How to reduce drunk driving
Published May 6, 2015
Editorial by Charlotte Observer, May 5, 2015.
A drunk driver kills someone in North Carolina nearly every day, on average. Close to 400 people a year are killed in the state each year, and many more are injured, by drivers with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit of .08.
On any given night, you are sharing the road with more drunk drivers than you care to think about. Most don’t get caught, and most do it again. One study said that the average drunk driver has driven drunk 80 times before his first arrest.
There’s a way to drastically cut down on that kind of dangerous recidivism: ignition interlock systems, which check a driver’s breath for alcohol before allowing the engine to start. North Carolina uses them on offenders convicted of driving with a blood alcohol level of .15 or higher, and for certain other drivers.
Now, the legislature is considering two bipartisan bills that would require ignition interlock systems for any convicted drunk driver, not just those with extremely high blood alcohol levels. It has been an effective tool in 24 states, and North Carolina should join them.
An interlock system is about the size of a cell phone. The driver must blow into it; if the level is above a preset minimum (.02 in these bills), the car won’t start.
That’s more effective than just suspending a DWI offender’s license. Those drivers frequently get behind the wheel again. The Centers for Disease Control found interlock systems cut repeat offenses by 67 percent, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving says drunk driving deaths dropped by more than 30 percent in states such as Oregon, Arizona, Louisiana and New Mexico after proposals like the ones in North Carolina were passed.
An interlock for a first offense and without an extremely high alcohol level might seem tough. But studies show first offenders’ recidivism is similar to that of repeat offenders, and that offenders just over the legal limit are almost as likely to drive drunk again as those with high alcohol levels.
The two N.C. bills would not change the amount of time the ignition interlock would be on an offender’s car. That would remain at one year for those whose license was originally revoked for a year; three years for those with a four-year revocation; and seven years for those initially given a permanent revocation.
Some, like the American Beverage Institute below, argue that “marginal offenders,” with blood alcohol levels below almost twice the legal limit, shouldn’t face such restrictions. But statistics show that such drivers kill thousands of people nationwide every year.
Ignition interlock systems work. Requiring one for a year after you’ve been convicted of driving drunk is not too much to impose. The legislature should pass HB877 or SB619.
May 6, 2015 at 9:25 am
Norm Kelly says:
'One study said that the average drunk driver has driven drunk 80 times before his first arrest.' ('his first arrest'? shouldn't this have been 'their first arrest'? is the author implying something?) Interesting statistic. Except there is NO WAY to know this. This is a made-up number. Much like the numbers libs like to make up about uninsured people, homeless people, and those who go to bed hungry every night. Made up. Useless number. Attempt to scare the rest of us. A horrible number indeed. Except there is NO WAY to back it up.
The rest of this post makes absolute sense. It makes much more sense to restrict someone who has proven a problem than it does to reduce the legal limit. Mothers Against Drunk Driving have been behind a move to reduce the legal limit from .08 to .06 for years. Their admitted plan is to get it reduced by a point or 2 every chance they get. When a state reduces the limit from .08 to either .07 or .06, the group will immediately start pushing the same state to reduce it again. They sight bogus statistics on a regular basis to support their bogus position that reducing the limit reduces drunk driving. In fact, the opposite is true. The lower the limit, the more likely someone like me will be 'caught'. Once the legal limit is set at .07/.06, MADD will move to reduce it again to .05, then .04, then .03. When will they stop? Never! History may be meaningless to this group. When prohibition was in effect, it was routinely ignored. Same will happen with MADDs plan!
When I say 'like me', let me explain. I refuse to have any alcohol when I know I'll be driving. Mostly. You see, if my wife (female!) and I eat out for our wedding (legal!) anniversary, and we celebrate with a glass of wine, then we'll darn well drink that glass of wine without the slightest thought of MADDs mad campaign! My thought is that it's only 1 glass of wine, it's with food, and we'd probably be at the restaurant for at least an hour, probably more. So there's plenty of time for that wine to be diluted before I get behind the wheel to drive my lovely bride home. Except if MADD gets their mad way! Then no matter how little I've had to drink with dinner, no matter how long it's been since I had that drink, they desire that my life be made a virtual living hell because I had the audacity to have an alcoholic beverage before driving. They have zero tolerance for my choice and desire that I be punished severely. Caution MUST be taken with the proposed legislation to make sure it is also common sense and not MADD sense.
I liken MADDs scheme to that of the abortion rights activists. Like most Demon pols, abortion at all costs, in every circumstance, never to be controlled, limited, restricted. Yet there are some common sense regulations that must be applied to killing a baby. Same thing applies to drunk driving and MADDs mad campaign. With common sense legislation, I support the breathalyzer idea. If it becomes another lib scheme to control EVERYONE'S life, then it must be rejected. Leave the rest of us alone and concentrate on perps! Let me ride my bicycle without a helmet if I want! Stay out of my life! Common sense MUST prevail. Problem is so many libs lack any concept of what common sense is. They scare the heck out of me with their schemes and regulations on ordinary life! (take the free speech event that recently occurred in Texas. rage against those who attempted to kill people? no. those who lack common sense claim that the event provoked terrorists to respond. these nut-jobs claim that the terrorists were responding as expected. it's no surprise to these people that terrorists responded. so they chastise the lady who put on the free speech event. when she refers to the perps as 'savages', she is asked why she refers to muslims as savages. see, lack of common sense! and outrageous on every level. common sense is in short supply. and much shorter supply since the current unqualified community organizer racist socialist was anointed!)
