A recent article by msnbc.com questions whether ignition interlock devices should be required on all vehicles, not just on the vehicles of people convicted of drunk driving. The debate centers around whether preventing the risk of Connecticut drunk driving accidents outweighs the personal liberty involved in choosing to drive after drinking “just a few.”
As of January 2012, Connecticut is one of 15 states that require installation of an ignition interlock device (IID) after a first drunk driving conviction. Drunk drivers must pay for the installation of IIDs, which require drivers to breathe into the devices before starting their cars. If any alcohol is detected on their breath, their engine will not start.
Technological improvements on the IIDs mean that drunk drivers cannot have their sober friends breathe into the IIDs for them. Furthermore, technology is in development that could use air samples, skin emissions, eye movements and driver performance as further ways to detect drunk driving. These sensors could be used in every car on the road to prevent drunk driving accidents.
According to MADD and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, IIDs help reduce the number of people who reoffend by 67 percent. However, others argue that mandating IIDs through laws can have negative consequences and believe judges should ultimately decide who must install IIDs.
In 2009, at least 99 people were killed in Connecticut drunk driving accidents. This accounted for 44 percent of all fatal car accidents in Connecticut. Since alcohol causes so many accidents, many say that it would be wise for the government to require automakers to install some sort of ignition interlock device in all cars. What do you think?
Source: Msnbc.com, “Curbing drunk drivers: should ignition interlock be required on every car?” Jim Gold, Jan. 6, 2012.