U.S. may require anti-DWI locks on vehicles

[OnePimpTiger]

U.S. may require anti-DWI locks on vehicles

A national campaign against first-time drunken-driving offenders is gaining ground as states and the federal government weigh mandatory use of devices requiring violators to prove their sobriety before their engines start.

Three more states have enacted laws this year requiring all violators to install devices called alcohol ignition interlocks, bringing to 11 the number of states with such rules. The instrument blocks a vehicle engine from starting if it detects alcohol on the breath of drivers.

The current version of a federal transportation funding bill, which could be debated by Congress this fall, requires all 50 states to mandate the devices for anyone convicted of drunken driving or risk losing federal highway money. Today, 47 states and the District of Columbia have interlock ignition laws for at least some offenders. Alabama, South Dakota and Vermont have no such laws.

Interesting...I'm not sure how I feel about this.

[Alfordron]

That's a little bit too much big brother there for me. To this day I will not wear a seat belt. It makes me feel trapped and a tad
claustrophobic. People have run off the road into bodies of water, not been able to get the seat belt off and drown. I really don't see how they can enforce this and require everyone to put this device on their vehicles. These devices malfunction quite a bit also, from what I have read. Had few folks I know have to use one also.

[OnePimpTiger]

Just a note, it's not for every everyone. Just for people who have been convicted of a DWI before...not sure if that's what you meant or not.

[Alfordron]

Just a note, it's not for every everyone. Just for people who have been convicted of a DWI before...not sure if that's what you meant or not.

I read it too fast, my bad. I was under the "influence", they were going to try and put these on all vehicles.

[Titantron]

I dont have a problem with it, but its typical Government pandering. People Lobby for it and they focus all of the attention on DUI because its PC. The Government knows there is a much bigger and even more dangerous problem with Cell Phones, Texting, and accidents. The newest studies are finding that dialing/texting is 10 times more deadly than DUI and everybody is doing it. Its like the entire country is driving drunk on a daily basis. Its insane if you look for it. I drove home from work yesterday and decided to count the people on cell phones in rush hour traffic on the interstate. I couldnt keep track. it would have been much easier to count the people that were not on the phone. Its a much bigger problem, but it is not as easy to demonize people for using a cell phone. Not yet anyway.

[Glebe]

sounds good to me, friends brother died driving drunk so I wouldn't mind it.

[shortking98]

That's a little bit too much big brother there for me. To this day I will not wear a seat belt. It makes me feel trapped and a tad
claustrophobic. People have run off the road into bodies of water, not been able to get the seat belt off and drown. I really don't see how they can enforce this and require everyone to put this device on their vehicles. These devices malfunction quite a bit also, from what I have read. Had few folks I know have to use one also.

I'm sure there have also been plenty of people who run off the road into solid objects and die because they don't have seat belts on. OK, it's not a perfect safety device (is there such thing) but the off chance of driving into water isn't really a good reason not to wear a seat belt.

[Glebe]

can you show me proof where someone got trapped by there seatbelt? if they did they must be physically challanged because it's not hard to unbuckle.

[Alfordron]

I'm sure there have also been plenty of people who run off the road into solid objects and die because they don't have seat belts on. OK, it's not a perfect safety device (is there such thing) but the off chance of driving into water isn't really a good reason not to wear a seat belt.

You must have missed the part about feeling trapped and bit
claustrophobic. You can get exceptions for seat belts for these reasons, but you have to carry documentaion from doctors and such to be legal.
Plus i don't need state or federal government telling me what is going to make ME safer. When I'm in my vehicle, to me that is an extension
of my home. Most folks have enough sense not to drive drunk, but that is seperate issue than forcing seatbelts on people.

And Glebe, I live on the coast, lots of water, lots of bridges. I am not paranoid about running off a bridge and not being able to get a seatbelt off, because I don't wear one! but there were two confirmed cases of this happening in the past year in my area, so it does happen.

[shortking98]

You must have missed the part about feeling trapped and bit
claustrophobic. You can get exceptions for seat belts for these reasons, but you have to carry documentaion from doctors and such to be legal.
Plus i don't need state or federal government telling me what is going to make ME safer. When I'm in my vehicle, to me that is an extension
of my home. Most folks have enough sense not to drive drunk, but that is seperate issue than forcing seatbelts on people.

And Glebe, I live on the coast, lots of water, lots of bridges. I am not paranoid about running off a bridge and not being able to get a seatbelt off, because I don't wear one! but there were two confirmed cases of this happening in the past year in my area, so it does happen.

I did not miss that part. I think that if you are claustrophobic about the seat belts that is a much more valid reason than the fear of drowning. Drowning due to a seat belt is pretty rare in comparison to other safety problems but I certainly wouldn't want someone driving next to me who is feeling claustrophobic due to being required to wear a seat belt. That seems like it would present it's own safety problems