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...


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki