Slashdot Mirror


Convicted NY Drunk Drivers Need Ignition Interlocks

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."

10 of 911 comments (clear)

  1. The expense of the interlock... by Moryath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    is one thing that bothers me. $70-125 to install and another $70-110 per month isn't cheap, especially on top of the major bump in car insurance that they already ate. Given that drunk driving convictions skew to lower income, this has real potential to put even first-time offenders into bankruptcy.

    The fact that it triggers on as little as 1/3 of the legal limit is also troubling. Maybe they should trigger at slightly below the legal limit, but 1/3? They couldn't get convicted of a DWI at that number, and yet you're going to shut off their car?

    I'm just waiting for the day when the "reenact prohibition" assholes get enough power to try to make these things mandatory in all cars. After all, if it "saves lives", why not make everyone blow into the damn box to start the car, and at random times?

    Insert obligatory "won't someone think of the children" bullcrap here too.

    1. Re:The expense of the interlock... by Kozz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      $70-125 to install and another $70-110 per month isn't cheap, especially on top of the major bump in car insurance that they already ate

      Yeah, that is pretty outrageously expensive. I bet it'd be cheaper to call a cab.

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    2. Re:The expense of the interlock... by rilister · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unlike being tired, or having low blood sugar, having an alcoholic drink is 100% avoidable and voluntary in *every single case*. Choosing to drink and drive is choosing to needlessly endanger other people on the road.
      These people have already provably shown that they lack the judgement to make good decisions about their safety and those around them. So it seems proportionate to me to require them, and only them, to demonstrate that they have changed their behavior for some reasonable period of time.

      This isn't a civil liberties thing, it's using technology to do something that demonstrably benefits society: not punishing, but changing antisocial behavior.

      --
      'This writing business. Pencils and what-not. Over-rated if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it' - Eeyore
    3. Re:The expense of the interlock... by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you'd RTFA, you'd find out that the device is part of their "conditional discharge" (i.e. probation) (you'd also find an answer to your bankruptcy concern). Don't want to use the device because you feel it infringes too much on your personal liberties? Fine. Stay locked up.

      People with money can get out of jail and people without have to stay in?
      Doesn't sound like equal treatment under the law to me.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  2. Re:Wait... by martas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and what's wrong with that? it needs to be a pain in the ass, that's the whole point.

  3. Uhhh...what? by BonquiquiShiquavius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who feels that is their right these days? I've never heard someone say "it's my right to drink and drive".

    Actually, the opposite is usually true. Here in BC the legal limit will be dropping from .08 to .05 soon. Just try arguing against that. If you do, you're immediately regarded as an advocate for drinking and driving, rather than an advocate for moderation. Even if the subject is brought up among my friends, all of whom enjoy their beer, there's little to no indignation on their part, or a feeling that their rights are being taken away. The consensus is "well, guess we shouldn't be drinking and driving anyways." Never mind that the new limit will only punish moderates rather than the truly incapacitated that were already targeted under the previous limit.

    In the end, I don't really care either - I'm just a little miffed MADD continues to push the laws towards their prohibitionist ideals and there's nothing you can do about it without looking like a drunk.

  4. Re:To Answer Logistic Questions by LurkerXXX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    . where do we draw the line?

    Every time you get into a car drunk and endanger other innocent people on the road. Exactly how many times am I supposed to let your old girlfriend try to kill me and/or my family before we crack down?

  5. Re:To Answer Logistic Questions by MarcoAtWork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    #1 first offense doesn't mean the first time the person did it, only the first time they got caught
    #2 you can still kill somebody the first time you drink and drive, it's not like the first time you do there's a magical force field protecting you/the pedestrian or something
    #3 it's not that hard: if you drink YOU DO NOT DRIVE, period. take a cab, take transit, have a designated driver, you name it, risking other people's lives because you are too cheap to take a cab is ridiculous, you had the money to buy drinks, you should have the money to get home without endangering others.

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

    --
    -- the cake is a lie
  6. Re:Wait... by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ahahahahahahahaha this is hilarious.

    I mean, honestly, I hate the draconian nature of this, and would rather live with the consequences of not having these than have police-state laws like this, but...

    Two of my idiot friends got their second DWIs recently. One of them recently enough that he's almost certainly going to have to put one of these things in, and I hope the other one as well. The less recent one rear-ended a stopped car at a traffic light--no one was injured, but he's still driving around his brand new car (brand new because he had a girl drive drunk while he was drunk and she smashed into a telephone pole... that one was new too) with a smashed up front end. He's probably been sentenced already, although tbh I don't talk to him much anymore because he's self-destructing in other spectacular ways that I don't want to be around. The more recent one went off the road and broke both his arms, almost died. He put off his court date for a month, GOD I hope he has to put this thing in.

    So, as much as I don't like them ... people will drive drunk. Over and over again, for no fucking reason. I was out with one of the two a couple months before all this, at a bar. I drove down with the plan to leave the car in the public lot and get a $10 ticket, then take a cab back home and a friend would drive me to my car in the morning. Well, closing time came around and this moron asked me to drive because it was kind of cold and he didn't want to wait a half hour for the cab to get there. I said no, so he, already with one DWI and drunk (but not drunk enough that he should have that poor of decision making ability), offered to drive my car. I said fuck no, and we waited, but the whole time he hounded me about it. It's just unfathomable how stupid people get about this, and they make the decisions drunk or sober. For instance, I drove down, but only because I know myself well enough to know that I'm not going to do something stupid once I get a buzz on. Other people, as you can see by reading this thread, will do anything they can to drive drunk, like leaving their cars running outside a bar. It's fucking insane, like straight up some kind of mental imbalance. Hell, I've stopped going to bars more than once every few months because it's such a pain in the ass and I can't see any reasonable explanation for anyone doing otherwise short of being broken in the head somehow.

    So yeah, it sucks, but you won't hear me bitching about the law. No, I'll be laughing as these dipshits blow their car started at the order of some beeping box, and watching with interest to see what kind of backflips they'll do to fuck their own and other people's lives up even more, for NO REASON. Addicted to alcohol? Go to the grocery store, and drink for a quarter of the price! Throw a party at your house, sleep over at others' houses when you drink there, get a motel room if you're out of town and have nowhere else to sleep. D-d-d-don't drink so fucking much! It's the sober guy that gets laid at the after-party anyway. Jesus.

    --
    <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
  7. Re:That's a mighty tall horse you've got there... by anagama · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about just not drinking at all when driving? I won't even get on my motorcycle if I've had anything to drink in the past 12 hours. It really isn't all that hard you know.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good