Photo now part of breath test ignition interlock
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Drivers who are required to pass a breath test before they get behind the wheel won't get away with having someone else blow in the ignition interlock device.
Starting with the new year the devices will snap a picture every time the machine is used. The Washington State Patrol says drivers who try to fool the machines will lose their license.
Interlocks are required on the vehicles whose drivers have been caught driving impaired. The machine requires a legal breath sample before the car starts. Some drivers have asked friends, relatives or children to blow in the device for them.
Starting with the new year the devices will snap a picture every time the machine is used. The Washington State Patrol says drivers who try to fool the machines will lose their license.
Interlocks are required on the vehicles whose drivers have been caught driving impaired. The machine requires a legal breath sample before the car starts. Some drivers have asked friends, relatives or children to blow in the device for them.
This is a solution looking for a problem. Â How many people cheat on their breathalyzers, really? How many deaths have there been? Â I doubt very many. Â Where's the data? Â Let's discuss the facts intelligently.
What I can guarantee you is that the maker of these devices is very busy lobbying the decision makers across the country to try to get them required in as many states as possible. Â What better way to bolster your sales than to make a change that obsoletes the current design so all the units in the field have to be replaced with new ones?
Isn't capitalism great? Â Think of the all the jobs that are created for the installers and the inspectors and the courts.
When it comes to public policy look at the money and who stands to receive it. Â You'll never be wrong.
They must have different settings on those contraptions. Â In Arizona I had a friend who ended up with one and he had to intermittently keep blowing into it even after starting his car and beginning to drive, to keep the car going. Â I guess I thought they all had that feature. Â That way no other person could blow into it and start the thing to let the offender drive off.
This is an effective plan as long as the state enforces ignition interlocks on every individual that is convicted of DUI instead of just giving them a slap on the wrist.
Nice idea! Dumb drunks.
blah blah blah - picture snap - blah blah - does it stop them from driving? Not enough info here to make a decision. They need to really toughen the DUI/DWI laws but that's more blah blah blah from the blah government and the blah judges. Sorry I seem so blah but I've heard all this crap for years and years.
 @Elaine2 What an amazing vocabulary you have!  What an insightful post!  You should be so proud! Â
Â
I don't mind cynicism about the state of our system but hey, don't fault them for trying to improve the system.
@TehHawt - who's faulting? Just telling it like it is. Lived too long to see where government does a whole hell of a bunch.
Good, nothing quite as awesome as a drunk who still wants to get behind the wheel. This should have been done before.
How about selling personal breathlizers for a good price to the public, So they can test themselves before even getting into the car so they wont even get the first DUI and life wont be a guessing game, because .008 is a joke, an its harder for skinny people cause 1 wine cooler can make them go over and not even be buzzed.. Like not even be close to feeling any effect of alcohol.
@@amber@ There are many personal breathalyzer models on the market. here is one: http://www.bactrack.com/collections/breathalyzer/products/breathalyzer-bactrack-b70-breathalyzer#.UN5zF3PTkSk
 @Rider Yeah, I realized that never bother to look so disregard my comment about breathalyzers, I am considering buying one for personal use.  Â
Silly question, but how exactly will this photo prove anything? How would they know that the person blowing in it isn't the one driving it? The only way this would work is maybe if the photo is time delayed by 30-60 seconds.
 @mhungry Most likely the photo is recorded into the ignition interlock computer and could be accessed by a law enforcement officer under probable cause.
 @mhungry This is by far the dumbest comment I have ever read. Congratulations sir.Â
 @Stacy Can you elaborate why this is a dumb comment please? I have a serious point. If I'm driving my friends' vehicle, and it takes a photo of me while I blow, and doesn't take one time delayed, how do they know if I am the true driver, or if I let my friend back behind the wheel?
Â
Once the vehicle is started, if I don't turn it off, and it takes no further photos, how do they know whom is driving?
Â
Furthermore, "The Washington State Patrol says drivers who try to fool the machines will lose their license." Whose license? The person who had the DUI? The person who "fooled" the machine? Again, how would they know if a person other than the DUI driver blows into the device whether or not they are the actual driver?
Â
The article is full of holes, and if the tech really is that simple, it does nothing and proves nothing.
 @Stacy  @mhungry How is this a dumb comment? The DUI convict is the only one allowed to drive his car? I mean if it's a child blowing in it then that could be suspicious, but if it's an adult blowing into the lock, they might be driving the car themselves. You should be ashamed of labeling a comment "dumb" without even understanding it yourself. Mhungry brought up a valid flaw with the technology and offered a potentially valid solution
Yeah... because no one has ever driven with a revoked license. Give me a break.
sounds like a good idea but one ?, i work @ a auto service dept, how will they bring thier cars in to be serviced? Â
 @dirtmomma How about driving it in while sober? Or if their license is revoked, they don't need a running car anyway so repairs can wait until they get their license back or have someone else drive it in.
 @katiemcc Hello!?!?! I drive only sober, and when I take my car in for maintenance or for repair, I drop my car off and pick it up later. That being said, the mechanics are driving my car from the parking lot to the garage. If somebody is following the rules after they royally mess up, how can the mechanic drive the car to and from to the garage to the work if they have to blow into the machine and have their picture taken only to have the perp be charged with having somebody blowing for them? If you have a breath analyzer, you have a license. Â
How long untill the drunks will figure out to just leave the car running outside the bar.
 @Brian Cox The mandatory ones request a sample at random times while driving, so not being there to blow will be a little hint.
While introducing a new tool to deal with people driving under the influence of alcohol, our state has legalized marijuana use, with, as far as I know, no legal limit established for THC blood levels. Â
@Opus8no5 Unlike alcohol, there is no evidence that suggests marijuana has ever been a proven cause of an accident. It may have been present in someone's system during an accident, but there is no proof that the marijuana was the cause. The effects of alcohol are far greater and more deadly then that of marijuana. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's the worst the drug out there. There are far more alcohol related deaths then marijuana.Â
 @Opus8no5 Not yet.
@Opus8no5 There is a legal limit for THC blood levels.
@virtual anomaly 5ng/ml in blood plasma is what's written into WA's law. But it's a moot point because the police pulling you over can simply change from DUI to driving while impaired which doesn't have stated limit. This goes for ANY substance or any reason causing the driver to appear IMPAIRED.Â
I followed a drunk driver on Hwy 542 for nealy 30 miles, called 911 several times as the driver swerved off the road and into incoming traffic over and over again -- all highway patrol units were busy with other cases so no one ever responded. Â I finally stopped following him and said, hell, even calling 911 can't get drunks off the road these days.
@Phippster I've had to do that too and had the same problem with no response. They will respond faster if you embellish it a bit --- (i.e. *scream* âOH MY GOD!!!! HE DAMN NEAR HIT THAT LADY! HEâS GOING TO KILL SOMEONE!!!!â) or say that it looks like they were flashing a gun out of the window.
 @The WA Mama  @Phippster Wow, that's called lying and making up evidence. People like you make me sick.Â
 @Stacy  @The WA Mama  @Phippster I have actually had had 2 TPD police officers tell me to over dramatize a situation if you want help.
Â
I was stunned the first time they told me but was floored the second time. It is sad and scary to even have to think of doing it. I never would.
Â
I would like to add that the first officer told me this AT the TPD police station when I physically went in to ask for help to get a no trespass on my drunk, lowlife neighbor.
 @Stacy  @The WA Mama  @Phippster Yeah, that's pretty low. Someone could get shot by a cop for that.Â
@ bellevue pd: put one of these in andy hanke's cruiser!
A punched license doesn't dissuade many people. Â I see lots of punched licenses and the people who show them have driven there. Â Maybe an arrest or two and some real charges would be a better deterrent.
@Doxie
Agreed, but where will they be jailed? Most of the jails in the state are already overcrowded & they are letting "minor infractions & non-violent offenders" out to make room.
This state will never reduce the DWI rate until we get the drunks off the bench.Â
DWI laws in this State are a Joke. Years ago the State passed a law that a 1st offense for DWI was a year in jail. Have you ever seen a person spend any more than a few days in jail for a DWI? Most time they are pleaded down to reckless driving and a fine is imposed. Until the State gets serious about this problem people will continue to drive drunk.
 @Telman@ I think its more like they CAN give you a year - not that they always will. I did a year ( 8 months ) in jail for a 1st DUI but - I had 2 FTA's and I didnt do any of the requirements instead of jail. The judge didnt even want to give me jail time. I forced him to give me the maximum sentence.
 @Andy Pollow  @Telman@ You told him to give you the maximum sentence? HAHAHAHA well you aren't the brightest one out there.Â
 @Stacy  @Andy Pollow  @Telman@ No I wasnt being real bright. I actually told the judge I didnt want to stop drinking. He didnt like that at all. Now I have stopped because I like guitar more.
@Telman@ I know. The laws in this state are a joke. They don't even have to spend the "mandatory" 24 hours in jail. They usually get bailed out in a couple hours or so.
Additionally, it should be equally criminal with loss of license to "buddy blow" into one of those devices.
 @Glassman I have seen some use a electric pump to blow for them...this new idea may stop some from tricking the system, but honestly how difficult would it be to rig in a dummy tube that while on cam looks like you are blowing while the real tube it still hooked to the pump? A drunk is a drunk and will always be a drunk...again this is a good regulation the honest people will abide by...but someone somehow will find a by pass.
 @Glassman No doubt.... if you friend is clean enough to blow into the device, they should be driving.  Or smart enough to get you a cab.
Its a step in the right direction, but only after the fact. I really wish the laws in general were a lot tougher than they are now.
@The WA Mama
I think the problem is that the PUNISHMENTS are not tough - not that the laws are not tough. We could have the toughest laws in the world, but if they are not used & enforced, they mean nothing - which is the case now.
This sounds like it will only come into play AFTER they have already been pulled over or, god forbid, caused an accident by driving drunk. Then investigators can review the photos to see who really blew into it.
I agree with you. The only purpose this will serve is evidence in court. Other then that, it won't do much to save a life.Â
This comment has been deleted
 @deadcandance Yea, it should come in all cars, because that makes perfect sense. Maybe all cars should come with THC blood tests too, just a quick blood test to start the car. Matter of fact, while the car is pulling your blood, it might as well check for amphetamines, cocaine, and opiates too. Sounds like a great idea genius.Â
 @deadcandance I don't want one in my car. Don't tell me what I "should" get because of a few drunks that can't control themselves.
Couldn't you say the same thing about being forced to wear seat belts? What about being restricted from using your cell phone just because some can't multitask?Â
Â
If we wanted to end drunk driving then having a device like this in all vehicles would certainly go further to do that than increase penlties associated to DUI charges.Â
 @Justaguy Maybe public safety should be about an individual... see Newtown massacre.
 @Justaguy Yes, but I think this could be considered an invasion of privacy. Your not "forced" to wear your seat belt, but you might get a ticket if you don't. I think there are some politicians in bed with breathalyzer manufactures... they probably own a boat load of stock too. #corrupt
@LocalLady. For the same reason that race car drivers still have to follow the speed limit on the highway. Public safety is not about an individual, their habits or abilities; it is about addressing a life threatening activity. Having these devices would drastically reduce the drag on the judicial system that the quantity of DUI cases cause. Of course it would also eliminate a steady revenue stream for the state in the form of fines.
Â
I imagine that if people were honest it wouldnât be about the cost of device, but instead would be because of the negative impact such a solution would have on restaurants, bars and liquor sales. If that is the case it would seem that drunk driving while something to be publically admonished by the vast majority, is actually something more than a minimal minority partakes in from time to time.
 @justaguy:Â
But why should those who do not drink at all have to ay the extra expense of having one?
 @deadcandance So?She was drunk.