Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterSun editorial:
Reducing DUI deaths
More offenders now having to install breath monitors in their vehicles
Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2009 | 2:10 a.m.
In 2005 New Mexico became the first state in the nation to require that people convicted of drunken driving install — at their own expense — breath-monitoring ignitions in their vehicles.
Arizona and Louisiana quickly followed suit.
Similar laws in Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Nebraska and Washington went into effect Jan. 1. On the same day, a similar law in South Carolina went into effect for repeat offenders.
This trend can be considered a victory for Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which campaigns for such laws. But it is also a victory for all drivers and passengers, as the devices, which prevent vehicles from starting if alcohol is detected, have been shown to increase safety.
In New Mexico, studies show, drunken-driving deaths have fallen 20 percent since the law was passed and repeat offenses for driving under the influence have fallen by two-thirds.
Those positive numbers also reflect the effectiveness of awareness and enforcement programs that have resulted in vastly improved statistics in recent years.
According to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, 12,998 people were killed throughout the country in alcohol-related driving crashes in 2007, a decline of 3.7 percent from the 13,491 fatalities in 2006.
Nevada’s numbers are even better. A total of 320 people were killed in car crashes in 2008, compared with 373 killed in 2007, a 14 percent improvement. Although statistics for alcohol-related traffic fatalities for 2008 are not yet available, the Public Safety Department estimates that nearly a 20 percent reduction will be realized over 2007, when 136 people were killed.
Our view is that fatality rates could be even lower if all states, including Nevada, adopted some variation of a vehicle breath-monitoring law for DUI offenders. First-time offenders, for example, could opt for the devices in exchange for limited driving privileges, rather than a license suspension.
The law could be written so that it wouldn’t cost taxpayers a nickel, but would improve the chances that the tragic cost in alcohol-related deaths would drop even further.
Discussion: 13 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Corrections officer with Metro killed in U.S. 95 crash
- System fails to catch contractor’s family tie with county
- The pull of a drug, a push to the brink
- Where to watch UFC 106
- Findlay guard Joseph scores 33, talks about UNLV
- UNLV and Southern Illinois will be guarded tonight
- Bishop Gorman takes Sunset Region title in win over Cimarron
- Basic’s magical season continues with trip to state semifinals
- Reid clears major health care hurdle, daunting weeks ahead
- Was there an ulterior motive in parking the stripper-mobile?
Blogs
Culture and Entertainment
UFC 106 walk-in music: Griffin changes his tune, secures win over Ortiz
The Kats Report
For props, Lewis Black needs only his manic delivery and torrid material (7 Comments)
Elsewhere
Sands China raises $2.5 billion in Hong Kong IPO (2 Comments)
Marquardt v. Sonnen scheduled for UFC 109
Bloggity, Bloggity, Bloggity
Will a fourth consecutive title by Jimmie Johnson be good or bad for NASCAR? (4 Comments)
Top Chef: Las Vegas
The Jet Stream: And then there were four
Top Chef Episode 12: On keeping it simple
- Live chat
- Tuesday, noon PST
- Chat with Krista Creelman
- Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question
Calendar »
- 22 Sun
- 23 Mon
- 24 Tue
- 25 Wed
- 26 Thu
-
The Four Tops at The Orleans Showroom
Orleans Hotel-Casino
-
The Chase at Downtown Cocktail Room
Downtown Cocktail Room | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Lady Gaga album release party at Revolution Lounge
Beatles Revolution Lounge | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Food drive at Christian Audigier
Christian Audigier The Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Above & Beyond at Moon
Moon Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
What's to prevent the person convicted of drunk driving from borrowing and driving another vehicle? Why not make this standard equipment on every vehicle to prevent future drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel? This would stop them before they kill someone and reduce the cost of prosecution.
I think this is a great idea. As far as having it standard, first I want to know how much it's going to add to the cost of my car since I don't drink and drive. If it's $50 bucks, fine but if it's $1000 I don't think I should have to absorb it.
And if people lend their cars to drunks they ought to go to jail.
The car breathalizer ignition locks are quite expensive from what I heard. As for everyone having to have one sounds incredibly totalitarian. The government can put one in my car over my cold dead body.
In any case dude, most drunks DON'T get in other cars. Probably because no one else would want a drunk using their car.
For that matter you overlook the most simple point, couldn't you just get a sober person to blow the numbers for you like in 40 Year Old Virgin?
You may not drink but that doesn't make you immune from drunk drivers on the road - I think $1000 would be a small price to pay for ones life -
People who don't have kids complain about paying taxes for education but whether we have kids in school or not we all benefit from an educated society - this is much the same - whether I drink or not is really not a deal breaker for me.
azsk8fan, You make a good point. I'll have to think about that one. I definitely agree we all need to pay for education and social programs so maybe paying for cars that don't allow drunk driving fits in that category.
Drunk drivers are not the number one cause of traffic deaths.
So you nannies need to focus your social engineering on what would bring the biggest bang for you buck.
Driver distraction is the number one cause of traffic deaths. You nannies should force car markers to remove radios from cars. How about a device that requires 2 hands on the steering wheel or it makes a annoying sound? How about a cell phone shield in cars when the car is in motion?
Driver fatigue is the number two cause of traffic deaths. You nannies should install a device that requires a series of alert test before a person starts a car. Every hour one will need to pull their car over and retake the test.
After adding all these nanny measures, the cost of the a cheap new car will be around $60k or higher.
That will be biggest way to reduce traffic deaths. There will be nobody on the road.
Agreed Nance (man weird day). Until I'm proven to be unsafe and untrustworthy, it's an invasion of privacy. And yeah the bigger worries are attention and fatigue. There's a lot more and more frequent crashes involving people just not keeping their eyes on the road.
When there are several causes for something I don't reject one solution because it doesn't solve all or even the most frequent cause. You have a host of reason for automobile deaths. Fix what you can and then keep looking for solutions to the other issues.
Just installing a $1,000 of equipment just because someone, not me, might one day, not likely, might just might be drunk and get into my car.....multiple that cost times millions of cars get sold is a serious waste of resources.
I am sure the nannies might disagree.
I think having the device installed on offenders' cars is a great idea. I'm not sold on having it standard equipment but responded to azak8fan that I respected that point as offered and was willing to think about it. I also pointed out I don't know the cost. I tossed the $1000 as an example. It could cost $10 or 10,000 for all I know. Again, take it a step at a time. Start with offenders.
I already dislike seatbelt and helmet laws for adults. The idea of having breath-monitors as standard equipment is just plain asinine.
There is very little difference, if any, between the government (or church) saying "You have to do this because we think it is good for you" and "You can not read/see/think this because we think it is bad for you".
In most cases of accidental death, IMO, there is usually stupidity on the part of someone involved, including the victim. You can think of this as being evolution in action.
"I already dislike seatbelt and helmet laws for adults."
Said Gary Busey, as he wiped the drool off his chin.
The way I see this problem the main crunch comes from the society in which we live. We treat a lot of problems with band-aids and kisses on the heads.
We need to get tough.
This repeat offender cr@p is where the line should be drawn. People (read whiny liberals) are way too forgiving of criminals and want everybody back on the streets and rehabilitated.
The problem with most alchoholics is that they truly love the drink....I know. I know its a disease, but here is a news flash the biggest problem comes from social drinkers who get carried away.
I believe in a one and done system. You get a DUI you get to ride a bicycle or take a taxi or the bus for the next FIVE years. You get two you don't have to worry about driving any more, because you can't drive in the prison system.
We have a lovely facility out by Jean that is sitting empty, lets turn it into the biggest AA meeting or deprogramming center in the U.S.
This would actually solve two problems; it would put the facility back in the system and it would appease the libs who want a re-education center for the socially impaired.