DUI breath device law taking effect in Washington
Tuesday, December 30, 2008 1:26 PM PST
By The Associated Press
Printable version
E-mail this articleOLYMPIA — More Washington drivers with drunken driving arrest records will be able to get behind the wheel sooner under a law taking effect with the new year.
It allows drivers arrested for drunken driving to apply for a special license to drive with an ignition-interlock device. The device tests for alcohol in their breath before the car will start.
State law currently requires the Department of Licensing to suspend the license of a driver who is arrested for drunken driving or refuses to submit to a breath test.
The sponsor of the new law, Rep. Roger Goodman of Kirkland, says the interlock device will reduce the number of people driving with suspended licenses.
kitten wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:37 AM:
" Or they will just drive their girlfiend or boyfriend's car. "
kitten wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:39 AM:
" Hopefully this plan will work to at least get some of them off the road. "
ann123 wrote on Dec 30, 2008 9:08 AM:
" this makes no sence to me. they can just have some other person blow in the device??? if the other person blows in it i want to know will be liab. if the drunk friend drives. i hope so. they chose to drive drunk they should be punished they should not have the privlage to drive! Period!! "
Pinky wrote on Dec 30, 2008 9:18 AM:
" They fail to mention in this article, how much money the people who have these devices have to pay for them. There is a monthly fee, an installation fee, and I am sure there is a removal fee... They say it will reduce the number of people driving with suspended licenses but, where they lose the $$ they make on driving with suspended license tickets, they will make it back with the interlock devices and then some... I have never had one, but I know I have heard friends of mine complain about the cost involved. "
DUH wrote on Dec 30, 2008 9:51 AM:
" Oh my Gawd Pinky... They complain about how much it costs them? Really? Just how much is that cost as compared to the cost of a human life if they had not been caught? "
Tortoise wrote on Dec 30, 2008 10:08 AM:
" Ditto DUH. I could care less what these DUI drivers feel about the costs. Cry me a river. If there's one group of people I have no compassion for, it's drunk drivers. There is no excuse for it. "
SM wrote on Dec 30, 2008 10:08 AM:
" Hey Ann, it seems pretty unlikely that if a drunk person and a sober person get into a car, the sober person would blow so the drunk person could drive. Why not just have the sober person drive? :) "
Longview 88 wrote on Dec 30, 2008 10:12 AM:
" I hate to admit this, but I know somebody who has multiple DUI's and had to have an ignition interlock devide installed. The problem was that it only had to be installed in one vehicle...this person had five or six vehicles, and got around the interlock quite frequently. (I did not approve of his actions, and made it clear that he knew it. I also will not ride in a vehicle he drives) The law needs to be changed so that these devices are required to be installed in ALL vehicles registered to the individual, or all vehicles registered to any given address. Otherwise the law is pointless. "
huh? wrote on Dec 30, 2008 10:12 AM:
" Cost is around $65/month. ann123, if you were sober, would you blow in your boyfriend's interlock so he could drive you around drunk? Kitten, if the driver is pulled over in a vehicle w/o an interlock, they lose the special license. This is not a bad thing, nor is it new. WA has required interlocks for quite a while. People have been trying to beat the system for quite a while as well, but in general, I think this is more effective than causing people to lose jobs and become even greater burdens to society. "
DUH wrote on Dec 30, 2008 10:24 AM:
" Ignition interlock is not a deterrent that will keep drunks off the road. I think that the penalty for DUI should be upped to a felony. If people caught for driving over the .08 limit set by law were charged with a felony, had their cars seized and sold at auction, then they might think twice before getting behind the wheel again after tipping back a few. "
Pinky wrote on Dec 30, 2008 10:36 AM:
" Let me clarify for all those who missed the actual point of what I was saying. I was merely pointing out that the article failed to mention the costs associated with the interlock system.... I too have no pity for my friends whining when it comes to the $$ they have to pay. No where in my comment does it say that I sympathize with their whining. I just think that the public should know that the state stands to make $$ off this. Given the costs associated with the interlock system, I don't think that the people driving on a suspended license will go down, as most of these people would probably risk the cost of the driving while suspended ticket, over the cost of the interlock system... Duh and tortoise don't be so quick to judge! "
Tortoise wrote on Dec 30, 2008 10:39 AM:
" SM: you'd really be surprised. What you're saying makes sense, but unfortunately, drunk drivers and very often their friends, are lacking that sense. "
Pinky wrote on Dec 30, 2008 10:40 AM:
" Longview 88... your friend may own more than one vehicle but he can only legally drive the one with the interlock so he is breaking the law, someone who has more than one vehicle and is driving the ones that don't have the interlock system, is likely to also be the type of person to borrow someone else's vehicle if ALL of his have the system. If he is finding a way to violate the terms he has on them now, something tells me he would still violate them, even if he was required to put it on all vehicles registered to him. "
Oh Baby! wrote on Dec 30, 2008 11:09 AM:
" People with interlock systems would just force their children to blow into it, then blame them for anything that may go wrong. Drunks are so predictable,maybe Rep. Roger Goodman should have to live under the rule of one for just a short time. He may just notice the patterns of how a drunk thinks and reacts. At least they made it illegal to leave children in cars out in front of the taverns! "
Disturbed wrote on Dec 30, 2008 11:40 AM:
" They should do what other states are trying to do. Mandatory 1 year in jail for a DUI conviction. "
Gondolapete wrote on Dec 30, 2008 11:41 AM:
" The interlock device goes off at random times during the drive..a drunk person cannot have someone else blow in it for them and then drive unless the sober person is going to sit right there with them and blow in the device everytime it requires it what sense would that make? "
huh? wrote on Dec 30, 2008 12:00 PM:
" Oh Baby: I on occassion have to start vehicles w/ interlocks in them at my business. There is NO WAY that a young child could blow into one of these and get it to start. Most of them have a complicated rythym that must be used in order for them to work. Also, interlocks are installed by private contractors... the state only profits from the sales tax. "
mom of four wrote on Dec 30, 2008 12:09 PM:
" What a waste of time and money on our State to try this method. "
Proud Teacher wrote on Dec 30, 2008 12:37 PM:
" My best friend's parents were murdered by a drunken driver 22 years ago, and any method of removing drunk drivers should be tried. Heck, I think we need to spend the money and do what they do in Europe-lock them up! One year mandatory is a start, but some countries start their mandatory minimum with 7 years. That sends a very clear message. There would be no need to put breath-interlock devices on vehicles if they were sitting in prison. To anyone out there who thinks that isn't cost effective, go talk to someone whose family member or friend was murdered by a drunken driver. They are serving a life sentence! "
ann123 wrote on Dec 30, 2008 1:05 PM:
" hay sm, well i know a sober person that did blow into one of these devises...how dum was that person then let the drunk person drive...it happens wake up smell the coffee drunks should not beable to drive or get there licnse back for quite a while maybe you would feel this way if you where hit by a drunk driver. we where i have no compasion for them. "
Thought wrote on Dec 30, 2008 1:09 PM:
" The idea of any law is to create a deterent. They made a choice to drive drunk make them walk. Makes about as much sense as making a rapist carry condoms or a thief to carry a receipt book. Drunks choose to put other peoples lives at risk. Make it harder on them NOT easier!!!!!!! Only one day until the New Years slaughter begins. How many innocent lives will cease because of drunk drivers??? Eat,drink and be maerry but please don't drive!! "
cooky wrote on Dec 30, 2008 3:56 PM:
" All they have to do is have a "friend" start the car for them. I've seen it happen before and it will keep on happening. "
huh? wrote on Dec 30, 2008 4:16 PM:
" Cooky: If their "friend" starts their car for them, is their "friend" going to ride along and take the rolling retests? If so, why wouldn't the sober "friend" be the one driving... I know, around here someone is bound to know someone stupid enough to do this! "
El Gabilon wrote on Dec 30, 2008 4:32 PM:
" What is to prevent the driver of the vehicle from using a pressurized can of his own breath to start the vehicle? There is no device that has ever been invented that cannot be overridden. We have heard much about the ankle bracelet, however, simply by cutting through it and leaving it on ones bed, gives the individual a pretty good head start! People are always coming up with useless devices in order to enrich themselves, and usually law enforcement accepts it without sufficient investigation into its worthiness. People who drink, should not drive, and the cure education and understanding of the possibilities, not threats. "
jensdad wrote on Dec 30, 2008 4:52 PM:
" Ok lets see a show of hands. How many of you have ever riden with a drunk or even what u thought was slightly inebrinated driver and thought it was just another ride home? Oh come on now. In the 70's that was common place. Or the "in love" person that would do anything for that other person even if it means breaking the law. I have had close friends and family members killed both by other drunks in other cars and at the wheel of their car. It hurts to even think about it. I also know that not all of those devices work properly. And the drivers know it too. They aren't re calibrated after each use nor checked to make sure they are working properly when installed. So how is that law suppost to hold any weight if the people installing them dont care? "
Past Month's Most Commented Stories