Convicted NY Drunk Drivers Need Ignition Interlocks 911
pickens writes "Starting yesterday in New York state, anyone sentenced for felony or misdemeanor DWI, whether a first-time or repeat offender, will have to install an ignition interlock in any vehicle they own or operate. The interlock contains a breath-checking unit that keeps the car from starting if the offender's blood-alcohol level registers 0.025 or higher, a little less than one-third of the legal limit. 'The addition of ignition interlocks will save lives in New York state,' says State Probation Director Robert Maccarone, who led the team that wrote the regulation. 'It's been proven in other states. New Mexico realized a 37 percent reduction in DWI recidivism.' Whether that will be enough to persuade more people to take a cab or find a designated driver is unknown. 'It's one more thing to make people think, it may help — it may keep a few people from getting behind the wheel,' says Onondaga County Sheriff Kevin Walsh."
1/3rd the limit? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok... I'm fairly ambivalent to whether such ignition locks are a good idea or not, but this part strikes me as odd:
"The interlock contains a breath-checking unit that keeps the car from starting if the offender's blood-alcohol level registers 0.025 or higher, a little less than one-third of the legal limit."
Exactly why can't you drive a vehicle in situations when it would be entirely legal to operate it? If you have a dui, is the legal limit for driving lowered for some reason that I'm not aware of.
Couldn't you (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The expense of the interlock... (Score:5, Interesting)
One thing I am learning over and over from anyone who seriously rides motorcycles is that even one drink is enough to lower reaction time and impair your thought processes. Why shouldn't this also be something that is applied to ANY motor vehicle is beyond me. But - I can also understand being out and about and having a drink. Say at a sporting event or even just a good wine with dinner. The key here is make sure you know how much you're consuming and WAIT enough time for your body to get rid of it before you start up any machine that could kill you or others.
I see plenty of things while riding that make me cringe - yea, you're good, wearing a helmet and all - but you aren't wearing anything else but sneakers, shorts and a wife beater. Yea, your head will be fine.....
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is done to prevent someone sober from starting the car and then having someone drunk drive the car away. If you get someone else to start your car who is sober, and then halfway through your ride, while you are drunk, your car stops and forces you to prove you are sober, you cannot proceed from that point because you are drunk. You'd need someone sober in the car at that point to restart the car, and if someone is sober in the car, the odds are likely that that person will be the driver. It actually makes perfect sense.
Re:1/3rd the limit? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know that I totally agree with it, it just is part of the gig. I guess another way to look at it probation is almost like being in jail without the guards, steel bars and bad food (well maybe not the last one, I guess). You still have the system up your ass.
Re:To Answer Logistic Questions (Score:1, Interesting)
. where do we draw the line?
Every time you get into a car drunk and endanger other innocent people on the road. Exactly how many times am I supposed to let your old girlfriend try to kill me and/or my family before we crack down?
Oh I hear you man. Now that you put it that way and appealed to my emotion of my old girlfriend endangering your family, I am pissed. But you know what's really gone unchecked? Texting while driving is as bad or worse than drinking and driving [cnbc.com]. You know what I think should be instituted on the first offense? Lose your license for a year and you should have to have a device that verifies no cell phones are in the car before you start and periodically check while you operate it. And you should have to pay for that just like the Interlock device.
Listen, there's a happy medium here. And every year it seems like the legal limit gets lower or the first offense ranges get lowered. All I'm asking is how low those limits are going to go before you're okay with it.
Fine, you can't argue with MADD, hell, you can't even reason with them and if you're fine with the above impositions on driving then you'll be fine with cops taking away licenses when they see a woman doing her hair in her car or applying lipstick or texting/talking on a cell phone. Because all of those things endanger you and your family to some degree. They're just not as sinful as drinking.
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, I had to drive a friend's car around with one of these as a favor (getting the breathalyzer rechecked monthly or something while they were on vacation - pretty strict). While I didn't mind it at start-up, it was downright dangerous while driving. The intervals didn't seem random at all, it was always 5 minutes apart, and it gave you like 10 second window to start the test or it would report a failure to the authorities. So the whole pull-over and test is bullshit, whenever it beeped, whether it was on a curve or straight-away or heavy traffic, I had to sit there and breath as hard into it as possible while still paying attention to it. Imo, whatever the brand name of the device was, it was a terroristic little thing not suited for safe-driving at all.
BTW, I think the idea is good in theory, just the particular implementation I had was stupid, at least 2 minute should be given to pull over, and it should beep and light up like Vegas just because of 10 seconds coming and going.
Of course, I wasn't used to this car, it was a manual on top of that, something I don't drive often, which may have made it harder than it seemed.
Re:Wait... (Score:3, Interesting)
Or the driver's kid.
There are some areas where stop and restart. (Score:3, Interesting)
There are some areas where the needing to at random times to stop the car and restart. Is not that safe or easy to do.
Also what about valet parking? Need to kill it and restart the car or the valet can go to jail for starting the car?
And why are the monthly fees + install why can you just buy this? What about the day when car comes with this build in?
Re:Wait... (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's not pretend that the increasingly rigid and unthinking drunk-driving regulations are about the endangerment of others. We're looking at puritanical prohibition masked by reasonless application of rigid standards, leveraging inaccurate measurement devices.
I'm not suggesting that people should drive drunk (and I definitely don't drive after having anything more than a glass of wine with dinner, as cabs are comparatively cheap), but we need to take a step back any time there is a mandatory penalty and look at how this limits the latitude of the judiciary to impose fair and just punishments. Make tools available to judges. Don't make them mandatory.
MADD won years ago. They should change their name to Mothers Against Drinking to more accurately reflect their policy recommendations.
Re:Uhhh...what? (Score:3, Interesting)
A few years ago I looked into this. I was going to Seattle to visit someone and we were thinking of driving up to Vancouver. I had a DWAI a handful of years back, and I somehow came across the fact that this might prevent me from entering at the border.
After reading what others have said, what I gather is that it all comes down to the discretion of the border guard. If they feel like running your name, they can. Not that they will, but it's their choice. If they run your name and see you have a conviction they don't like, then it is also at their discretion whether or not they let you in.
Someone I know who has had multiple DWAI convictions crosses the border regularly for business. Where he crosses is more rural, so maybe that has something to do with it.
Re:Amen (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was in school someone distributed DAMM stickers. That's Drunks Against Mad Mothers. I laughed but apparently the faculty found it a hanging offense or somesuch.
Re:The expense of the interlock... (Score:2, Interesting)
Funny, but they are able to reason just fine before they start drinking. People don't start drinking randomly, it's not a surprise night to get drunk where you just find yourself at a bar with a beer in your hand. If you can plan enough to set foot in a bar, you can plan enough to have a ride home. If you don't want to be stranded if your ride ditches you, then have a backup plan such as a cab. There is no reason for driving drunk, but there are plenty of excuses.
Re:To Answer Logistic Questions (Score:5, Interesting)
In rural America the only way to get around is by personal vehicle. Granted, that doesn't excuse a drunk driver, but there aren't always buses or trains or even taxi cabs out in the middle of nowhere. You must find a sober driver to get you home. A few years ago (and still may be true in some areas) it wasn't unheard of for a police officer to give drunks a ride home.
Re:The expense of the interlock... (Score:3, Interesting)
Then again, I don't know too many assholes who weave in and out of traffic back and forth in large cars.
One time on my morning drive a half-ton came out of nowhere behind me. He swerved around and sped off not two seconds later. I remember thinking this guy was going to get himself killed. About two minutes down the highway I watched the truck careen through the air and land upside down in the ditch. He hit an ammonia trailer being pulled by a half-ton that had just turned onto the highway. I did my due diligence and called 911 but he was already dead by the time he landed.
Another time I was behind two semis, one passing the other. A van pulling a trailer came rushing by in the left lane, decided the first semi wasn't passing the first one fast enough and swerved from the left lane into the right shoulder to pass both of them. He must have forgotten he was pulling a trailer because he clipped the front end of the semi when he swerved back into the right lane. No one was hurt, but I couldn't believe what I'd seen.
The more time you spend on the highway the more assholes you'll see.
I see guys on crotch-rockets take incredibly insane risks at 100+ mph weaving in and out of traffic or sliding up and down on/off ramps or wheeling through the breakdown lanes all the fucking time.
If you look closely you'll notice you rarely see the same ones do it twice.
Re:The expense of the interlock... (Score:2, Interesting)
It's only a matter of time before the same punishment is inflicted on the children and grandchildren of anyone with a DWI - after all, alcoholism runs in families. We seem to have no limits to our willingness to inflict lifetime punishments on people who cross certain lines these days; it's very disturbing.
Re:To Answer Logistic Questions (Score:3, Interesting)
But you know what's really gone unchecked? Texting while driving is as bad or worse than drinking and driving [cnbc.com].
And therefore we should be softer on drunk drivers.
Yes, that logic is truly brilliant. Well done!
We should be consistent. Don't be extra-hard on people who are approaching being drunk just because being drunk is something low-class people do. Have the same deterrent for everything with the same level of endangerment.
BAC in a certain (low) range, talking with a hands-free phone, going 5-15 mph faster than traffic, eating "clean" foods (bagel etc)... all the same minor deterrent. BAC in a higher range, texting or maybe using a handheld phone, eating messy food (that require more attention), going 20+ mph faster than traffic... all the same higher deterrent. Going 40+ mph faster than traffic, being seriously drunk, falling asleep at the wheel... all some even more higher deterrent.
Re:Wait... (Score:4, Interesting)
There are no standards and no safety compliance labs that examine those devices. As far as I'm concerned, those devices are safety critical and should undergo testing similar to safety critical medical devices.
The way it is, it's pretty much a free-for-all. The peddlers, um, vendors of those devices are in the same league as school textbook publishers [textbookleague.org]. They do absolutely shittiest job that'll pass the scrutiny of a bunch of incompetents. And no, increasing the number of incompetents so as to get more ratings to average from doesn't increase the quality of the average. It's still shitty.
I'm all for such devices, but what you claim is par for the course, and unless there is strict regulation, and obligatory regulatory compliance, things won't change. Same applies to breathalyzers and their crapload of code. Oh, and voting machines too.
My DUI (Score:5, Interesting)
I myself got a DUI three years ago. First time offense, I had my license taken away for a year and if I wanted it back that second year I would have had to go with an interlock device. I decided to forgo driving another year to bother with the costs of the device and by that second year I had already adjusted my lifestyle to accommodate not driving.
I don't begrudge anyone but myself, I even thanked the officer who stopped me (two blocks from my house going to the gas station late at night to pick up some snacks, stopped due to headlight out). I'm glad I got stopped because as everyone already knows that was the first time I got caught, not the first time I had risked going to the store after some drinks like that.
I had to pay a large fine, I had to attend education classes, a victims panel and I had to meet with a diversion officer once a month for a year. It changed my life. I was lucky to afford the large costs, I know it would've completely broken a lot of other people.
I also believe that people who text and talk on phones while driving should be held to the same standard as DUI. People who are morally outraged about DUIs do not bother me, but the ones who are morally outraged and then don't bat an eye when they reveal to me they text all the time while driving make me stabby.
Re:Uhhh...what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Interestingly, though, I'll point out the statistics that say that young males up to ~25 are the MOST likely to die in a car accident, despite their "reflexes" - why? Because they drive more aggressively, and are more prone to risk-taking. By that measure, the 50+ people who have 30 years of driving experience are demonstrably safer, despite your claims that their reflexes are worse.
It's not always about reflexes. Sometimes it's about having the experience to know how to respond to a situation (e.g., turning into a skid), and older drivers are more likely to have that wisdom.
But for the record, I would support mandatory license re-testing in order to renew a license, as well - you must pass a basic skills test every few years to maintain your license, regardless of your age.
Re:To Answer Logistic Questions (Score:1, Interesting)
"Every time you get into a car drunk"
When did .08 BAC mean drunk? Hell, does it fit YOUR definition of drunk? Have you tested yourself at a .08 BAC? Read the literature?
Oh, yeah, right, I forgot. You're one of the brainwashed.
After all, what is your standard of innocent? What is your definition of safe? Probably no risk.
You know the times I've been driven off or nearly off the road? I once fell asleep out of nowhere (it was very late, but not late for me, I was tired, but not sleep tired, not dosing off, I just wham fell asleep for 5 seconds). The other times were aggressive asshole drivers passing or cutting me or someone upfront.
I've never had a DUI. I've never had a problem drinking. I've had 4-5 drinks over the past 5 years, including 1 at a wedding reception (outside of sipping 95% ethanol as mouthwash, where a .75L takes me 2 years to use). Since 22.5yo, I never drink more than 1 drink in a day's time. I started drinking when I was 22yo. When I was 22yo, I drank my senior year in college, and never had access to a car.
I've 35yo now. I've been pulled over for suspected DUI twice, one called in my an aggressive driver stating I was drunk because he was pissed, the 2nd by an officer who was looking for DUIers. I also was pulled over for what I think was a DUI but that was changed to speeding (I wasn't), and I've been separately tested for DUI because I *called in* a drunk (passenger, not driver) who threw a beer bottle onto the hood of my car (because the officer smelled alcohol). I also failed the latter's preliminary test, because the officer apparently had a little habit of cheating, which you pulled on me, but never went to the secondary test because she knew it wouldn't stand.
"endanger other innocent people on the road."
Is that your pitiful standard? Then get the FUCK off the road. You have no business driving. Same with your precious family. Driving has risks. You have no right to go after DUIers if you do not minimize in kind ALL risk just as strongly. I read police blotters--drunk driving is up there, but what is also amazing is the number of accidents that are not caused by drunks, which are greater in number. You don't have the right to drive your car when it rains. You don't have the right to go out when there's high wind. When there's gravel on the ground. When it snows, hails, or sleets. You're putting other people at risk by being there. If you are sleeping, if you have a cell phone, if you have a computer.
btw2, I live on a busy street. We have accidents here all the time--houses hit (yes, houses), landscaping damaged, cars in middle of yards. Do you know of the 30 or so accidents just along this stretch in the last 5 years, how many was from a drunk? One. The rest have been from inattentive drivers, speeders, jousters (line-riders that meet) and, most of all, bad weather.
So keep thinking you're safe. There needs to be a level standard of safety, not going after a group because of your anti-alcohol ideals. Plenty of accidents have been caused by bad driving, equipment failure, unmaintained equipment, old drivers, teen drivers, texters, soccer moms on phones, etc. Where are their damn devices?
Re:That's a mighty tall horse you've got there... (Score:2, Interesting)
As for you're glass of wine, I sure won't cry for you (I think I'd have myself a good laugh instead) when you have to spend thousands just to get to work: