Ignition interlocks should be mandatory

JOHN REID | Olympia • Published December 18, 2012 Modified December 17, 2012

0 comments

One would think given the numbers of DUI arrests and convictions, as well as the injuries and fatalities that continue to take place, that ignition interlocks would be mandated.

Even judges and other members of law enforcement aren’t exempted when it comes to members of society who are caught while driving intoxicated. Making it a standard nationwide policy to have all cars on our nation’s roads and highways to have an alcohol ignition interlock installed would lead to a much safer society. To those who would scream that their civil rights are being trampled: Remember, driving is a privilege.

We could do away with all the horrific stories of impaired drivers walking away from an accident that leaves others dead or maimed for life. A perfectly reasonable idea to me would likely never come to pass. The vast sums of money generated by DUI arrests is too attractive a source of funds to give up. Besides, what are people’s lives and peace of mind really worth in the long run? Apparently, not enough to do anything to keep it from happening again.

Similar stories:

Ignition-lock reality: Many don’t use device, still drive

Ignition-lock reality: Many don’t use device, still drive

Mark W. Mullan had barely finished promising the judge in Snohomish County District Court that he would not drive without an alcohol-sensing ignition-interlock device on his pickup when Assistant Prosecutor Dana Little interrupted.
Say cheese for your ignition interlock camera

Say cheese for your ignition interlock camera

Anyone required by the state to use an ignition interlock to use their car will soon have their photo taken before they can turn the ignition.
Some have concerns about proposed DUI changes

Some have concerns about proposed DUI changes

OLYMPIA — Gov. Jay Inslee and a bipartisan group of state lawmakers on Tuesday unveiled a proposal to lengthen drunken-driving sentences, charge suspects more quickly and even ban third-time offenders from buying alcohol for 10 years.

Inslee called it “the most aggressive, the most effective, the most ambitious” change to state DUI laws ever.

“We are here today because too many families in Washington state are losing their loved ones at the hands of impaired drivers,” he said about the proposal, which was triggered by a pair of Seattle-area fatal crashes officials have linked to alcohol.
Local officials question feasibility of Inslee’s DUI proposal

Local officials question feasibility of Inslee’s DUI proposal

OLYMPIA — Lobbyists for police, prosecutors, defense attorneys and local governments used four hours of back-to-back hearings Thursday to question the feasibility of a bipartisan proposal to overhaul Washington state’s drunken driving laws.
Tougher DUI laws could face court challenges, critics say

Tougher DUI laws could face court challenges, critics say

Efforts to fast-track a crackdown on repeat drunken drivers, announced with bipartisan fanfare Tuesday, hit some go-slow warnings Thursday from prosecutors, judges and police. They're raising so many questions that a key committee chairman all but acknowledged Thursday the Legislature might not have a final bill ready by the end of its regular session just nine days away. "The bill has some significant flaws," Rep. Roger Goodman, R-Kirkland, the chairman of the House Public Safety Committee, said during a hearing on House Bill 2030. "We're not going to jam this bill through." The bill tries to toughen penalties for repeat violations of driving under the influence. As written, the proposal would require ignition interlock devices to be attached to cars impounded when drivers are cited for a first DUI offense. Motorists convicted of a second DUI offense within seven years would be given a choice between six months in jail or six months of substance abuse treatment with constant monitoring. For the third and fourth