54 Comments - Ghost - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 10:29 am: hard to say, what does this cost? I syupport the increase to 12 months for refusing to blow, setting aside the BAIID part. Overall it sounds like a decent plan. condition for getting to drive is the secuirty of the BAIID. However antecdotaly most of the accidents I read about tedn to involve drivers who had prior DUI’s, but are not currently restricted; or invovle those without a license. I would say you should have this thing for more then 12 months if your lookin for it to have an impact. - Downstate GOP Faithless - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 10:31 am: for the most part it is definately good…however the increase in suspensions seems a bit much. i am not a lawyer, but that seemingly goes to self-incrimination…overall though, from a guy who doesnt shy away from a bar, it is pretty god stuff - Cassandra - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 10:31 am: Drunken driving causes such blood and havoc on the innocent that I think all cars should be required to have these devices. After all, only a tiny fraction of drunken drivers actually get caught. But each and every one of them poses a huge risk to the innocent. As to the law…people will get around it, but it will probably also save some lives. it’s probably as good a law as could be enacted right now. And it represents a step forward in erasing this scourge. - Speaking at Will - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 10:33 am: I think this is a poor law. Everyone is for getting drunks off the road. However, what is the point of paying judges if your going to put in place more mandatory minimum type sentences. A judge is put in place to look at a set of facts and then meter out a punishment accordingly. Each case is different, and this sledge hammer approach is just plain stupid. People are going to drink and drive, they shouldnt, but its gonna happen. Furthermore, this isnt the end of the road on DUI laws. I can’t imagine what more they could do, but since no legislator wants to be on record opposing more DUI laws it just goes on and on. Enough with this stuff, and I may be on a rabbit trail here, but who got the contract to sell the breathalizers to the state? Would be interesting to know. - Phineas J. Whoopee - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 10:44 am: Talk about no due process-If you want to protect your rights by refusing to blow you are forced to pay huge amounts of money for this ridiculous device and have your license suspended without any conviction. Whenever crazy stuff like this occurs you need to follow the money. Who has the contracts? It’s that simple. - Rural Man - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 10:44 am: No. This law is a bit much for a first offender. Down in rural, Southern Illinois, the going rate of these BAID devices is $175.00 per month to rent the device plus another $25.00 per month to the Secretary of State. So, $200.00 per month to have the thing, or $2,400 total for a 12-month suspension. This does not include any fines, increased insurance costs, DUI evaluation fees, etc. This is a high cost considering most first offenders are so embarrased that they amend their behavior. People who have low-income jobs won’t be able to pay this. But, here in rural Illinois, they will still need to drive to work where there is no public transportation. So, all these first offenders will start getting caught for driving while license suspended. Also, the old Judicial Driving Permit system was much better to those who have to drive a company vehicle. Under the new laws, the company vehicle has to have either the BAID device or the defendant must receive written permision from the SOS to drive without the BAID Device while in a company vehicle. Plus, in order to receive such permission from the SOS, the defendant’s employer must write a letter to the SOS. So, I fear this new system will cost even more people their jobs. - He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 10:47 am: First of all, I have had family killed by a drunk driver, and to say it is horrible would be an understatement. I believe the LAWS and MADD is getting to be a bit excessive on the laws trying to keep drunks off the road. I do not agree with the new law, I think this new device should only be for repeat offenders. NOT First time offenders. I don’t agree with the requiement that if you refuse to blow you get stuck with the thing for a year. I still believe that you are innocient until prove guilty. Thus is not the case anymore with DUI. I think texting/talking on a cell phone while driving is becoming a bigger problem than DUI. - Belle - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 10:48 am: Didn’t the ST do a series on people driving away from the courthouse after attending the hearing where they lost their license? I think it is an expensive ‘looks like we are doing something’ law. The people who will comply are the ones that truly regret driving drunk and won’t do it again anyway. What about the stoners? How you gonna measure how high they are? - zatoichi - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 10:51 am: There was just an piece on 60 Minutes about the NY prosecutor going after murder charges for DUIs that cause accidents which result in death. And she is getting convictions with lengthy prison time. Like Downstate, I’m no stranger to a bar. They are great with a good live band, but I have also seen too many people be real stupid when they leave. Almost any local court has multiple repeat DUI offenders who somehow feel they can do as they please and they get away with it. I do not know the right solution but at least get the multiple repeaters off the road before they whack someone. If this device works, give it a shot. Is a 12 months suspension a pain in the butt? Too bad. - Pickles!! - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 10:52 am: In theory, i guess it’s good. But is the driver responnsible to pay for and maintain this device? shouldn’t the state do that, since it’s mandated as part of the license suspension process? Also how enforcible is this from a police end? - Phineas J. Whoopee - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 10:53 am: I was told that people simply get one of those pumps to inflate an air mattress and use that to blow air into the machine and away they go. What a great law. - Thomas Westgard - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 10:55 am: Unlike some other commenters, I actually don’t think this law is overly restrictive. I do think it is too easily circumvented, so it’s more for show than anything else. I wish there were ways to better address all forms of bad and/or illegal driving, starting for example with all the people who routinely drive 85 in zones where the limit is 55 or 65. When I’m driving the speed limit down the highway, I seem to be the only person doing so. There seems to be a basic assumption that driving should consist of seeing how far you can bend the rules without crashing. Alcohol consumption is just one form of that attitude, which kills and injures thousands of people every year. The better approach would be to try to drive really well. I don’t quite know how to change the attitude, but putting an alcohol tester on the car is a tiny step at best. - Pete - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 10:56 am: I might be wrong, but I think that the increased focus on DUIs over the past decade (or three?) has severely reduced the number of DUIs, to the point where it is hard to reduce the number any further. My feeling is that, like drug laws, unless they focus on treatment for offenders, the law will have zero effect at reducing the number of offenses further. - Mommy - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 10:59 am: I think this is a somewhat good law. I think first time offenders need more than a slap on the hands. Suspending drivers rights doesn’t teach anyone to not drink and drive. But how does this device know if someone else is blowing into the tube? I think the state should issue bright orange license plates for people who have had a DUI. This might make DUI offenders think before they drive. And we can teach new drivers that if they get a DUI they will have to drive around with this bright orange license plate on there car. - wordslinger - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 11:02 am: I think it’s too much for a first-time offender. Everyone makes mistakes. Already, once you’re a first-time offender, you’re going to pay a load in fines, classes, increased insurance and humiliation. Hanging laws are popular, but many in their zealotry are throwing in the all-too-human one-timers with chronic lawbreakers. - Mommy - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 11:02 am: I forgot that if the DUI offender drives someone elses car that the owner of that car gets a DUI and a bright orange license plate. - VanillaMan - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 11:09 am: When you are caught breaking the law, you have to deal with the consequences. This technological tool is an attempt to allow those caught drunk driving to continue with their lives. They should be grateful and learn their lesson without complaining to us all about it. They are not victims. - Louis G. Atsaves - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 11:18 am: So there could potentially be 30,000 of these things in automobiles by the end of the year? Or by the middle of next year? And someone could be on cocaine or other drugs causing him or her to become DUI and these machines will not be able to pick up those threats to safety? It is only for alcohol related impairments? Good intentions sometimes can be difficult to implement. - Steve - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 11:18 am: No, this is not a good law. It is one-size-fits-all legislation that does not target the problem: extreme drunk drivers (.15 BAC and up) and repeat offenders. These people cause the vast majority of the drunk driving problem in the United States and should be dealt with severely. We would see a major, major decline in drunk driving incidents and fatalities if tough laws for these individuals were passed, and more importantly, enforced. The dirty little secret that pro-ignition interlock groups such as MADD and the interlock manufacturers don’t tell anyone is that compliance rates are frighteningly low. That’s because it costs money to ensure compliance. That is also why ignition interlock proponents advocate stripped down legislation that doesn’t include compliance and enforcement language because they know in the current economic climate, they would be harder to pass. Bills such as this are 1. a money grab for interlock manufacturers; and 2. a step closer to the normalization of interlocks, with the eventual goal of having one in every car; all under the guise of a public safety initiative. - Mr. Ethics - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 11:24 am: What if you own many cars? What about the wife and kids? They have to blow into the device also? This is a dumb law for first offenders. Like an earlier comment said “follow the money”. This is Illinois. - Phineas J. Whoopee - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 11:25 am: Steve is 100% on target. The important thing is to look at who owns and invests in these companies? Who do they donate too? - Heartless Libertarian - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 11:26 am: What is the job of the government? That is right, to ruin your life. You go to a party and drink to much one night, you are obviously a bad person. And you need to be subjected to all the woes the government has to offer. The law is strictly neo-prohibitionist. Alcohol is bad, but we can’t make it illegal, so we are going to make life a living hell for drinkers. Yeah, even those who stop at the bar for one beer. They will think twice. The law misses the point. The repeat offender drunk driver is the issue. These are the people that kill. The one-time party-goer is not the killer. Thank you, government, for making us all unbelievably paranoid to have a beer. - reformer - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 11:37 am: Speaking at Will & Mr. Ethics ask who got the interlock contract. There are six companies certified in the state at this point. They are available on the SoS website. Steve complains that the MDDP doesn’t target repeat offenders. It will clearly reduce the number of repeaters, based upon the experience elsewhere and here. Remember that repeaters in Illinois have been subject to the interlock requirement to get RDPs for many years. Pete wants treatment. That’s already part of the process. - Cassandra - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 11:37 am: Actually, I have seen research articles which demonstrate, using grad students taking a drink (or two or three) and trying to perform some task requiring coordination and judgment, that even one drink can impair one’s ability to process and react to information. Like the kid dashing in front of the car, making a left turn in traffic, maintaining control at higher speeds. Many people don’t realize how impaired they are when they drive after consuming what they consider to be a safe amount of alcohol. That’s why I think these devices should be installed in all cars…you buy the car you buy the device, just like you buy the brakes and the windshield wipers. Even if Mr. or Mrs. I Only Had One Drink is not prevented from driving the car at lower levels, the results could be educational. And if somebody is keeping an air mattress by the car to game the system….(how many people are going to do that) then they have a real alcohol problem and shouldn’t be on the roads at all. - Fan of the Game - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 11:40 am: It’s a silly law that is easily circumvented and almost impossible to enforce. - HoBoSkillet - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 12:00 pm: Politically this law is a good idea. Anything that makes life more difficult for DUI convicts is politically a good idea. Realistically, I think this law is lipstick on a pig and will not heavily alter driving habits or lower the amount of drunk driving. - Steve - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 12:01 pm: @ Cassandra Your reading from the MADD talking points, albeit not the national ones. The legal BAC for driving is set at .08 and not .00 for a reason. That reason is that in this country it is legally and socially acceptable for adults to consume an alcohol beverage before operating a motor vehicle. Cutting off a patients leg just because they broke their foot is not an apt course of treatment, just as penalizing all law-abiding adults because of the cavalier attitudes of admittedly bad actors is not the best way to fix social problems. - jimbo - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 12:27 pm: For 15 years I have facilitated a support group for parents who have had a child die. Many of these children died as a result of a drunk driver. Only those who have made the journey can understand how terrible it is to bury your child. Yes, first time offenders do kill others. Think about the cost of the lost life & what that child might have contributed to society. I have no sympathy for the cost of the interlock for the offender. - Art VanDelay - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 12:37 pm: Don’t drink and drive. Why? Because of the obvious correlation between accidents and drinking alcohol. But nobody listens so the laws become more strict until people are deterred and get the point. I drink all the time but it would be quite difficult to get me to drive after a few because of the cost and embarrassment of having to blow every time. So, I think these penalties work. The majority of first time DUI offenders will repeat. One of the aims of this law is to prevent that as well. Why so sympathetic to drunk drivers? When will people realize that it should not be done just because a person thinks they’re okay to drive or rarely gets caught. It’s easy to say that the only reason this was passed was because someone somewhere is on the take. That may be true. Yet the states with the worst DUI problems such as AZ and NM have implemented these types of laws and they curb DUI occurrences. - steve schnorf - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 12:49 pm: This law may be well-intended, but I think it is not well targeted. The data are clear. There are a relatively small percentage of serious repeat DUI offenders. The great majority of 1st-time DUIs will never have a second such charge. We need to target those people who repeatedly knowingly and intentionally violate the DUI law. Not only do they get multiple DUIs, they drive with suspended licenses, revoked licenses, without insurance (not surprisingly, they are uninsurable) and they are repeatedly arrested for driving on suspended or revoked licenses: they even somehow get school bus permits. I don’t claim to know the answer (there are serious problems with impounding cars, for example) but these drivers should be the target. If you’re think I’m wrong, go look up how many DUI deaths are caused by second time offenders. Very few. The majority of the tragic accidents we read about are caused by people with no previous violations. - Skeeter - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 12:55 pm: I’m with Jimbo on this. Sympathy for people who get arrested for DUI? Not from me. Want to avoid a DUI? Don’t drink and drive. Pretty simple. i just do not understand why people find it confusing. My personal policy is, and has been since just about the time I could legally consume alcohol, that if I have a full drink somebody else gets the keys (I think I can handle a small sip toast an event, but if the glass is empty, the keys get handed over). Why do other people have a problem with that sort of procedure, and why on earth should we want to make things easy or convenient for people who have driven drunk in the past? One final note — “People can get around it.” Those people should do some research on these devices. They are pretty tough to evade. - reformer - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 1:28 pm: While the ignition interlock isn’t foolproof, it’s not so easy to bypass without detection. As far as having a sober person take the test, remember that drivers must retest during a drive. So under this scenario, a drunk would have to have a sober person riding with a drunk all the time. Seems rather unlikely. BTW, how stupid would the sober person have to be to be driving with a drunk to and from the tavern? - HoBoSkillet - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 1:42 pm: - Reformer - I hate to say this but many parents would use their children for that particular purpose. - Chanson - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 1:44 pm: What I am concerned about are the totally innocent. I don’t drink and drive but I do not trust the technology of devices used by the untrained. Recently a combative diabetic driver was tazed because the police thought that the man was drunk. Are safeguards and studies there to support all this? The total lack of preparedness by the SOS screams error and lawsuits. Too many laws are passed and go into effect without the staff and training to lawfully enact the legislation. - wordslinger - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 1:46 pm: –I think the state should issue bright orange license plates for people who have had a DUI.– Why orange? Are you assuming they’re all U of I alums? To keep it simple, why not just make them wear a Scarlet DUI on their clothes? - stones - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 2:02 pm: It is a poor law. The law is writen so that the offender pays the cost of installation and monitoring. If the individual is indigent, who pays then? Is it the County, State, etc? You can bet that more people than not will claim they cannot afford the device. There is a fund set up to pay for indigencies but the law does not specify how a County jurisdiction can tap into the fund. The legislation was well intentioned but poorly conceived. - Skeeter - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 2:16 pm: Wordslinger, How about they tattoo to their foreheads: “Don’t serve me alcohol, because I’ve proven that I am unable to determine when I’ve been served too much to drive safely.” Beats the scarlet letter thing, and serves the purpose well. And it would be reasonable. Seriously, how difficult is it to NOT drive drunk? Why are we making a big deal about this? Don’t want a device on your car? Then don’t drive drunk. If you do drive drunk — even once — it should be made as difficult as possible for you to do so again. - Anon3 - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 2:36 pm: Overall I believe its a good law. Couple of thoughts: 25+ years ago when the SSS went in to effect many/most of the same points were raised against SSS. We all must remember back in the day when we applied for our first IL Drivers License we signed on the dotted line that we would, if asked, submit to tests to determine if we were impaired driving. PERIOD This is not a right. This is a privilege granted by the State of Il. There is no shortage of people driving in violation of their JDP’s and I am sure that plenty of people will violate the new law. It will take a year or more to evaluate whether or not this is a success. If you can afford to drink and drive you can afford the cost of a couple of beers a day to pay for you BAIID device in your car for a year and the rest of us are greatful that for a year or more the cars wont start when the driver attempts to start it after consuming alcohol. - Pickles!! - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 2:46 pm: Anyone know what the cost of the device is, and the penalty if they are caught driving without it, such as if they drive another vehicle? - HoBoSkillet - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 2:50 pm: ===If you can afford to drink and drive you can afford the cost of a couple of beers a day to pay for you BAIID device in your car for a year and the rest of us are greatful that for a year or more the cars wont start when the driver attempts to start it after consuming alcohol.=== There is an awful lot of presuppositions in that statement. - Thomas Westgard - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 3:10 pm: I’m listening right now to yesterday’s 60 Minutes story about drunk driving. There are prosecutors across the country charging people with first-degree murder for drunk driving deaths. It gives a different picture from the more lenient opinions posted here. I’m kind of surprised that there’s so much leniency being expressed about it here. I know we don’t want people to drive under the influence of other drugs, or tiredness, or other distractions, but it’s kind of weird not to remove people who commit this particular abuse of the power to drive. - i've been Rod-omized - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 3:23 pm: Steve S. - If most accidents involve “people with no previous convictions”, it most likely implies that they just haven’t caused an accident or gotten pulled over YET. Drunk driving is not usually a aberation, it is a pattern of poor decisions. I would proffer that the majority of first time offendors are not first time violators. Instead of targeting multiple offendors, should we not be more concerned with “pre-offendors”? And, if not through thorough training and education, then through fear of severe punishment. - wordslinger - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 3:23 pm: Skeeter, you might be on to something. I hear in Riyadh and Teheran they cut off the hands off of thieves. And let’s not forget those stocks in old Plymouth Colony. Seriously, the original question was whether the device was a appropriate for first offenders. I think it’s too much because everyone makes mistakes. I think the orange license plates are ridiculous and have more to do with the someone wanting to inflict humiliation rather than meting justice or discouraging drunk driving. And make no mistake, the penalty for first offenders is pretty tough already. Second chance, anyone? - Mr. Ethics - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 3:29 pm: Don’t stop now. And anyone caught speeding on the interstate will have to install a device which locks the cruise control at 65. Presto no more speeding possible and no more tickets required. - wordslinger - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 3:33 pm: Pre-offenders? Was that Kafka or Orwell? - stones - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 3:40 pm: Anyone know what the cost of the device is, and the penalty if they are caught driving without it, such as if they drive another vehicle? Pickles, My understanding that the device runs about $80 - $100 for installation and another $80 / month for monitoring. Additionally there is a fee of about $20 that goes to the State. - Anon3 - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 3:44 pm: Pickles the cost varies per vendor of the BAIID device and a violation is a Class 4 felony with the standard Class 4 range of punishment. - Skeeter - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 4:35 pm: I also disagree with the orange plates idea. For me, the sight of the person going the wrong way down Ohio Street (or driving in several lanes at once on the Kennedy) is enough of an indication that the person likely is intoxicated. Everybody makes mistakes? Good thing we don’t apply that to other crimes — “But it was the first person he shot in the head, so let’s not be too harsh.” - steve schnorf - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 4:57 pm: RO, I didn’t say they were first time violators, I said they were first time DUIs, a legal status. I’m not stupid. You simply skip over the entire point I made. Second time DUIs don’t kill a very large percentage of the total DUI deaths. Ergo, beating first-time offenders may feel good, but all research date I’ve ever seen tells me its not severity of punishment that modifies behavior, its certainty and swiftness. I’m not arguing for doing nothing to first offenders. I am arguing for targeting the serial offenders. If you want to punish “pre-offenders”, I guess you’ll have to come up with a way. Sounds to me like punishing white and black beans, though. BTW, there will be a point of diminishing returns. Make DUI a capital offense and we will convict virtually no one. - Justice - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 7:01 pm: Is the vendor of the vehicle device a campaign contributor? Maybe someone ought to check. Is there only one vendor that makes this or will it be put out for bid? Hmmm. - Justice - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 7:05 pm: Steven….your first comment is right on for 1st time offenders vs repeat serial offenders. I think it is a bit much for 1st timers, since habitual offenders usually do not have licences, insurance, etc. We lose more and more rights and with the new government….we will lose more. - HoBoSkillet - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 10:10 pm: You just cannot argue with neo-prohibitionists. Rich, please forgive me but lets take this argument to the logical extreme. Let’s say we have capitol punishment for all DUI first offenders. It still will not end DUI’s or people driving while drunk. - Sir William Little Bill - Tuesday, Jan 6, 09 @ 12:11 am: Having a law forcing the automobile makers to install alcohol sensors into every vehicle is the only true way to stop drinking and driving. I have heard that this is already in the works. This is the only way to stop people from drinking and driving. - 2DUIs&NOwrecks - Friday, Jan 9, 09 @ 6:09 pm: I’m one of those horrible “multiple offenders” that everyone is so terrified of–I got a DUI in 1997, and once again in 2003. Both times I blew, and both times I went to treatment. I have had absolutely no accidents in over 33 years of driving. Yet, I’m revoked for the rest of my life. I had a safe driver renewal, shortly before my second DUI, because I had absolutely no tickets–no speeding, disobeying traffic signals, etc.–for five years. It isn’t drunk driving that kills people: It is disobedience to stop signs, traffic lights, speed limits, and failure to engage in defensive driving that kills. Over 60% of all traffic fatalaties are caused by sober drivers, who text, talk on a cellphone, speed, eat, put on make-up, and don’t pay attention to traffic signals or others. People, who have already had one DUI, push in the cruise control, stop at the stop signs, and use turn signals. They get paranoid about drinking and driving, and keep their eyes peeled for cops. I was already home, parked, and had exited my car when the police busted me–the probable cause was “loud music.” If everyone in the US who blew a stop sign, got a speeding ticket, or had a traffic accident got an automatic suspension of their license, I believe fatalaties would go down. Instead, drivers believe that, as long as they are sober, they can drive as recklessly as they wish. The laws back them up, too. I have friends who have had no less than 4 accidents on their driving record, but they are still on the highways. In addition, a very sober young man blew his second stop sign in two years and killed a woman in my home county. He has a lawsuit against him–not manslaughter charges. It is not drunk driving that kills–it is the failure of a driver to obey traffic laws that kills, whether he’s sober or not. The biggest problem is sober people who jump on the MADD bandwagon, when they have already had near fatal-accidents themselves. That is denial in its simplest form. It is easier to blame a drunk driver, for accidents, than it is to acknowledge that they themselves are risking a fatal accident by their driving behaviors. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.