INTERLOCK: The Risks
Ignition Interlock Devices (IID) are another example of a non-specific alcohol detector used in the fight against drunk driving.Interlocks are used in most states and stop a vehicle from starting if the user's breath registers a certain amount of alcohol or disable if already started,but again are subject to consequential fallibilities.Although a much more fitting punishment,the crime being that of driving,there are groups that want them to be standard issue on all vehicles.
Just like the breath test machines,IID's are vulnerable to certain bread products,usually containing yeast,and have been known to disable vehicles of users trying to leave gas stations.Don't clean your windows,or spill a cleaner in the vehicle.Smoking has been known to register as well.Unlike AMS the proprietor of SCRAM,proprietors of IID address these issues and a phone call could eliminate senseless,costly litigations, but they can still cause an inconvienence.While driving the user is warned and may have to blow in the machine again,if alcohol is detected the vehicle's horn will blow repeatedly and the lights flash on and off,to draw attention.
Skeptics are saying that there are two possible safety issues here.First,the horn blowing and lights flashing (which does not mean the user consumed while driving) may startle drivers surrounding the user.Second, the user had to find the device,get a deep breath,blow hard enough to register and repeat which may cause a driver to become dizzy after all the distractions he/she have already endured.The reason behind the second or repeated tests is in it's infancy,people were using air compressors and driving around,some devices require a user to hum as well.
SANTA FE, N.M., March 21 /PRNewswire/ -- Despite an attempt to back away from its own findings, the California Department of Motor Vehicles' (CA DMV) new report specifically states that ignition interlock devices (IID) are an ineffective tool for first-time DUI offenders, reporting "there is no evidence that interlocks are an effective traffic safety measure for first DUI offenders" and concluding that "the use of the devices should not be emphasized".The report also found that IIDs increase their users' general crash risk by up to 130%. Controversy has surrounded the California DMV report, starting with a March 15th press release by the American Beverage Institute (ABI), which highlighted the report's findings about the ineffectiveness of IIDs for first- time DUI offenders to both the New Mexico legislature and its governor. Well known anti-alcohol lobbyists and the California DMV responded in subsequent days, highlighting other findings on IIDs in the report, which were irrelevant to New Mexico's proposed law. They did, however, readily admit to the ineffectiveness of IIDs among first-time offenders -- the very subjects of recently passed legislation in New Mexico. In fact, the California DMV report's lead author David DeYoung stated the following in a March 21st press release: "It's true that we found court orders to install an ignition interlock device have no significant effect in preventing repeat DUIs among first-time DUI offenders." "Clearly the California DMV doesn't like to have their own scientific conclusions repeated back to them when it doesn't suit their agenda," said ABI executive director John Doyle. "Through creative cherry-picking, they are attempting to bury the findings that highlight the unintended consequences of mandating ignition interlocks for first offenders. "But the facts remain -- New Mexico is poised to enact this legislation even though the California DMV found 'there is no evidence that interlocks are an effective traffic safety measure for first DUI offenders,' and that these devices will likely increase threats to highway safety. We invite the Governor and the public to review the DMV report themselves as these facts couldn't be any clearer."
DeYoung attempted to cover the report with,"In quoting our finding that DUI second offenders using the device have a 130% higher risk of a subsequent crash, ABI seems to imply that the device itself somehow increases the likelihood of a crash. That is not what we said.....Notice he never denies the fact that there is in fact an 130% higher risk of an accident.Another attempt to cover he says,"it is not that installation and use of interlocks causes crashes or that the devices themselves are unsafe,".Obviously if someone who has previously been forbidden to drive is allowed to return legally to the roadways with an ignition interlock and a restricted driver license, their exposure to accidents increases, no matter how sober they are."......how is that statement any different than saying no matter how sober the driver, an interlock device will increase the driver's chance of being involved in an accident?DeYoung added: "It's true that our study showed that court orders to first offenders to install an ignition interlock device are not effective in reducing recidivism among that group -- perhaps because many first offenders tend to be in denial, resent the devices and refuse to install them."
The next IID post is an example of a sober driver that may just resent the device!
SANTA FE, N.M., March 15 /PRNewswire/ -- New Mexico legislators interested in safer roads should think twice before requiring ignition interlock devices for those convicted of drunk driving, according to the American Beverage Institute (ABI). Dramatic findings in a recently released study by the California Department of Motor Vehicles show that interlock devices had no statistically significant effect in preventing subsequent drunk driving convictions, but they increase their users' general crash risk by up to 130%.
http://www.ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=967
HOME
Just like the breath test machines,IID's are vulnerable to certain bread products,usually containing yeast,and have been known to disable vehicles of users trying to leave gas stations.Don't clean your windows,or spill a cleaner in the vehicle.Smoking has been known to register as well.Unlike AMS the proprietor of SCRAM,proprietors of IID address these issues and a phone call could eliminate senseless,costly litigations, but they can still cause an inconvienence.While driving the user is warned and may have to blow in the machine again,if alcohol is detected the vehicle's horn will blow repeatedly and the lights flash on and off,to draw attention.
Skeptics are saying that there are two possible safety issues here.First,the horn blowing and lights flashing (which does not mean the user consumed while driving) may startle drivers surrounding the user.Second, the user had to find the device,get a deep breath,blow hard enough to register and repeat which may cause a driver to become dizzy after all the distractions he/she have already endured.The reason behind the second or repeated tests is in it's infancy,people were using air compressors and driving around,some devices require a user to hum as well.
SANTA FE, N.M., March 21 /PRNewswire/ -- Despite an attempt to back away from its own findings, the California Department of Motor Vehicles' (CA DMV) new report specifically states that ignition interlock devices (IID) are an ineffective tool for first-time DUI offenders, reporting "there is no evidence that interlocks are an effective traffic safety measure for first DUI offenders" and concluding that "the use of the devices should not be emphasized".The report also found that IIDs increase their users' general crash risk by up to 130%. Controversy has surrounded the California DMV report, starting with a March 15th press release by the American Beverage Institute (ABI), which highlighted the report's findings about the ineffectiveness of IIDs for first- time DUI offenders to both the New Mexico legislature and its governor. Well known anti-alcohol lobbyists and the California DMV responded in subsequent days, highlighting other findings on IIDs in the report, which were irrelevant to New Mexico's proposed law. They did, however, readily admit to the ineffectiveness of IIDs among first-time offenders -- the very subjects of recently passed legislation in New Mexico. In fact, the California DMV report's lead author David DeYoung stated the following in a March 21st press release: "It's true that we found court orders to install an ignition interlock device have no significant effect in preventing repeat DUIs among first-time DUI offenders." "Clearly the California DMV doesn't like to have their own scientific conclusions repeated back to them when it doesn't suit their agenda," said ABI executive director John Doyle. "Through creative cherry-picking, they are attempting to bury the findings that highlight the unintended consequences of mandating ignition interlocks for first offenders. "But the facts remain -- New Mexico is poised to enact this legislation even though the California DMV found 'there is no evidence that interlocks are an effective traffic safety measure for first DUI offenders,' and that these devices will likely increase threats to highway safety. We invite the Governor and the public to review the DMV report themselves as these facts couldn't be any clearer."
DeYoung attempted to cover the report with,"In quoting our finding that DUI second offenders using the device have a 130% higher risk of a subsequent crash, ABI seems to imply that the device itself somehow increases the likelihood of a crash. That is not what we said.....Notice he never denies the fact that there is in fact an 130% higher risk of an accident.Another attempt to cover he says,"it is not that installation and use of interlocks causes crashes or that the devices themselves are unsafe,".Obviously if someone who has previously been forbidden to drive is allowed to return legally to the roadways with an ignition interlock and a restricted driver license, their exposure to accidents increases, no matter how sober they are."......how is that statement any different than saying no matter how sober the driver, an interlock device will increase the driver's chance of being involved in an accident?DeYoung added: "It's true that our study showed that court orders to first offenders to install an ignition interlock device are not effective in reducing recidivism among that group -- perhaps because many first offenders tend to be in denial, resent the devices and refuse to install them."
The next IID post is an example of a sober driver that may just resent the device!
SANTA FE, N.M., March 15 /PRNewswire/ -- New Mexico legislators interested in safer roads should think twice before requiring ignition interlock devices for those convicted of drunk driving, according to the American Beverage Institute (ABI). Dramatic findings in a recently released study by the California Department of Motor Vehicles show that interlock devices had no statistically significant effect in preventing subsequent drunk driving convictions, but they increase their users' general crash risk by up to 130%.
http://www.ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=967
HOME
posted by marcellus91872 at 11:07 AM
4 Comments:
Unfortunately, I myself have found another 'risk' in using the interlock device. I went to starbucks as I had done every morning, only to walk into that delicious aroma and was enticed into trying their new and seasonal 'cinnamon dolce latte'. Ignorantly, I take my coffee in my car after having just had a sip, only to FAIL my breath test. This was the first time I had failed (keep in mind, this was moments after I had just PASSED AND DRIVEN TO STARBUCKS!) so naturally I was startled. After it had me 're-test' and I passed with flying colors, I went on my way to work thinking nothing of it (since surely the test would show I, indeed had had nothing to actually drink). Inspection time rolls around to now show, I had 3x the legal limit of bac showing for this very incident. Anyways, to make a long story longer, the 'mom and pop' interlock shop I had been using now is showing no records of this 're-test' (but of course, otherwise this might actually show their device to be faulty). I am now fighting a warrant for my arrest and possible jail time due to this one incident alone. Not to mention that I still have yet to have been tried for my dui and this is, no doubt, going to re-haunt me then as well as now. *** Also in my effort to try to research previous wrongful failures (which is nearly impossible since no websites will actually publish any complaints... only resounding praise for this man-made device), I did manage to uncover a frequent complaint that 'spices, spicy food, and cigarettes' trigger a failure. Yet on the GUARDIAN INTERLOCK website, it clearly states that it is 'alcohol specific'... hum *scratching chin*, I'm a tad confused on that statement since it had other known deterrents/inhibitors other than alcohol.
"are another example of a non-specific alcohol detector used in the fight against drunk driving"
Yes they are non-specific, usually they address the issue and give a list of things that may trigger an erroneous read, supposedly your supposed to call ASAP. Fortunately you went from .24 to .00 in minutes which would be impossible for the human body to metabolize alcohol that fast. I've heard the stories of getting stuck at gas stations, leaving a nephews pizza party, or the car honking and going crazy after eating a doughnut and taking a retest. I'll check into the Guardian's claim it is specific- it would seem that is false advertisement.
ur site is cool, but this is the bomb: georgia dmv
Yes but sad there will always be people out there that take advantage of others hardships even if they brought it down on themselves. I believe that the device is dangerous . You can not always pull off the road .The anxiety and stress that happens in those moments of blowing into a device that does not work 100percent acurately can for sure cause an accident. I believe that someone is going to get into a head on and kill someone long before any of these issues are looked at. I do not think there is any reason why these devices should only be used when starting your vehicle and after arriving at your destination. Distraction from these devices is no different than that of a cell phone in use while driving.
Post a Comment
<< Home