backtop


Print 23 comment(s) - last by Qapa.. on Dec 16 at 7:50 AM


Ignition Interlock
Study finds drunk drivers of the number one cause for fatal wrong-way driving accidents

A recent study by the National Transportation Safety Board on wrong-way driving crashes cited alcohol-impaired driving as the leading cause of collisions. As a result of the study, the NTSB is now recommending that all first-time offender DWI drivers be required to have an ignition interlock installed on their vehicle. Currently, only 17 states require interlocks to be installed for first-time offenders.
 
These interlocks require the offender to blow into a chamber that is able to detect if they've been drinking.

"The first step to address the number one killer on our roadways is to do what is proven to be effective - use interlocks for all DWI offenders," said NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman.

The board has also strongly endorsed the continued development of passive alcohol detection technology to help prevent drunken driving. One such device is the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety -- it would prevent drunk drivers from operating vehicles by detecting alcohol on the driver's breath using breath analyzing and touch-based sensors.

In addition to methods designed to weed out drunken drivers, the report also recommends better lighting, enhanced signage and roadway markings, and GPS devices to provide warnings to drivers if they are traveling the wrong way on a road.

The NTSB also says that older drivers are more commonly involved in wrong-way collisions and is asking states to implement comprehensive older driver safety programs.
 
We reported earlier this year that France was requiring all of its citizens to possess a handheld breathalyzer in their vehicles.

Source: NTSB





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Seems kind of excessive for first-time offenders
By 91TTZ on 12/12/2012 11:07:01 AM , Rating: 4
I think that a lot of people get a DWI due to youth and/or carelessness. They think it can't happen to them. Usually after they get nabbed once they're cautious for the rest of their lives.

The people who actually have a drinking problem tend to get more than one DWI. I think it's excessive to require this for first-time offenders. If you're going to claim that "all it takes is once", then really you'd be in favor of having that installed in ALL cars, since you'd be able to prevent that first time. But that would be treating everyone like they have a problem and it would cost too much. I think it would make more sense to require it after the 2nd or 3rd offense.




By Flunk on 12/12/2012 11:55:19 AM , Rating: 4
I don't know about that, it's possible that some people will get caught the first time they ever drive drunk but I think that isn't the most likely case. Most people who get caught for a DWI drive drunk on a regular basis, there is a gap between actual drunk driving and enforcement. The cops can't catch everyone.

I'm not sure I agree on the first offense thing either, but the cops can only catch so many people and people need to think long an hard before getting behind the wheel. Have I had too much to drink?


By millerm277 on 12/12/2012 12:49:06 PM , Rating: 2
I'll disagree, because I do think it warrants being treated with seriousness.

But what I don't see in here, is any suggestion of how long a person should be required to have a interlock after a DUI. I'd be fine with 5 years or something like that, but mandating it for the rest of someone's life is absurd.


By ebakke on 12/12/2012 1:28:08 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I think that a lot of people get a DWI due to youth and/or carelessness. They think it can't happen to them. Usually after they get nabbed once they're cautious for the rest of their lives.
Yeah, except it only takes one careless decision to end (or severely alter) someone else's life.


By Jeffk464 on 12/12/2012 2:29:51 PM , Rating: 2
There was talk of putting passive sensors in cars like in the dash or headliner that would pick up intoxication. Not a bad idea to put on every car if its not obnoxious technology like the one in the picture.


By marvdmartian on 12/12/2012 3:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it's not as though it's exactly foolproof, either!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjMyzH124DQ


By Randomblame on 12/12/2012 4:02:19 PM , Rating: 2
The court costs alone are enough to prevent future incidents usually an ignition interlock requirement on first time offenders is a life ruiner for those who weren't born with a silver spoon those things are so dammed expensive. One stupid mistake and people will not be able to drive for years and because most first time offenders are young and just starting out they may never financially recover. The current system of requiring alcaholism evaluations and paying fines and scaring them with some jail time is usually more than adequate. I'm nervous about what Washington and Colorado are going to do about DWI with the new weed legality that's going to cause some issues


RE: Seems kind of excessive for first-time offenders
By ebakke on 12/12/2012 5:49:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
One stupid mistake and people will not be able to drive for years and because most first time offenders are young and just starting out they may never financially recover.
How about the people hit by first-time drunk drivers who will never physically recover, because, well.. they're dead.


By Randomblame on 12/12/2012 8:10:04 PM , Rating: 3
That's not what this will prevent this is to prevent repeat offences


RE: Seems kind of excessive for first-time offenders
By ebakke on 12/12/2012 8:11:42 PM , Rating: 2
Take away their license after the first offense.


RE: Seems kind of excessive for first-time offenders
By kfonda on 12/12/2012 11:52:12 PM , Rating: 2
I still think they should seize the car for forfeiture. This will be far more effective than taking their license. More people drive without a license than without a car :-)


By ebakke on 12/13/2012 11:13:47 AM , Rating: 2
The government has no right to seize my assets. They may take away the privileges I enjoy, such as driving, but they shouldn't be able to just take my car.

Take the license. If they're driving with a revoked license, that's a separate crime with a separate punishment (put them in jail).


By Qapa on 12/16/2012 7:50:39 AM , Rating: 2
I'd go with middle ground... Something along the lines of:

"You must have a breathalyzer if you are caught with 0.2, otherwise you'd pay a fine"

This takes care of the biggest problem of the people who really want to be safe but don't really know the relationship of what they drunk to the alcohol in the blood.

It also takes care that whomever doesn't drink _ever_ don't need to buy it, and can still eat some chocolate with some alcohol or something like that, and be safe.

After this one, than one in the news might also help...


By drycrust3 on 12/12/2012 5:33:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
A recent study by the National Transportation Safety Board on wrong-way driving crashes cited alcohol-impaired driving as the leading cause of collisions. As a result of the study, the NTSB is now recommending that all first-time offender DWI drivers be required to have an ignition interlock installed on their vehicle.

I think that people who drive the wrong way down a street have been drinking heavily. These people would also be going through red lights, not stopping at stop signs, hitting poles on the side of the road, have trouble going around corners, swiping parked cars, have difficulty seeing the lights go green, can't dip their headlights to oncoming traffic, etc.
I think to specifically target first time offenders is wrong, it should be the repetitive offenders, the 10th time before the courts people, the people that are actually criminals because next morning there is damage to the car (or truck, as in the case of the vehicle that wrote off the car I was driving) they drove and they are vague about how it got there (while down the road is someone with an unexpected bill to pay, and no way to prove who did the damage), and they are the ones that need this stuff, not some young man or young lady who drank a bit over the limit and then got caught driving mum's car home.




By ebakke on 12/12/2012 5:48:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think to specifically target first time offenders is wrong, it should be the repetitive offenders, the 10th time before the courts people, the people that are actually criminals
First time offenders are criminals too. They didn't have offensive body odor; they engaged in a criminal offense.


By drycrust3 on 12/12/2012 7:22:07 PM , Rating: 2
But why pick out the first time offenders as being worse than the repetitive offenders?


By ebakke on 12/12/2012 7:41:37 PM , Rating: 2
Let's not. Let's also not pick out alcohol, or pot, or texting, or ... as being worse than anything else. Let's punish them all equally. If you can't handle driving safely, you don't get the privilege of traveling on our roads. Simple as that.


By V-Money on 12/12/2012 4:24:53 PM , Rating: 2
I don't condone drinking and driving in any way, but not everyone with a DUI is a careless monster trying to kill others around them. But lets talk some numbers in this propaganda parade this clown is spewing...

quote:
A recent study by the National Transportation Safety Board on wrong-way driving crashes cited alcohol-impaired driving as the leading cause of collisions.


That is pretty bad, 60% are alcohol related. Notice they don't expand what alcohol related means (i.e. if I drink one beer and speed at twice the limit and kill someone, they count it as alcohol related). They also don't really mention that there are on average 265 wrong way fatal accidents a year...out of over 30,000 fatal accidents a year. That is a whopping <1% of all accidents, so obviously we need to act swiftly because of this one study. Here are the links if you would like to see the numbers yourself.

http://www.mynews4.com/media/lib/167/1/e/8/1e86005...

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

An interesting thing to note is that 15% of wrong way collisions are caused by people aged over 70, so I feel we should take away peoples licences when they get old too.

In all seriousness though, I am against drunk driving but the way we are handling it these days is ridiculous. Not everyone who has a slightly elevated BAC deserves to have their lives completely ruined, yet the ones who are irresponsible and do it on a regular basis should be beaten and jailed.

I am living in DC area now and I just moved from wine country where it is a challenge to find someone with a BAC under the limit, yet I felt much safer driving there with the drunkards than I do here any day of the week, because it turns out that driving skills are also important. I will approve of this type of punishment just as soon as they also push for laws taking away peoples cell phone rights for a month when texting and driving and when they just remove the privilege of driving for this whole damn state.

In other news, suicide just took over as the number one cause of injury death. http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20120920/s...




By ebakke on 12/12/2012 5:57:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't condone drinking and driving in any way, but not everyone with a DUI is a careless monster trying to kill others around them.
They may not be monsters, but they absolutely are careless. And risking the lives of those around them. You can sugar coat it however you'd like, but at the end of the day an intoxicated driver is making an incredibly selfish decision and choosing his convenience over the risk to someone else's life. It's that simple. Same is true of those sending text messages, or doing other distracting activities.
quote:
An interesting thing to note is that 15% of wrong way collisions are caused by people aged over 70, so I feel we should take away peoples licences when they get old too.
We should take licenses away from anyone who has proven themselves unable or unwilling to safely share the road with everyone else. I don't care if you were drunk, if you were txting, or if you just plain suck at driving - your reason for destroying my property or killing me is irrelevant.
quote:
yet the ones who are irresponsible and do it on a regular basis
Doing it once is irresponsible.


Why is this a federal issue?
By Rukkian on 12/13/2012 3:31:35 PM , Rating: 2
While I don't neccessarily have a problem with requiring interlocks, this really should not come from the federal government. It is not a federal offense. If a state wants to have the law, then great, let them.




RE: Why is this a federal issue?
By euclidean on 12/13/2012 4:31:54 PM , Rating: 2
This is not a federal law. It's a recommendation. Meaning, they're recommending to the states who craft their laws the direction they should take based on studies, statistics, etc.


pointless
By chromal on 12/12/2012 3:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
I never really saw the point of breathalyzer Interlocks. If someone's okay with driving drunk, they're certainly okay with a simple interlock electrical override switch hidden under their dash somewhere. What purpose does it serve?




By SanAntoniaRose on 12/12/2012 9:09:46 PM , Rating: 2
First and foremost, I understand the devastation drunk drivers have caused.

I also understand my rights under the Constitution. You are innocent until proven guilty.

Here in San Antonio Tx, part of your bond, even before your day in court, first time offenders are required to have interlock.

There lies my problem....

Innocent until proven guilty.

The government involved in ANYTHING is a fiasco.




“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs













botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki