Print This Page
Last week Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and their supporters took a stand against the American Beverage Institute (ABI) in an argument over a new bill in California that MADD believes will greatly reduce the incidence of drunk driving. The ignition interlock bill AB2784 would require breathalyzers to be installed in cars after a first conviction of DUI, something MADD says will save hundreds of lives. The alcohol ignition interlock is an electronic device that is linked to the ignition system of a vehicle, and when someone wants to start the vehicle they must first blow into the device with a blood alcohol concentration below a preset level. Studies show that interlock devices are 65 percent effective in reducing drunken driving offenses.
So who wouldn’t want this device mandated for convicted drunk drivers? After all, an estimated 13,000 people were killed last year in drunken driving accidents in our country, and it seems we should do something about it.
It turns out that the American Beverage Institute, a restaurant trade association, is against the penalties this bill would put on first time offenders. According to both MADD and ABI, the greatest threat on our roads comes from drivers with very high blood alcohol concentration and more than one DUI conviction. ABI believes that this bill would target the wrong groups of offenders when what we really want to do is get the “hard core” alcohol abusers off the road.
ABI has some suggestions of their own on how to curb drunk driving, such as putting more patrols out on the roads looking specifically for drunk drivers. By doing this, ABI says, offenders wouldn’t be able to predict where they may get caught, as they would with the sobriety checkpoints that MADD is also campaigning for.
We may debate over the best way to solve the problem of drunk driving, but let’s not let the arguments stand in our way of accomplishing something. MADD has a long history of fighting drunk driving, and their new Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving is another way they are helping to make our roads safer. Even if they are targeting first time offenders as well as seasoned drunk drivers, do we really want anyone behind the wheel that has had too much to drink? And who knows, by implementing stricter penalties for even the first crime, maybe fewer people will go on to be repeat offenders.
On the other hand, ABI has some good ideas themselves on how to fight drunk driving. By focusing on a long term screening and alcoholism treatment process for offenders, they have shown that they understand the help that people with alcoholism need in order to change their behavior.
And although both sides have their own opinions on the issue, they both have said that education is the key to solving this public safety problem. And like the rest of us in this country, they want to work toward safer roads as soon as possible
Drunk Driving Article Source Material
California Breathalyzer Bill Fails to Target Real DUI Problem, Dui Daily
http://www.abionline.org/issues.cfm
Butts, Charlie MADD pushes for ignition interlocks OneNewsNow – Sept. 18, 2008
Lannelli, Nick Authorities Doing More To Fight Drunk Driving Aug 6, 2008
RSS feed for comments on this post.
This article really covers the story well. I dont believe that ignition locls for first time offenders would work
Shirley Schroeder — February 27, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
How could anyone oppose such a great idea – breathalyqers for first-offenders???
My granddaughter was killed January 14, 2009 by a first offender!
It seems to me that making it extremely hard on first offenders is
an excellent thing to do. It would certainly make them think twice
before getting a second DUI.
The man responsice for my granddaughter’s death is in this country illegally, had no driver’s license, and was driving his cousins car with no insurance. He was driving in my granddaughter’s lane, two cars ahead of her were driven off the road first so she had no place to go to avoid him, even though she tried.
We learned today from the DA that since the man pled guilty, he will get 4 years in prison and will probably be out in 2 years. Where is the justice in that! My granddaughter was 17 years old! Her life was just beginning! His will go on with only a small interruption.
I say YES – we need to do all we can to get these people off the roads for as long as we can!