Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Convicted NY Drunk Drivers Need Ignition Interlocks

Posted by Soulskill on from the ted-can-no-longer-borrow-my-car dept.

pickens writes "Starting yesterday in New York state, anyone sentenced for felony or misdemeanor DWI, whether a first-time or repeat offender, will have to install an ignition interlock in any vehicle they own or operate. The interlock contains a breath-checking unit that keeps the car from starting if the offender's blood-alcohol level registers 0.025 or higher, a little less than one-third of the legal limit. 'The addition of ignition interlocks will save lives in New York state,' says State Probation Director Robert Maccarone, who led the team that wrote the regulation. 'It's been proven in other states. New Mexico realized a 37 percent reduction in DWI recidivism.' Whether that will be enough to persuade more people to take a cab or find a designated driver is unknown. 'It's one more thing to make people think, it may help — it may keep a few people from getting behind the wheel,' says Onondaga County Sheriff Kevin Walsh."

3 of 911 comments (clear)

  1. Re:The expense of the interlock... by Ironsides · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The counterargument from these religious fundie assholes...

    You misspelled "Democrats".

    --
    Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  2. Re:To Answer Logistic Questions by bky1701 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    #1 first offense doesn't mean the first time the person did it, only the first time they got caught

    Wait wait wait. That reasoning is way too faulty. It assumes guilt worse than any argument I've ever seen on slashdot. You are saying people should be considered guilty of crimes not only not proven to have been committed, but which have not even been accused.

    Please, go back to the middle ages where that kind of BS is tolerated.

    From my perspective there is no line to draw, first time 5 years w/o a license, second time lose your license forever, period.

    Which, in the United States, is more or less equivalent to a sentence of life in poverty with no chance of parole. Maybe that would work where driving was not required, but not everyone has the money to move to such a place if they are not already in one.

    Rage on, though. These kind of neoprohibitionist arguments only weaken the movement.

    --
    Great Intellect...
  3. Re:Amen by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Its goal has always been to eliminate drunk driving.

    So then why are they acting to increase drunk driving (by repeatedly redefining "drunk" to approach "stepped within 20ft of liquor store sometime in the last week", regardless of any actual, y'know, impairment)?