Daily Archives: January 5, 2015
For those of you who are unfamiliar with ignition interlock devices (IID), it is a device which is installed on a vehicle’s dashboard. The device works like a breathalyzer that must be blown into and provided a breath sample. If the sample is registered as being below the preset blood alcohol content level, the vehicle will be allowed to start. However, if the sample is above the preset limit, the device prevents the engine from being started.
The IID requires further breath samples at random times after the vehicle has been started. The purpose is to prevent someone else from blowing into the IID just to start the vehicle and ensure that the driver is sober throughout the drive. If a sample is not provided or if the sample contains alcohol above the preset limit, the device warns the driver, and initiates an alarm (flashing lights and honking horn) until the vehicle is turned off or the IID is provided a clean breath sample.
Currently, IID are required for first-time drunk driving offenders in four California counties participating in a pilot program. Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Tulare counties require installation of an IID for five months in all vehicles that a driver operates following a California DUI conviction.
Senator Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, has proposed a bill that would expand the IID requirement for first-time offenders throughout California.
“California needs to do a better job of reducing deaths and injuries from drunk drivers,” said a statement from Hill. “Ignition interlocks save lives and can be an effective counter measure to reduce DUI recidivism.”
The issue is personal for Hill whose best friend was killed by a drunk driver thirty years ago.
“It’s something that’s personal to me. I know the pain his family and we felt… I hate to see other families go through that.”
In addition to the other thousands of dollars associated with a California DUI conviction, people required to install the IID will have to pay between $50 and $100 per month to have the device installed. This can prove to be quite a financial burden on some. This, however, is the least of my concerns with IIDs.
Not only can they be inaccurate for a number of reasons, just as breathalyzers can be, they can also be dangerous.
Talk about distracted driving. Having to blow into a device installed on the dashboard whilst driving sounds more dangerous than talking on a phone while driving. And how dangerous is it to drive with the lights flashing and horn honking because a sample is not provided in time? That would most certainly prove to be a distraction for the driver of the vehicle with the IID as well as a distraction for other motorists on the road.
That’s a big risk for something that does not even tackle the underlying cause of DUI-related fatalities, which is what Hill claims the new law will prevent. The majority of DUI-related fatalities do not come from first-time offenders who register a blood alcohol content of between 0.08 percent and 0.15 percent. Rather, the vast majority of DUIs that cause death or injury come from repeat offenders who register well over 0.20 percent blood alcohol content; drivers with serious alcohol problems, not social drinkers.
I’m not against getting drunk drivers off of the road, but Hill’s legislation misses the mark.