Consensus Grows for DUI Prevention

California took a big step this month toward preventing drunk driving fatalities by launching a pilot program in five counties that will require interlock devices installed in cars for a period of time after a first offense of driving under the influence.

I've written about my support for interlock devices before -- they're essentially breathalyzers installed in cars, and drivers must blow either a .00 blood alcohol to drive or below the legal limit, depending on their sentence. Eleven states now require the devices installed after a first DUI offense.

These devices will prevent deaths, and there's almost no downside. They are straight prevention, they are only required after a driver has proven (by getting caught at least once) that he or she isn't responsible enough to drive without supervision. More than 11,000 people died in the U.S. last year in crashes caused by drunk drivers -- including 1,029 in California. These deaths are preventable.

The New York Times has an editorial today praising California on its new law. The Oakland Tribune says the law doesn't go far enough. Either way, it's a start. And public opinion seems to be lining up solidly in favor of interlock devices.

There are opponents of the growing support for interlock devices, of course. Defense attorneys and privacy advocates say the devices are an intrusion and an economic burden on first-time offenders, and they worry about malfunction. The devices do still need to improve, but the privacy intrusion and cost arguments just doesn't hold up for me once a person has risked my life by driving drunk.

The most dishonest opponents are alcohol companies and restaurant associations. The American Beverage Institute is a food-service trade organization, and apparently part of the group's mission is keeping drunk drivers on the road. The group fought the California measure because it treats people "one sip over the limit" just like "hard-core drunk drivers."

Readers of this blog know that I'm no fan of mandatory minimums, but I'm concerned with punishment, not with effective prevention. These devices stop people from drinking and driving and they have no impact (other than cost) if one is sober before getting behind the wheel. Yes, we should give harsher sentences to people with higher BAC and repeat offenders, but requiring an interlock on a first offender is by no means harsh. It will save lives. And those people who are "one sip over the limit"? They shouldn't have been anywhere near the limit. Drink ginger ale if you're driving. Take a cab if you're drinking whiskey.

Interlocks will save lives, and when the most vocal advocates against a policy are corporations with a financial interest in the status quo,  it's a sign that the policy is doing something right.

Photo by James Cridland