New Tech Push Against Drunken Driving

MADD Seeks Spread Of Ignition Interlocks That Prevent Driving With High Blood Alcohol Levels

(CBS)  You have a few drinks, climb behind the wheel of your car, turn the key and — nothing. The engine doesn't turn over, the car doesn't move.

If Mothers Against Drunk Driving has its way, a device that checks a driver's alcohol levels will be mandatory in cars owned by anyone ever convicted of drunk driving, and, eventually, every automobile.

New Mexico already has such a law.

MADD, backed by a national association of state highway officials and car manufacturers, is announcing a campaign to change drunken driving laws in the other 49 states to require such devices for first-time offenders.

"We'll focus on that problem of separating the drunk driver from the vehicle," MADD president Glynn Birch told CBS Radio News.

About 13,000 people die each year in automobile crashes in which a driver was legally drunk. But the threat of arrest and punishment, for decades the primary tactic against drunken drivers, is no longer working.

"We've seen no progress in 10 years; we're completely stalled," Susan A. Ferguson, a researcher at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, told The New York Times.

The Times reports that California alone has about a million people driving with suspended or revoked licenses, according to Governors Highway Safety Association chairman Christopher J. Murphy.

Still, various groups and the federal Department of Transportation were announcing an enforcement campaign against drunken drivers. According to The Times, the Bush administration also is expected to announce its support for research into the devices, although it has not yet decided whether to push for wider adoption of New Mexico's approach.

There are nearly 1.5 million drunken driving arrests last year, but only 100,000 ignition interlocks are currently in use, so even tagging first offenders isn't really enough, says MADD.

"Generally, it's been proven that they will drive an estimated 88 times before they're caught the very first time for their first offense," Birch said.

Many states already require the ignition interlock devices for people who have been convicted several times. New Mexico, as of last year, is the only state to require them for first offenders. With that tactic and others, the state saw an 11.3 percent decrease in alcohol-related fatalities last year — and the rule only went into effect in mid-June.

"It is an integral part of our success," Gov. Bill Richardson told The Times.

Other states saw even greater decreases after requiring the interlocks.

"There are going to be different types of technology, such as trans-dermal detection that will have sensors to detect the blood alcohol level of an individual before he starts the car, so it doesn't allow the car to start," said Birch.

Another system has a Breathalyzer tube that the driver must blow into before starting the car, The Times reports. A third detects that a car is weaving down the road, and possible driven by an impaired driver.

"Biometric detection or identification will work like a thumbprint to identify and also give us an idea of who the driver is," Birch said.

Ferguson of the IIHS said the best systems will work automatically, without the need for the driver to submit to a test — or come up with ways to circumvent it.

"We don't want the soccer mom dropping kids off, going to the grocery store and the preschool, and having to blow into something every time," she said.

Those systems might eventually test all drivers, whether or not they have ever been convicted of drunken driving.

Both automobile manufacturers and liquor companies, through their trade associations, support ignition interlocks to some extent. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers helped a New Mexico task force establish that state's program, and favors the early use of the devices.

The Century Council, representing distillers, says it favors the New Mexico approach for first offenders, but only those caught with blood-alcohol levels far above the legal threshold.

[usawatchman]

maybe people who are thinking of joining MADD
should have their head examined..
... for control issues..

[-hh]

My thanks to the poster who posted the NHSA link

(page 100, table 65)
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAnn/TSF2005EE.pdf

This data shows that the #1 attributable cause of death is failure to stay in lane/leaving road.

Our family took a driving class in WV this past summer: the instructors normally teach FBI, Secret Service, Diplomats, etc.

The training instructor told us that the #1 cause of accidents are people who overreact to minor problems, with particular emphasis on putting two wheels onto the shoulder: the normal reaction is to panic and hurry to get back on the road, so they JERK the wheel, but because you're on dirt, response is fairly slow ... but when the vehicle gets back onto the pavement, the tires grip and the vehicle goes into oversteer ... and then goes flying across the lanes and into oncoming traffic.

The primary victims? Young, inexperienced drivers is the one group. The second are Adults driving SUV's (which typically flip over).

Watch your local newspaper for the next week: in most metropolitan areas, someone will die on one of the roads you drive by this driver-caused error very soon: probably this very weekend.

Its not a DWI problem: it is poor driver training.

And here's the Holiday Gift suggestion for your loved ones on this very subject:

http://www.bsr-inc.com/AAS.HTM

IMO, its well worth the time and cost.


-hh

[-hh]

The fines are already quite steep - - as too are those NM interlocks ($75/month!). The problem is the "it can%u2019t happen to me" mentality, along with a lack of *reasonable* alternatives if one thinks that he%u2019s a bit marginal (ie, the USA has a very poor public transit system). The result is that people choose to take the risk behind the wheel - - and usually, they get home safely without incident.

Statistically, a large percentage of DWI%u2019s are First Offenders, so what do we do to motivate - OUR - behavior preemptively, to remove all temptation to ever take the risk? That%u2019s not a technology question; it's a driver training question.

The problem with DWI is that its an easy target (Politically Correct), so let's change the framework of the discussion: since most people will agree with the notion of "Speed Kills", how do you feel about putting a GPS and highway database in every automobile, slaved into the electronic controls so that it is impossible for anyone to ever exceed the speed limit?

This would undoubtedly save lives, but are you really willing to have your next car cost $2000 more for this as a mandated feature?

If the answer is No, but you've already endorsed any of the DWI honesty machines, congratulations! You've just identified yourself as a hypocrite.

Hope this uncomfortable illustration helps people to really see the underlying issue here.

-hh

[rf35]

Yes, every driver blowing into a tube to start their car is a stupid idea. As one who has been hit by a drunk driver, I would like to see a transdermal sensor in the wheel. The problem is, even if this had happened 20 years ago, my encounter with the DD would not have been avoided as he was driving a 25 year old Jeep. Still, it has to start somewhere. And while waiting for the sensor equipped cars to get on the road, let's keep up with the after-market interlocks for convicted DD's. And even harsher fines would be helpful, especially on first-time offenders...in a society that worships the $, hit their wallet hard enough and they'll decide not to risk it again.

[netwiz63]

This idea is much like the organization "MADD" or MAD for short. Well any entrepreneurs out there you will be able to make a fortune, a new form of "designated driver" who can now wait at popular drinking spots and start cars for everyone who can't start their car.
I am against drunk driving, I for one, rarely touch alcohol and if MADD has their way it will end up that I have to take a breathalyzer test every time I start my car %u2013 ridiculous
The solution is FIX the PUBLIC transport so that people can go out and drink and then use public transport to get home - hello that was a stroke of genius.

[-hh]

DWI is a problem. But so too are driving fatigued, cell phone, etc. Mandating an "honesty device" is tempting, but its fallacy: the basic problem is: poor personal judgment.

DWI is a Politically Correct target, but is it t really is the biggest problem? 61% of accidents don%u2019t involve DWI, so obviously not.

Investing in driver training would provide gains on driver fatigue, cellphone distractions and other 'bad' habits %u2013 not just DWI. There%u2019s an idea.

More disconcertingly, when I see people like Pensacola8 saying "Yes!", if you really believe that its worth spending money this, then do feel free to go spend YOUR money on it, but **HOW DARE YOU** force me to spend my money too. I'm not part of the problem, so get your hand out of my wallet.

The solution here is simple: use Market forces, not legislation.

If a 'honesty device' really has merit, convince the Auto Insurance companies to support its adoption through insurance rate incentives: a DWI offender would get a discount if they agree to have whatever 'honesty device' installed in their car. Parents could buy one to get a "sober student" insurance discount.

An important question to ask is why hasn%u2019t this road been taken?

Has it been tried, but not adopted because the Insurance companies found no risk benefit? Or has MADD been too egotistical to even consider this approach? Either possibility is damning.


-hh

[netwiz63]

This idea is much like the organization "MADD" or MAD for short.
Well any entrepreneurs out there you will be able to make a fortune, a new form of "designated driver" who can now wait at popular drinking spots and start cars for everyone who can't start their car.
I am against drunk driving, I for one, rarely touch alcohol and if MADD has their way it will end up that I have to take a breathalyzer test every time I start my car - ridiculous
The solution is FIX the PUBLIC transport so that people can go out and drink and then use public transport to get home - hello that was a stroke of genius. No more drunk drivers on the road.

[wmb1957]

This is what they aren't telling you:



Eight providers in Albuquerque are approved by the state to sell or rent interlock devices, which cost an average of $75 a month to rent, about $75 to install and between $25 and $50 to remove.

That is from
http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2006/nov/21/many-drivers-dodge-nms-interlock-law/

My reading points to passenger/driver restraints, child safety seats, and motorcycle helmets actually making the biggest difference.
Alot more cost effective too.

[usawatchman]

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights
shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people...

IX Amendment to the US CONSTITUTION...

==========

It is Amazing the first Amendments
the BUREAUCRATS and POLITICIANS
want to forget is the IX & X Amendments..

That not a RIGHT,
The PEOPLE are SLAVES to the GOVERNMENT and the FAT BANKERS...

[ninetymiles]

This article should scare the life out of anyone who cares about their basic freedom and most inherent of human and civil rights. A bunch of crazed rich suburban wives with nothing better to do that to tell others how to live their lives have now taken it upon themselves to infringe on the most basic of needs in this country: the need (not the privilege or desire) to drive. What scares and disturbs me is that - while the cause is worthy and understandable (as are all of them!) - the numbers do not lie - 13,000 deaths per year in a population of 300 million! Statistically, a person has a bigger chance of dying from an upper respiratory infection than being killed by a drunk driver. I am not condoning drunk driving; I am critizing the madness and the dangers that arise therein. Next thing, these crazy dames (or others like them) will be lobbying for a special devise to be installed on all home toilets so that our orifices can be monitored (i.e. how many times we go to the bathroom, what type of natural function, what brand of toilet paper is being used, consistency of the function, etc. etc.). Am I losing it or is this society losing it? There has to be an end to this madness in sight or we better start looking forward to bringing Communism back because it affords people more freedom and civil rights! This is an outrage to intelligent, freedom-loving people everwhere! Stop the MADNESS!!!

Remember driving is a privilege not a right

[UpajOs]

Enough of the Nanny State! We are adults, and we don't need MADD or the government sniffing our breath or sampling our urine every time we make a move. Why should EVERYONE pay for yet more gadgets in automobiles just because of the transgressions of a few? Will MADD take responsibility if one of those gadgets prevents starting an engine and thereby CAUSES a death?

[rharrin1]

Satech1
Drivers license to start car dumb idea. What if I loaned my car to a friend how does he start the car?
No i'm not going to let him take my license.

[wmb1957]

The problem is in the testing too. Depending on the breathalyzer technology, mouthwash, breathmints, chewing gum, etc can register. NHTSA has found that dieters and diabetics can have base acetone levels hundreds of times higher then normal on a breathalyzer.

Mythbusters found that breath mints DO raise a persons breathalyzer results.

So it isn't a simple matter of "breaking the law."

Instead of readily accepting things, research a little on the details.

[aussietij]

Whilst I don't know the specifics of the US laws on drink driving (I'm an Australian), I think those who are concerned by the loss of liberty are missing the point... If you are over the limit then you are breaking the law. It's as simple as that, research published in Australia has shown that a BAC of .05 is equivelent of driving after 30 hours without sleep.. . a scary prospect.

So next time before you drive home over the limit, consider what you are putting at risk: Your Health; your families health; and the health of the many law abiding citizens on the road around you.

[antimadder]

Please...someone explain to me how this organization maintains tax exempt status when it is obviously attempting to influence legislation.

[aussie-ralph]

Stupid Americans.
Drink driving is a social problem, not a mechanical problem. You can't fix it with a mechanical solution.

[libertariand]

From the bottom of my heart, my sympathies lie with those who have lost a family member to drunk driving and I do oppose drunk driving but I don't think this is the way to stop it.

MADD has a terrible record when it comes to supporting civil liberties and their inflammatory rhetoric towards social drinkers and those who oppose their viewpoint in any way makes me disgusted towards their organization, and I'm afraid that their zest for power and the massive pay that their leaders receive takes the focus out of finding common-sense ways to educate drivers and prevent drunk driving.

Once again, even if every vehicle in the United States had these installed, this is not a foolproof system (how about blowing into the pipe, getting drunk then driving?) and once again, I feel that this is just another ploy for MADD to try to stay relevant and promote extremist views that do more harm than good.

[wmb1957]

So I went and read up a little bit more on MADD. Apparently MADD canada is trying to get the BAC level lowered to 0.05%. Search on the net, you will find the articles.
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1136908788.html

This article says "The MADD proposal would make it illegal for a small woman to drive after consuming a single drink and would divert police attention and resources away from high-risk, high BAC, hard-core drivers."

The founder did leave MADD, specifically because they are so anti-drinking rather then going after hardcore drinker/drivers.

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1119636699.html

There are more reputable agencies to deal with on this problem. I would like to know why our government chooses to work with them.

[satech1]

While I love our freedoms, I would like to see this as well.
How about a car that your "key" is actually your driver's license?
This would eliminate the number of people whoe licenses are revoked due to alcohol, excessive speed or other issues from driving (and before you kick in the "it'll drive up wallet thefts", the key here is that the license must be coded to the car you are driving).

At the same time, if the epidermal sensors are in place, then this would eliminate the need to the breath sensor (epidermal sensors on the steering wheel would handle this).

There are times where I feel the government takes too many freedoms away, but DRUNK DRIVING is not one of these. And as soon as you lose someone to a drunk driver, I DARE you to come out and say "he had a right to do it" - he DID NOT have the right to kill my daughter and then walk away with a "DL revoked for 3 years and 2 month suspended sentence".