Maggie's Farm

There are about 1,100 Google hits for the following:
“Most states have regulations that allow or mandate that judges order the installation of interlock devices as a penalty during sentencing in drunk-driving cases.”

What New York did would appear to have a fair amount of precedent. Without doing extensive research, my guess would be that the difference between NY and many other states is the issue of judicial discretion.

I disagree with Tom Francis on this. Like Tom, drunk drivers affected my childhood. When I was a young child I was in an auto accident where a drunk plowed into a station wagon filled with two families. A parent of one family was killed immediately. I was sitting right behind the driver, and in my mind’s eye I can still see the driver hitting the steering wheel. My mother suffered crippling injuries that took nearly a decade to remediate.

Yes ignition devices are “just another intrusion into personal lives.” Yes, they “can be defeated easily with little effort:” get someone else to blow into it. There are devices with photograph which would stop this, but they cost $330/month, as opposed to $75 for just the breathalyzer. A friend of mine used the ignition device as a consequence of a DWI. It cured him of DWI. He has been off the ignition device for several years, and no longer drives while intoxicated. I support ignition devices because they are less intrusive than jail time, fines, etc. Maybe ignition devices will stop many or most people who DWI from doing it again, before they kill someone with their driving. It’s worth a try.

I doubt that ignition devices are used for someone who caused a fatality while DWI, where it would be too soft a consequence. I certainly would not support using ignition devices as a consequence for a DWI fatality.

According to Tom Francis, the ignition device will increase the cost of cars by X amount for no real reason : the ignition device is added only to those convicted of DWI. It increases the cost of driving for those convicted of DWI by about $75 a month- at least it does in TX. Probably higher in NY. It in no way increases the cost of cars for those who have not been convicted of DWI- for those who are not family members of the DWI offender. For multiple-car families of DWI people- them’s the breaks. Of the ignition device case that I know of, the ignition device got removed after a year, per the conviction consequences.

Let's start talking about getting drunks and abusers to take responsibility by imposing jail time, monetary penalties, social restrictions like limited hours, house arrest, etc.
It is not as if there are not such penalties for DWI. People do go to the big house for many years for killing someone while DWI. Ignition devices are but another consequence: by no means the first.

My point is, and remains, that unless and until there are hard and fast penalities for everybody, bar tenders, liquor store owners, bar owners, etc., then there aren't enough devices in the world to keep DUI offenders off the road.
Most likely correct, but fair laws and enforcement of same would be a Pandora’s box.
At the same time, dealing with DWI fatalities is no walk in the part either. [I love my clichés.] I have little faith in the ability of our lawmakers to write coherent and fair laws, given what has transpired in recent years. Of course that would also include ignition device laws, would it not?

Half empty, half full. There were 13,846 DWI fatalities in the US in 2008, compared to about 18,000 murders (~6/100,000). From 1982 to 2008, DWI fatalities per vehicle mile driven dropped 70%.

But I highly doubt that is true [drinking while driving] . In particular if he is still drinking.
You are correct that behavior is difficult to change, for anybody. However, the prospect of prison time for the next DWI is pretty good incentive for avoiding drinking and driving. Admittedly it is better incentive than the ignition device.

Yes, it IS an add-on device.
Data from 2008 NHTSA report: p 9,16 and 1994 NHTSA report: p 31,48. I calculated the deaths/vehicle mile figure.

Before you start mouthing off, you might want to take just a wee little moment and please read the complete sentence. To make sure the message gets through, I will repeat it: Before you start mouthing off, you might want to take just a wee little moment and please read the complete sentence. I hope your attention span is that long.

Just this once, try reading the complete sentence, por favor.
Pretty pretty please?

Most likely correct, but fair laws and enforcement of same would be a Pandora’s box.

Was it that hard to read the complete sentence?

Here is an excerpt from what Dictionary.com says about ‘Pandora’s box:
"a source of extensive but unforeseen troubles or problems: The senate investigation turned out to be a Pandora's box for the administration.
Cultural Dictionary
Note : To 'open a Pandora's box' is to create an uncontrollable situation that will cause great grief."

Wikipedia gives a good summation of how the term is currently used: "Today, opening Pandora's box means to create evil that cannot be undone."

Let us add some of the above statements- from Wikipedia and Cultural Dictionary- about Pandora’s box to my statement, the statement which you did not approve of.

"Most likely correct, but fair laws and enforcement of same would be a Pandora’s box" changes to
Most likely correct, but fair laws and enforcement of same would be a Pandora’s box, creating evil that cannot be undone. Passing those DWI laws will create an uncontrollable situation that will cause much grief.

Go ahead. Attack that statement all you want. Be my guest. Please. [Implicit behind my statement: Why would one want to pass laws that would create evil that cannot be undone? Why would one want to pass laws that will create an uncontrollable situation which will cause much grief? ]