lives.

I install these things.. This is a stupid idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is honestly a stupid idea. I know the "bill" for the unit here in PA from a company called "CST" runs something like $700 to "rent". The units are so easy to bypass, which means without a montly check-up on these systems, there is no guarentee the unit will even be hooked up.

The other issue is the whole breathing into the thing while driving. It's honestly hard enough to blow in the unit while sitting still testing the install. The other installer I work with who puts these units in can't even breath hard enough for long enough to pass the test. Maybe it's his asthma (sp)? I can't imagine trying to breath into it while driving. It also requires you to watch the screen to see when to blow.

It does give you 4 no-blows before it toots the horn, and another 4 before the horn starts honking on and off, but it's another distraction we really don't need.

Based on everything I know about this unit, it's a hidiously stupid idea that will just cost the tax payers extra money, can be easily defeated, and in nearly all cases won't be worth it. Oh wait, then again, doesn't that sound like the typical government?

Re:Example of what the Road to Hell is Paved with

[Gabrill]

Standard vehicle inspection will be flagged to report to the court.

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

[drinkypoo]

How about, why don't they lock people up who have driven drunk and are caught driving drunk again? They're out on the street the next day. Here's some other ideas; terminate their general assistance, food stamps, etc. If that means that they're neglecting a child, you take the child away, of course. But don't punish the innocent in order to catch the guilty just because you're too lazy to address the real problem.

For your own good

[jefu]

But, but, but....

They're doing it all for your own good.

Clearly all of us are too stupid, drunk, evil or whatever to make reasonable choices for ourselves. So, they should (because they have been elected and are thereby the "voice of the people", imbued with superior wisdom, intelligence and wonderfulness) make them for all of us.

And of course we should ban the internet. Thats been on the table for years.

Just think of all the evil on the internet :
Support for terrorists
Child porn
Pirated music
Slashdot
Porn in general
Drug information
Information about elected officials that they don't control

And the list goes on and on and on. Don't forget the CDA, it comes back over and over in slightly different forms - all aimed at making sure you do the right thing.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

He means parked cars on the street. You need it in Ontario or the snowplows can't clear the streets properly.

Re:laws

[Skynyrd]

As far as I can tell, the government (Ontario) almost encourages drinking and driving. They make no effort to allow people to find out their BAC before getting in the car.

I don't need yet another thing for the government to do for me. If you aren't able to judge your ability to drink, buy a breatalizer.

Better yet, make breathalizers even more accessable than that.

You can buy a DOT certified breathalizer for about $100. A DUI in California costs about $10,000 by the time you're done with it. Hmmm. Going to have a drink now and then, don't rely on the govenrnment, do it yourself. You can also buy "go/no-go" strips for less than a dollar. Put one in your mouth and you're over/under depending on the color.

Sorry, but I hate hearing what the government should "do for us". Arrrrrggggghhhhh!!!!

the interlock isn't for everyone

[patrick.whitlock]

im originaly from atlanta, and a good friend of ming, who IS a habitual drunk driver, now has one of theese in her car. i can see some merit in the device, but the problem is, if you're chewing any kind of mint gum before you blow into this thing, the car cuts off or dosen't start. if you brush your teeth right before you leave the house... the car won't start. if you smoke a cigarette before the "test" guess what... the car cuts off or dosen't start, if they want to put theese devices in every car.. despite the extra unnessessary cost, they should really fix the technology so that someone dosen't get stranded in the middle of the interstate during morning rush hours because they diddn't spit thier gum out quickly enough.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[cayenne8]

If I get pulled over...and am tanked...I'm just refusing any tests! I'll just have them cuff me and take me in. If you take the field tests...all that does is give them evidence. They can't force you to give blood. So, yes, you'll lose your license for a year in most cases...possibly get 'wreckless driving', BUT it is still better than getting a DWI. And in most cases, especially with first offense...you can get a temp driving permit to allow you to go to work, grocery store..etc.

Re:laws

[Anthony Boyd]

Here is my problem with the ten commandments- why exactly are there 10?

You simply do not need ten.

In the New Testament, Jesus condensed them all down to one: act only out of love.

Re: Devices

[blahtree]

Although I agree with most of your points, there is a reason there are stricter laws for minors. I was reading an article the other day that said that alcohol affects inexperienced drivers *much* more than experienced drivers. Even mild intoxication and inexperience can be a dangerous combination.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[enrayged]

I'm not saying I support this. That is a whole different issue. It sounds more expensive cars and ignition systems that are even more of a bitch to work on. If Mexico wants to give it a try, maybe we can watch and learn and decide whether or not it's effective and should be used elsewhere

Thats NEW MEXICO you insensitive clod... which is a state of the USA. We are not Mexico, Mexico is a totally different country. Yes we share a border with Mexico, but that dosent Make us Mexico, even tho we are New Mexico and it does sound the same, and is the same except we are newer. So remember... New Mexico is one of the 50 states of the union.

Yeah, I have lived here all my life and it really iritates me when others dont realize we are part of the United States, esp when you get mail held up in Washington DC for not having international postage paid...(yes that has really happened to me once)

Ray