Illinois Is Getting Fatter
Kuma's Pats Itself On Back With Block Party
Chicagoan Involved In Mount Rushmore Ruckus
Park Ridge Residents Not Thrilled About New O'Hare Runway
For the dipshits among us planning on getting absolutely 'faced and cruising home a couple nights from now, here's another thing to consider before you pour yourself into the driver's seat and hit the highways. Whereas a DUI on December 31st would be terribly expensive, time-consuming and have negative legal consequences on your life, a DUI on January 1st is even worse. How could that be, you say?
One of the few things that the state actually did this year was pass legislation to make drivers rent and maintain an ignition-interlock device after a DUI, which forces the driver to breathe into the machine in order to get it to start. If you've had more than a couple beers (or that half-shot of schnapps, you lightweight), it stays off. Not only is this expected to save lives - New Mexico reported a 12 percent drop in drunken-driving deaths after implementing the device - but it's good for a lot more spending. The DUI program is a huge cash cow for the state, and this legislation will put another $80 per installation of the device, plus another $80 per month for "maintenance" to an as-yet unidentified company, plus another $30 to the Secretary of State for more monitoring.
Now, addicts are a crafty bunch. You might think, maybe someone just will blow into it to get the car going, and then when they hit the road they can start boozing. Wrong, drunkard: the machine requires another hit in about 15 minutes after starting, and then a couple times per hour during the course of the trip. That's a lot of exhaling for your pissed-off sponsor sitting next to you while you swill Early Times and careen down the Kennedy.
What about renting & installing the device, and then driving another vehicle, you say? If you get busted doing so, you could very well go to the pokey for 3 years. Something to think about before you pound back that 14th Old Style and borrow your buddy's conversion van to hit the liquor store. Plus, if you get busted and pull that "refuse to blow because someone's lawyer said it was a good idea" routine, get ready for the interlock as well - refusal to blow followed by a conviction will put the machine in your vehicle for a full year.
Full text of the bill is located here [pdf] if you want to inspect all the legal nooks and crannies, but suffice to say: Don't freaking drink and drive. A $20 cab ride or the CTA are much cheaper than thousands of dollars in fees, tow truck costs, penalties, court costs, and legal expenses. Not to mention any of the costs - emotional, medical and beyond - involved if you - God forbid - wreck yourself or someone else. If the State could go further than their current "DUIs are for Losers" campaign, we'd recommend they use a "DUIs are for Dipshits" line of copy. [Trib]
Image from South Carolina's Ignition Interlock page.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
I despise anyone who thinks they can get drunk and then get into a car and drive, so I think this is a good idea. It's probably not fool proof, but it's a good start.
My question is, once you get the DUI and have this installed in your car, is it something that is there forever or would there be different terms for different levels of offense?
btw, I know a young guy who just got busted for DUI...totalled the car, the whole nine yards. His mommy hired an atty. and is doing her best to get him off, which I think is just so wrong. He needs to be punished because he'll just go and do it again. He drinks and drives all the time. If I told you the excuse he used for crashing into a tree two blocks from his house, you wouldn't even believe me. But the thing is, because of his attitude, he should get punished by the law, to the full extent. Mommy isn't doing him any favors by trying to get around what he should have coming to him.
He could have killed someone.
Unlike screwing people for $50 bucks for overstaying at a 25 cent meter, this holds people who actually endanger the public to account.
Drunk Driving is someone choosing to get in a huge metal machine while knowingly mentally impaired. Honestly, I don't like the idea of someone who would do that having the privilege to drive at all.
Unlike screwing people for $50 bucks for overstaying at a 25 cent meter, this holds people who actually endanger the public to account.
Drunk Driving is someone choosing to get in a huge metal machine while knowingly mentally impaired. Honestly, I don't like the idea of someone who would do that having the privilege to drive at all.
I think "knowingly mentally impaired" is a bit of an oxymoron.
And the whole point of refusing to blow is that it lowers the chances you'll get convicted by 2/3.
Do you know what works and is free? AA.
Aww, Rachel, did you get a word-a-day calendar for the holiday? It's not an oxymoron at all, to knowingly impair one's self, a bit of temporary brain amputation.
Tomorrow's word is "Pedant."
Don't come crying about the rights of people driving drunk. You are not required to have a driver's license and obtaining one makes you subject to a whole host of very odious laws, restrictions and codes. If you wish to live a life of drunken pleasure, wholly free of such imposition, don't drive, period.
It's the very nature of being mentally impaired that said person is unware of it. This archetype is all over popular literature from Thoreau's "Ignorant Woodsman" to "Flowers for Algernon".
The problem I have with criminalizing drunk driving is that there is no intent. In other crimes, being drunk is actually a mitigating circumstance.
As I remember it, refusing to blow won't save someone who's truly drunk. The point is, you're not legally required to take a breathalyzer...if you refuse, you ARE legally required to take a blood test. It's your choice. But you'll be arrested in the meantime. Okay, so, why do that? Because if, when you were pulled over, you're quite aware of how much you drank, and you're probably JUST straddling the .08 line, the time it takes for you to be taken down to the station and booked will be enough time for you to fall below .08.
At least that's how I understand it. But that's mostly because I never drive while drunk enough to really care...so the situation above (right at the limit) is the only one that would ever apply to me.
You can actually refuse ANY kind of testing, the penalties upon convinction are just more severe. The point is, how so you PROVE that someone's BAC is above the legal limit without a chemical test?
At that point the convinction lies totally in the hands of the arresting officer who liekly based his arrest on a series of completely subjective and non-uniform field tests.
I would never submit to a BAC test of any kind. It's even stupider than actually driving drunk.
i think that correct, but if you refuse a blood test, then you automatically lose your license for 6 months. of course, if you are over the BAC, then youre going to lose your license for a year and have a DUI conviction on top of it.
i think that correct, but if you refuse a blood test, then you automatically lose your license for 6 months. of course, if you are over the BAC, then youre going to lose your license for a year and have a DUI conviction on top of it.
Ingrid, the Trib reports that "Drivers who register a 0.08 or higher blood-alcohol level at the time of their arrest will be required to drive with the monitoring devices for five months. Drivers who refuse alcohol testing but are convicted must use the devices for 11 months."
The thing that I'm conflicted about with this little device is that if it detects a BAC above 0.024, it will disable the car. I know that drivers with prior DUI convictions should probably be held to a stricter BAC limit than the general unconvicted populous, but the difference between 0.08 and 0.024 seems pretty significant - I guess I had wrongly assumed it would only disable the car if the driver was actually over the legal limit.
For those with DUI convictions, it's usually part of their sentence that they are not allowed to drive under the influence, not even a little bit. Because of their previous indiscretion, they are not afforded the .08 that the rest of us can be trusted with.
I wonder if any of this money is going to improve public transportation, education or treatment. I doubt it.
Apparently your fifth amendment rights can be restricted if the government suspects that you're naughty enough.
I'm not sure how the fifth amendment applies. This is punishment as part of your sentence when convicted of a crime. As long a due process is maintained in arriving at the conviction, the state has the right to deprive you of life, liberty and property.
Drive hammered, get hammered. Whether installing is right or wrong, I seriously doubt that the State is going to make a profit out of this. The company that installs this device is the one that is going to be making a profit. This is like saying the state makes a profit by issuing house arrest devices.
Drive hammered, get hammered. Whether installing is right or wrong, I seriously doubt that the State is going to make a profit out of this. The company that installs this device is the one that is going to be making a profit. This is like saying the state makes a profit by issuing house arrest devices.
As far as the "refuse to blow" thing is concerned: If you do in fact refuse the field sobriety test, I believe you're instantly taken into custody and an automatic license suspension is enacted. Then, the police can get a judge to order a blood test - of course, the whole process takes time, during which sobering occurs.
Inre: the state making money off this, yes, the Secretary of State is only making $30 per device - but when there's thousands and thousands of drunk driving arrests each year, it does add up. How many people do you think are going to be hired to do the actual monitoring? Or will it be rolled into police duties or DMV responsibilities? I don't know.
In addition, at least one site I saw from another state that have implemented the program indicate that heavy lobbying from the ignition-interlock people probably had as much to do with the passage of the legislation as any concerns for public safety. (Surprise!) Again, I don't know if that's the case in Illinois, but you do the math.
@Stephen: Ask anyone who pounds 14 Old Styles in about 7 innings if they're drunk.