Upcoming editorial: Time to lock out drunk driving
Here's a preview of an editorial we're working on. Let us know what you think. The best comments will run alongside it in the print edition.
All Baltimore mourned the death of a 20-year-old Johns Hopkins University student recently struck and killed on St. Paul Street by a truck witnesses saw being driven erratically earlier in the day that is owned by a man who has been convicted at least four times of driving under the influence. The hit-and-run killing of Miriam Frankl need not be senseless if it spurs lawmakers to make it far more difficult for intoxicated drivers to get behind the wheel.
Over the years, the campaign against drunk driving has taken many forms, from lowering blood alcohol levels to funding sobriety checkpoints. But there’s one strategy legislators could pursue that could prove more effective than any of them: Mandating ignition interlock devices.
The technology is proven, as are the results it delivers. Drivers must breathe into an installed interlock and produce a sober result in order to start the car -- and then pass a periodic retest once they are on the road. Failures are logged by the device and provided as evidence to the Motor Vehicle Administration.
New Mexico, the first state to mandate ignition interlock for drunk driving, has seen recidivism drop 65 percent over a four-year period. Drunk-driving fatalities in the state have fallen by more than one-third.
So far, 11 states have taken the mandatory route with the latest, California, signing on for a large-scale pilot program this month. The vast majority of states, including Maryland, allow judges to require ignition interlock devices in sentencing, but too often that authority is not exercised.
Recently, volunteers with Mothers Against Drunk Driving monitored hundreds of DUI and DWI cases in Maryland at random and were discouraged by the results — ignition interlock was ultimately required in just 3 percent. In Baltimore County, the results were worse: Out of 167 watched by MADD, none resulted in a defendant installing an ignition interlock device in his or her vehicle.
According to the MVA, there are currently only about 7,900 drivers in the state’s interlock program.
Mandating interlocks for all convictions including first-time offenders would change that. The devices are not particularly expensive -- installation and monitoring costs come out to less than $3 per day -- especially when compared to the cost of a drunk driving accident.
Maryland lawmakers have had a chance to require ignition interlock devices before. Last year, the Senate passed legislation to do just that, but the measure never got out of the House Judiciary Committee.
Judiciary Chairman Joseph F. Vallario Jr., a Prince George’s County trial attorney, is considered the biggest (and perhaps only significant) obstacle to the bill’s passage. To overcome his misguided opposition, MADD and other proponents will need all the help they can get, including from Gov. Martin O’Malley.
The modest administrative cost associated with expanding the MVA program -- about $362,000, according to the most recent estimate -- should not be a deterrence, even in a difficult budget year. Saving just one life would more than justify the cost, and the devices have been proven to save far more than that.
Comments
Sounds like one way to stop drunken BaCo Councilmen.
Posted by: Fed Up | October 23, 2009 12:16 PM
Andy,
Well written, NHTSA indicates that one death cost in public and private costs 3.2 million dollars when it is all said and done. I built a large network of interlock distributors here in New Mexico. We are showing reduction of 38% injury crashes and 31% fatalities. And that is each year, every year. Its proven, it works, and our roads are safer.
Posted by: Timothy Hallford | October 23, 2009 12:19 PM
Why wait for someone to be convicted of a drunk driving incident? Why not make ignition interlock devices mandatory on all automobiles? Imagine how many lives will be saved if drunk drivers are prevented from starting their cars before they can turn them into deadly weapons. Also, imagine how much will be saved on court costs, prision time, and all the other spending that takes place just because someone was too drunk to have the good sense not to get behind the wheel of a car.
Posted by: Sean Tully | October 23, 2009 12:27 PM
It sounds like a excellent solution to deal with drunk drivers.
Posted by: ravensfan | October 23, 2009 12:30 PM
I *almost* totally disagree on the first time offender idea, as a 38 year old guy who has three beers in an hour and gets pulled over and blows a .083 or 0.085 as a first offense *probably* doesn't need to have the device installed in the car. I think it would depend on the cases/situations individually, which would require even just a small amount of careful consideration - I mean, it's a pretty severe punishment for a first timer.
what time period are we talking about when it comes to periodic retests? six months? a year? it's basically a parole sentence for your car - what exactly would prevent you from just driving a different car after the fact?
And actually if you're going to make it mandatory for offenders, make them pay for the administration of the device while it's installed in the car as well. Or do they do that already?
Posted by: Evan | October 23, 2009 12:31 PM
5 point seatbelts and helmets should go along with STANDARD interlocks. Bodysuit air bags should also be mandatory.
the speed limit should be set at 35 everywhere. Just think of all the lives THOSE things would save.
Posted by: Fed Up | October 23, 2009 12:40 PM
As a member of Drunks against MAD MOTHERS, I think the BAC should be raised on a sliding scale. First timers should get .15 and it gets lower as the tickets go up. Being as the vast majority of injury or death from drunks are from REPEAT offenders with an average of .2 BAC those of us who would like to have a a few and even 2 beers in an hour would put us in the .08 level, it is far too low thanks to those MADD MOTHERS!
We KNEW this would be the nose under the tent issue many many years ago. Next thing you know .02 will be the limit.
Posted by: Fed Up | October 23, 2009 1:07 PM
andy, what is Judiciary Chairman Joseph F. Vallario Jr's objection.? Can you shed some light on this.
I generally oppose mandates--but would like to hear his reason.
[He's been pretty uniformly skeptical of drunk driving legislation over the years. His critics say this is because he's a criminal defense lawyer. //AAG]
Posted by: crlhk1 | October 23, 2009 1:38 PM
Thank you for this excellent suggestion. Had the killer of my 22 year-old son been required to breathe into an ignition lock device, his friends would have taken him home, and I wouldn't have to serve my life term: life without Austin, the joy of my heart.
Posted by: Mitch Land | October 23, 2009 1:50 PM
Use of the interlock for every convicted drunk driver (even those who receive probation before judgment) would address two important issues surrounding this crime: (1) It would prevent these drivers from driving while impaired or under the influence of alcohol and thereby prevent injury- and fatality-causing crashes; and, (2) It would allow these persons to drive to work, school, etc. and enable them to keep their jobs, support their families, and attend treatment. Statistics show that suspending or revoking a person’s driving privileges does not prevent him or her from driving a vehicle.
The interlock is a common sense approach to this most difficult, and tragic, problem.
Posted by: Nancy Kelly | October 23, 2009 8:53 PM
MADD has diverted precious resources AWAY from effective impaired driving surveillance with their soapbox speeches and political intimidation. Remember, according to MADD, if you're against them, you're FOR drunk driving. NOT SO! The cost of sobriety check points is staggering in man-hours and $ when compared to watching a single problem drinker. Do the check points capture the problem drinker or the social drinker? Let's get the problem drivers off the road and install ignition interlocks w/ the offender paying the costs. Additionally, let's start listening to professionals in the law enforcement and addiction fields and turn MADD's volume way down. MADD is nothing more than costly political baggage...........
Posted by: MDR | October 24, 2009 9:00 AM
Follow the money! MADD get a percentage of that $3 a day.
Posted by: Felix Unger | October 25, 2009 1:26 AM
I think that we should be mandated to stay safely in our 1 room homes, with no sharp objects, wearing bubble wrap, and avoiding other members of the species (who are likely dangerous or carrying disease). Life is not fair, safe, or predictable. We choose not to punish the bad seeds in society, rather we choose to try and "nanny" everyone from the cradle to the grave. Interlocks, trigger locks, and combination locks basically are designed for good people. Bad people will continue to find ways around these preventative measures.
Posted by: TAJ | October 25, 2009 4:28 PM
Before you so readily endorse this device you should look into the technology. I know of many instances when the device has malfunctioned causing great problems. In addition the current laws give almost no right to the driver to challenge a false result. In reality in our society people who carry guns have more rights than people who drive after a couple of drinks. More people are killed by guns in Baltimore in one year than are killed by drunk drivers in the entire state.Doesn't make it right to drive after drinking, but this is not a perfect world Let's get our priorities right MADD. How about the mothers of all of the innocent people who are killed by guns? MAGS!
Posted by: David | October 25, 2009 4:35 PM
True - life isn't safe, fair or predictable - I guess TAJ has never lost someone to a drunk driver. I'm sure they would be singing a different tune.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 26, 2009 9:01 PM
An ignition interlock for first time offenders (and all other offenders) would help those people who have already shown they cannot accurately judge their level of impairment from recidivating. It would give them time to see they can have a good time without drinking so much, and if they can't it will help show them they have a problem with alcohol for which they would hopefully seek help.
Posted by: Tom Woodward | October 27, 2009 8:26 AM