NTSB Calls for Ignition Interlocks for All Offenders
By MADD | December 11, 2012| 8 Comments | Filed in: Drunk Driving

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) approved recommendations calling for all convicted drunk drivers to receive an ignition interlock device on their vehicles, as well as the development of new in-vehicle technologies, which could one day prevent a drunk driver from operating a vehicle. The NTSB's recommendations represent another milestone for MADD’s Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving®.

Currently, 17 states require interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers.  Ignition interlocks are critical to eliminating drunk driving, as a majority of convicted drunk drivers will continue to drive on a suspended license.  States that are enforcing all-offender ignition interlock laws, such as Arizona and Oregon, have cut DUI deaths in half, largely due to comprehensive interlock laws requiring all drunk drivers receive the device.

MADD looks forward to continuing to work with the NTSB to eliminate drunk driving.  It is now critical that the remaining 33 states act on this recommendation by enacting and enforcing laws requiring ALL convicted drunk drivers to install an ignition interlock device.

The 17 states that require ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers are: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Virginia and Washington. If you are a resident of one of the other 33 states, contact your legislators and tell them you support saving lives and eliminating repeat drunk driving offenses by requiring ignition interlocks for all convicted DUI offenders.


   

Comments

Submitted by ChangeThe System at 01:04 PM on December 13, 2012
Until America starts spending more money on an updated transportaion system that is accessible for all there will always be DUI's. All the money we spend on wars and influence of our foreign policies overseas, the United States would have a modern transport system by now. Now with the way the economy is, I see none of this changing. All the budget cuts we are about to have to our local firefighters and police will add insult to injury. I always imagined a state-wide taxi service paid for by our tax dollars or at least make the regulations and tax breaks easier for the growth of more cab companies. I am not condoning drunk driving, and there are people out there that abuse alcohol and then get behind the wheel, but there is a good portion of society that just like to go out and have a drink or two with dinner and friends but have no access to transportation in their area. The rules for what constitues a DUI seem to broad in stroke. They do not account for a person's body weight or stature. According to what I've read, one glass of wine now equals a DUI. Really?
Submitted by randy at 08:12 AM on December 13, 2012
Your organization is ridiculous!!! People not drinking put others lives in danger out here on the roads every day with their impatient moves on the road. I see accidents on the daily bases in my area that have nothing to do with drinking. The statistics of non drinking related accidents is much higher than the drinking one's.
Submitted by sickened at 07:06 PM on December 12, 2012
I know of a repeat drunk driver who is getting his ignition interlock off tomorrow morning. This guy has been drinking and driving illegally for the whole five years that he has been on probation. he has a second car with interlock and a motorcycle that he drive while drunk also. So much for the law and the the prevention of D.D.'s. Tomorrow he will at 8:45 he will legally be able to continue to drink and drive. Lord help us all.
Submitted by Disagree at 06:40 PM on December 12, 2012
Sorry. I disagree with this entirely. I don't drive drunk and I should not have to prove that to anyone to start and operate my own, private car. I'm innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. MADD goes to far and attempts to circumvent the rights and privacy of innocent Americans. I have every right to travel down the road and to not be "taken out" by a drunk driver, but I also have every right to not submit to a warrantless search without probably cause and due process. Everyone should be asking why is MADD only interested in protecting ONE of those rights?
Submitted by Debw0477 at 08:53 AM on December 12, 2012
Louisana does not require all DUI offenders to have an interlock system, none of the Judges or DA's require it!!!!! That is what MADD needs to be working on, the laws are not being followed
Submitted by Danielle at 03:05 AM on December 12, 2012
I live in Washington State where the Legalization of marijuana was just passed and it really angers me that we have such a problem with drunk driving, and now we have to deal with "high driving". Being a victim of a drunk driver, myself,this really upsets me!
Submitted by Deborah Longstreet at 08:20 PM on December 11, 2012
Please help support repeat drunk drivers from killing our loved ones!!! Thank you!!!
Submitted by skeeter at 07:16 PM on December 11, 2012
I think thi is a great idea. People can always find ways around obstacles but here's to making it hard on those who don't follow the rules and put others lives in danger

Leave a Comment

Nickname
Comment
Enter this word:
CAPTCHA image
Change image Visually impaired? Click here to have an audio challenge played. You will then need to enter the code that is spelled out.

Powered by Convio
nonprofit software