NTSB wants ignition locks for all drunk drivers
WASHINGTON (AP) - Every state should require all convicted drunken drivers, including first-time offenders, to use devices that prevent them from starting a car's engine if their breath tests positive for alcohol, the National Transportation Safety Board said Tuesday.
The ignition interlock devices - already required for all convicted drunken drivers in 17 states - are the best currently available solution to reducing drunken driving deaths, which account for about a third of the nation's more than 32,000 traffic deaths a year, the board said.
Drivers breathe into breathalyzers mounted on the vehicle's dashboard. If their breath-alcohol concentration is greater than the device's programmed limit - usually a blood alcohol concentration of .02 percent or .04 percent - then the engine won't start.
The board also urged the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to speed up its research effort with automakers to develop systems that can determine a driver's blood alcohol concentration using infrared light when the driver presses an ignition button. The vehicle won't start if the alcohol concentration is too high.
The technology, which is sometimes breath-based rather than touch-activated, is already in use in some workplace drug-testing programs. If the technology were incorporated into all new vehicles, eventually all drivers would be alcohol-tested before driving. That could potentially prevent an estimated 7,000 drunken-driving deaths a year, the board said.
The five-member board made the unanimous recommendations after receiving a new study from its staff that found an average of 360 people a year are killed when drivers turn the wrong way into the face of oncoming traffic on high-speed highways.
The board's study analyzed data from 1,566 crashes from 2004 to 2009, as well as nine wrong way collisions NTSB directly investigated. In 59 percent of the accidents, wrong-way drivers had blood alcohol levels more than twice the legal limit, researchers said. In another 10 percent of the crashes, drivers had alcohol levels between .08 and .14. The limit in most instances is .08.
In just the past week, 11 people were killed and 9 seriously injured in wrong-way driving accidents in eight states, the board was told.
"Wrong-way crashes shatter lives and families," said NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman, calling the report and the recommendations a "milestone" for the board.
Older drivers also appear to be part of the wrong-way driving problem, researchers said. Drivers over age 70 were overrepresented in the accidents reviewed in the study, accounting for 15 percent of the wrong-way drivers compared with only 3 percent of the right-way drivers they collided with, researchers said.
Wrong-way driving crashes on interstates, expressways and other high-speed highways are especially deadly because over 80 percent involve head-on collisions in which vehicles close in on each other very rapidly, they said. A study in Michigan earlier this year found that 22 percent of wrong-way collisions were fatal, compared with 0.3 percent for all highway accidents over the same period.
Often the chain of events begins with drivers entering an exit ramp in the wrong direction, making a U-turn on the mainline of a highway or using an emergency turnaround through a median, investigators said.
Most wrong-way crashes - including seven of the nine accidents directly investigated by NTSB - take place in the fast lane of the highway, investigators said. The accidents also tend to happen at night and on weekends, the study found.
Reducing drunken driving is perhaps the most obvious way to reduce wrong-way driving fatalities and injuries. The board hosted a forum earlier this year on the problem of drivers impaired by alcohol and drugs.
Alcohol-impaired crashes overall accounted for nearly 31 percent motor vehicle fatalities 2010. And, that percentage has remained stuck between 30 and 32 percent of overall highway fatalities since 1995, board members said.
Safety advocates have been lobbying states to pass more laws requiring ignition interlock devices for first-time offenders. According to the Governors Highway Safety Association, states that already have such laws on the books are: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Utah, Virginia and Washington. Missouri's law does take effect until next fall. Also, four California counties - including Los Angeles - have ignition interlock laws.
"The laws may vary some, but the common thread is that they are for all first time offenders," Jonathan Adkins, deputy executive director of the association, said.
The ignition interlock devices - already required for all convicted drunken drivers in 17 states - are the best currently available solution to reducing drunken driving deaths, which account for about a third of the nation's more than 32,000 traffic deaths a year, the board said.
Drivers breathe into breathalyzers mounted on the vehicle's dashboard. If their breath-alcohol concentration is greater than the device's programmed limit - usually a blood alcohol concentration of .02 percent or .04 percent - then the engine won't start.
The board also urged the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to speed up its research effort with automakers to develop systems that can determine a driver's blood alcohol concentration using infrared light when the driver presses an ignition button. The vehicle won't start if the alcohol concentration is too high.
The technology, which is sometimes breath-based rather than touch-activated, is already in use in some workplace drug-testing programs. If the technology were incorporated into all new vehicles, eventually all drivers would be alcohol-tested before driving. That could potentially prevent an estimated 7,000 drunken-driving deaths a year, the board said.
The five-member board made the unanimous recommendations after receiving a new study from its staff that found an average of 360 people a year are killed when drivers turn the wrong way into the face of oncoming traffic on high-speed highways.
The board's study analyzed data from 1,566 crashes from 2004 to 2009, as well as nine wrong way collisions NTSB directly investigated. In 59 percent of the accidents, wrong-way drivers had blood alcohol levels more than twice the legal limit, researchers said. In another 10 percent of the crashes, drivers had alcohol levels between .08 and .14. The limit in most instances is .08.
In just the past week, 11 people were killed and 9 seriously injured in wrong-way driving accidents in eight states, the board was told.
"Wrong-way crashes shatter lives and families," said NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman, calling the report and the recommendations a "milestone" for the board.
Older drivers also appear to be part of the wrong-way driving problem, researchers said. Drivers over age 70 were overrepresented in the accidents reviewed in the study, accounting for 15 percent of the wrong-way drivers compared with only 3 percent of the right-way drivers they collided with, researchers said.
Wrong-way driving crashes on interstates, expressways and other high-speed highways are especially deadly because over 80 percent involve head-on collisions in which vehicles close in on each other very rapidly, they said. A study in Michigan earlier this year found that 22 percent of wrong-way collisions were fatal, compared with 0.3 percent for all highway accidents over the same period.
Often the chain of events begins with drivers entering an exit ramp in the wrong direction, making a U-turn on the mainline of a highway or using an emergency turnaround through a median, investigators said.
Most wrong-way crashes - including seven of the nine accidents directly investigated by NTSB - take place in the fast lane of the highway, investigators said. The accidents also tend to happen at night and on weekends, the study found.
Reducing drunken driving is perhaps the most obvious way to reduce wrong-way driving fatalities and injuries. The board hosted a forum earlier this year on the problem of drivers impaired by alcohol and drugs.
Alcohol-impaired crashes overall accounted for nearly 31 percent motor vehicle fatalities 2010. And, that percentage has remained stuck between 30 and 32 percent of overall highway fatalities since 1995, board members said.
Safety advocates have been lobbying states to pass more laws requiring ignition interlock devices for first-time offenders. According to the Governors Highway Safety Association, states that already have such laws on the books are: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Utah, Virginia and Washington. Missouri's law does take effect until next fall. Also, four California counties - including Los Angeles - have ignition interlock laws.
"The laws may vary some, but the common thread is that they are for all first time offenders," Jonathan Adkins, deputy executive director of the association, said.
Let's ban fascist morons, what should eliminate most of NTSB's management, and thereby save all taxpayers even more.
I think this is a great idea, I don't think it will stop drunk driving by any means, but for the casual offender it might at least make them think twice and/or embarrass them into shaping up.
I've read nearly all the comments here and i just want to put mine in - this device sounds 'good' but I seriously doubt it is fool-proof. I have known some humdinger drunks in my time and they find ways to either get around a lot of 'obstacles' to their drinking or are/were great charmers who can charm family and friends and there's always an 'enabler' around to help them out. I don't drive drunk so why should I have to blow into something to start my car? What happens if the thing malfunctions and stops my car on the freeway and I cause a wreck? Can I sue them if I'm not dead? Also, does this thing test for drugs? And not necessarily street drugs - a lot of prescription drugs are mixed together, especially with the elderly and not so elderly people - who knows how impaired that can make a person? I think we need to start holding people accountable (god, there's that scary word) for their stupid actions and make them pay and clean up their mess.Â
Perhaps we should test the breath of judges before they sit in the chair. Getting rid of the drunks on the bench will never happen.
Great idea! Anything that can be done to help keep these people off the roads is a good thing. The number of people killed by drunk drivers is out of hand. Nobody should pay with their life because someone else makes stupid mistakes. If offenders are inconvenienced or have trouble with the devices so what. Don't drink and drive then you will have no issues. Drink and drive, you deserve all the trouble you get and then some.Â
Interlocks are pretty dangerous. Talk to anyone that has been forced to have them installed. They drain your battery fast so that your car may not be available when you really need it. They can kill the power while you're driving down a road or freeway. They don't calibrate very well so again the car may not be available if you really need it. Have driven a friends car that had one installed and its a real pain in the ass to get it set so you can drive the car and then it shut the car off while I was driving it. Maybe we should just snerf the planet so people don't have to use common sense.
And when you get hit as a pedestrian by one of these drunks out there you might just change your mind. Having to put up with the hassle for a year or two is nothing compared to NEVER being able to wrestle with you per-teen. Not being able to dance with you daughter at another father-daughter dance. Try it for a bit. Trust me what I go through every day is a lot more of a hassle than what your friend will EVER go through in his life if he has learned his lesson and drives sober.
 @bustedupredneck Its your responsibility to stay safe. Pay attention to your surroundings. I grow tired of the government doing parents jobs of protecting the kids and in the end the rest of us have to pay the cost.
@Blindman @bustedupredneck I was no the side walk when he lost control of his car when he blacked out from drinking. Yes I think one should be responsably for thier own safty. Walking down the road on the side walk and being run down from behind is one of those things that you just can not prevent unless you sit in a room and never go out side. People that drink and drive have no consern of others and the train wreck they cause. If they could I think they should suffer the pain and perminat damage they cause to others. Killing me might have been easer than what I go through. Some days it is hard to find the bright side. Others I remember I could be in a chair the rest of my life but then there might not be as much pain if that had happened. The drunks need to take a lot more responsability not thier victums!
 @Blindman  @bustedupredneck Really? You think it is the victims responsibility to protect themselves from blatant criminals?
Â
If someone held a gun to your mothers head, would you be like "whatever !! it was her responsibility to keep herself safe!" ??
I say they make them mandatory in all cars, period. I'll pay the extra few hundred.
Drinking and driving is more a cultural issue than something that can be altered/changed with the swipe of a pen. Put in all the draconian laws you want, take away birthdays, confiscate all the personal property. Until society as a whole presumes drinking/driving to be bad, and peer pressure (family/friends/businesses) basically weed it out, it will be with us.
Â
It has taken years to get this far as it wasn't that long ago it was considered somewhat funny, and was mocked in the media. We are making progress but it is a long, slow road to where it isn't accepted nor tolerated as it has been (and still somewhat is). We won't get there in a fortnight. As with any cultural shift, there are still many more years to go and no additional laws will hasten it.
Â
Enforce what laws we have, and work to change the culture behind drinking/driving. Work also to address the addictive personalities that are afflicted with alcoholism. These are the areas I see as most important.
Interlocks are not the solution and soon every vehicle will have them to address an issue with the behavior of people instead of addressing the behavior itself. We need laws that are much more strict, vehicles taken away as well as licenses, and mandatory rehab but at some point these idiots need to be held accountable and strict laws will help the repercussions sink in. Here's a key point though. The law needs to hold everyone equally accountable. Letting celebrities and law makers off the hook and showing a double standard will only degrade the seriousness of DUI's. I know, I know, "get real", "good luck", "never gonna happen". I didn't say it would happen, I just said it needs to happen.
Â
Also if you have a "friend" that decides to drive while impaired then call them in or better yet take their keys. I've done both to friends and strangers on many occasions. There is absolutely no excuse for getting a DUI other than the person was a selfish moron who didn't take into account other people on the road.
Trust me, the drunks will find a way to bypass the system. This is just another "feel good" measure by the do gooders of America. This is like putting a 5 day waiting period on guns... If you're a convicted felon, you shouldn't be able to get a gun, yet I bet a lot of the repeat offenders have them. This is just adding costs to the people that "learn their lesson".  This is just dumb. Have a buddy blow in the tester? Pay someone to blow in the tester (is that against the law)?
 @Stock Woodie Has anyone suggested interlocks would be effective 100% of the time?  No.
How many lives would if have to save of the ten thousand deaths for you to think it worth while?
 @My_Thoughts  @Stock Woodie We can simply not leave the house that saves lives.Â
 @Northend I'll ask you as well, How many lives would if have to save of the ten thousand deaths for you to think it worth while?
If the interlocks were only effective in preventing 10% of the deaths caused by repeat offenders I would thing it would be worth the costs and aggravation.
Â
I would REALLY like to see the data from the other 17 states on the reductions, if any, of alcohol related accident deaths through their requiring interlock installations.
In addition to my earlier Post - Google International DUI Laws - USA is MILES behind.....Other Nations do not even play when it comes to this subject, once again we are looking the "fool"....so sad.
 @_Monte_ Our neighbors to the north just give a first offender a fine and sends them home. Which is the right response for a fist time offender that was not involved in an accident. We just need better rehabilitation techniques for repeat offenders. Jail time and huge fines do nothing but push these people further into despair and they drink even more. Right now our only scientific cure for alcoholics is God.lol
More govt intrusion. Uncle Sam couldn't manage a 7/11. The system is already a joke. A good lawyer and some benjamins and even an 8th offense is doable.
Sounds like something we've should've done some time ago. Now we just need to do something simular with morons driving with cell phones and blackberries.
This is a good start. Add to that: Changing state laws that currently allow drunk drivers who murder people (when they drive drunk but get slap-on-the-wrist joke prosecutions for "vehicular manslaughter" and are out in no time - tho vehicular manslaughter charge blames the vehicle and not the perpetrator of the crime) to be charged with first degree murder - that's another long overdue and very much needed step towards stopping the leniency American state legislators, governors and soft-on-murderers county prosecutors show towards these killers. This is the case in King County, where the prosecutors are happy to let drunk killers go scot-free after serving short sentences.
Another goal: Setting minimum sentences, e.g. ten years -Â for anyone & everyone convicted of first time DUI/DWI prosecutions are also long overdue and wanted by the public-at-large. It's time the public demanded that drunk driving murderers be prosecuted for just that: murder, when they drive drunk and kill innocent people.
In my opinion, when someone drunk (or chemically impaired) gets behind the wheel of a car, they KNOW the consequences, and therefore agree to any punishment the courts will hand down. The punishments needs to become 10 times more harsh than they are now. Injure someone - automatically 2-5 years in prison. Kill someone - LIFE !! Drinking and driving should be considered pre-meditated murder for the drunk/impaired driver. A few of these convictions across the country, and people's attitudes may change......
Real drunks will have someone else blow for them, just like they do now.
 @Melissa Angevine Interlock devices require the driver blow into the device during driving as well, not just to start the car. If an intoxicated person has a sober friend with them for the whole trip, I figure they would probably let the sober person drive (or the sober person would insist).
How about holding a DUI accountable. They lose their car, it is sold and the loan paid off, if not, they are on the hook for the rest.
how about this device on ALL cars?? I have heard so many stories about "I don't usually get drunk" I personally don't have a problem with it...and if it saves one life, it's worth it
 @my_opinions should we all wear deactivated tracking anklets because other people get put on house arrest?  how about dealing out harsher consequences to hold people accountable for their actions rather than restricting others?
 @my_opinions Should we all be put in jail cells because other people screw up?
YES!!!
so they want a law that requires the device in the car, hoping these drunk drivers will obey the law and blow into it? What makes them think these lawbreakers will listen? Only people I see benefiting from this are the device makers and the service providers.
Â
I know for a fact there are people out there that continue to drink and drive even after being convicted of a DUI/DWI, with/without license, with/without a breath analyzer. They donât care for law or other peopleâs safety.
Â
There is a reason why there are people with multiple convictions, itâs because they can get away with it. They solution is harsher punishments.
 @Nathan Boi Even if the interlocks were only effective in reducing deaths by 10% that would be 1000 people.  Are you saying that the lives of those 1000 individuals aren't worth the effort?
@Nathan Boi The car won't start without them blowing into it. Also, if it is set up where they have to blow in it periodically while driving, there is a less likely chance that someone else will do it for them.
 @The WA Mama Other people will blow in it for them.
Â
I got a DUI when i was younger and had one, you take them to places like car audio shops for the info to be downloaded and submitted to court.
Â
I was offered twice to have the results altered for a fee, I had not broken the law or drank so I did not need it, but I was sad to see that it happened. Those downloads should be done by a more professional and accountable establishment.
Â
This was a decade ago, I hope they have improved technology.
You cannot fix stupid drunk drivers........ Stupid is as stupid does.... Prison time for first offenders should help slow them down........ 1yr. and one day for first offense might help.
 @Funky-Munky Even if the interlocks were only effective in reducing deaths by 10% that would be 1000 people walking around that wouldn't be without them.  That seems worth the costs and aggravations to me.Â
As soon as they get a shut off feature or auto lock down on guns when people are in their distorted state of mind to prevent them from going on their killing rampage , then they can talk about this with a car. Guns kill more people do to their reckless behaviour then drunk drivers. And since no one wants to have a rational discussion about gun crimes and the apparent easy access to them under any condition or current law. This ignition shut off issue falls flat Â
@NoKitty666 Ummmm......we're not talking about guns here. Lose the agenda for a few moments and FOCUS on the topic at hand? You anti gun zealots are truly fascinating.
I know I know. You have the 2nd amendment to buy all the guns you want and cry foul over restrictions and laws that you claim don't prevent death and destruction. But when compared to an equally destructive weapon when in the wrong hands, your all for it.
Â
Hypocrisy at it's finest.
Â
@NoKitty666 If "guns kill people"......MINE are defective. Want to take away ALL cars because SOME idiots drive drunk? Seem ridiculous, doesn't it. How about taking away steak knives when someone gets stabbed.......we can GUM our meat to death. Makes PERFECT sense.
Hey look, the spelling police. We need an automated internet shut down switch to prevent all the pain and suffering incorrect spelling must cause.
Â
When you can actually say some rational about the comparison. Please by all means bring it forward. I would be more then happy to discuss the conflicting reactions between how we deal with Thugs and DUI. Â
 @NoKitty666 So much for "rational" discussion.
BTW, it's "you're".
 @NoKitty666 It's impossible to have a "rational discussion" about anything at all with anyone who has already convinced themselves that their beliefs are 100% correct... unless you are agreeing with them.
I have a friend that had one DUI . After thousands of dollars in legal bills, paying for the interlock, and dealing with high risk insurance she still 'pushes' her luck by drinking and then supposedly waiting a while before getting behind the wheel That is just plain dumb
. If it were me I would just not drive unless I had a designated driver or another way home that did not involve getting behind the wheel. Yes cab fare is expensive but it is far more expensive to deal with a DUI.
 @Charl317 If she's waiting long enough for her blood alcohol concentration to be low enough for her to be able to start her car after blowing into the interlock then I'd say the system works.
Good idea. However, the real problem is how our courts have responded to DUI. We need to do away with options like deferred prosecution. Some LE agencies have SOPs that DUI drivers are not booked, but simply processed, then released from the local PD precinct, and, the DUI vehicles are not regularly impounded. Sleazy lawyers nit-picking the laws and adminstrative process have made processing a DUI more cumbersome than a homicide investigation.Â
Â
Plus, an ignition interlock will do nothing to stop those that are high from weed, crack, meth, heroin, ambien, hill-billy heroin (Oxy), etc. Â
Â
Technology is not the answer. Common sense courts and laws are the answer. With today's level of education against impaired driving, and transportation options,  there is NO excuse for getting behind the wheel when under the influence.
 @ButtercupSprinkles Knew someone who had the interlock. He also had a compressor in the front of his truck he used to blow for him.  He was a very bad drinker.
 @ButtercupSprinkles Technology may not be the only answer but if the interlock only worked 10% of the time that would be 1000 people walking around that wouldn't be otherwise.  I'd say that's worth requiring interlocks.
 @ButtercupSprinkles "Plus, an ignition interlock will do nothing to stop those that are high from weed, crack, meth, heroin, ambien, hill-billy heroin (Oxy), etc."Â
Â
Amen