Slashdot Mirror


An Ignition Interlock In Every Car?

ryeguy-nm writes "Monday the New Mexico House of Representatives passed a bill that would require every car sold in the state to have an ignition interlock. This device is essentially a breath analyzer that prevents the car from being started if the driver is drunk. The bill would require that every new car sold be equipped with an ignition interlock by 2008 and every used car by 2009. Ignition interlocks require a breath test, which takes 30 seconds to complete, to start the car as well as random 'rolling retests' to discourage others from taking the test for you. These rolling retests require the driver to take the test as the car is moving. If the driver fails a retest, the horn sounds and the lights flash until the car is turned off. The bill's lead proponent is Dem. Ken Martinez who believes the bill is a quick fix for New Mexico's drunk driving problems. Opponents of the bill argue that it penalizes car dealerships and law abiding citizens who have never driven drunk. The bill makes no mention of who will have to pay for the device, but it will most likely be auto dealers and citizens who have to sell their cars. It seems to me that impinging upon the liberty of an entire state is a little bit too extreme. Perhaps tougher penalties and larger fines for people who actually drive drunk would be a better idea."

4 of 1,690 comments (clear)

  1. I see a Major Lawsuit .. by Zordas · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I can envision a major lawsuit when the first person dies because the driver couldn't get his/her car started fast enough to take someone to the hospital.

  2. It has come! by SQLz · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The stupidest idea knonwn to man!

  3. Re:laws by oiarbovnb · · Score: 0, Redundant
    Umm... hello?... If you don't have a parking lot, guess what happens...people WILL drive and they will park on the street.

    Guess what then happens...no one wants to leave their car in the street and get a ticket, so they drive home... if they had the car in a parking lot, they could have left it (providing the bar allows this - which I think they should be forced to allow this by law) and took a taxi!

    You must not go to bars often!

  4. Re:laws by ichimunki · · Score: 1, Redundant

    No it's not. But you're right. I misstated that. It should read "drinking in restaurants is contributing..." That would have been more consistent with the rest of my statement saying that it is the drunk drivers who should be punished, not the restaurants or other drivers.

    --
    I do not have a signature