From the Article:
A Wisconsin bill would require an ignition interlock device to be placed in the vehicle of all drunken driving offenders in the state.
That device requires a driver to pass a breath alcohol test before their vehicle starts. The legislation’s sponsor, Sen. Chris Larson, D-Milwaukee, said it’s aimed at changing behavior for what he called a “toxic culture” of drinking and driving that exists across the state.
“It’s time that we do more to curb the culture of drinking and driving in Wisconsin, while mitigating fatalities, injuries and property loss caused by drunk drivers,” Larson said during a press conference in Milwaukee Thursday.
Current state law requires the device for people with two or more charges for operating while intoxicated, or OWI. It’s also mandatory for first-time offenders with a blood alcohol content above 0.15, according to an analysis from the Legislative Reference Bureau. The bill expands the ignition interlock requirement to all OWI offenses that involve the use of alcohol.
This isn’t the first time Larson has introduced a similar version of the bill. He’s introduced the measure every legislative session that he’s been in office since 2011 — a total of seven times.
Larson said the measure has received some bipartisan support in the past, but with the Republican-controlled state Legislature, the bill has only gotten one hearing in the past 13 years.
“I would hope that as there’s more pressure, that people realize, ‘Hey, this is something that we can change,’” Larson said after the press conference.
Larson said he’s open to discussion on amendments to the bill to help move it along. Rep. Deb Andraca, D-Whitefish Bay, is also a co-sponsor of the bill.
“We want to get something passed, we would like to see this happen,” Larson said.
The device would be in the vehicle for one year under Larson’s measure. The driver would also need to blow under a .02 during the breath alcohol test.
Erin Payton, the regional executive director for Mothers Against Drunk Driving, also spoke in favor of the bill Thursday. Payton said since 2019, drunken driving deaths have increased 31 percent across the nation.
Everyone needs to understand that THIS IS NOTHING BUT A CASH GRAB.
Let me explain.
The companies that host these devices make a killing. They die all the time and drain your battery and then need to be recalibrated and it’s just fee after fee after fee.
This is not about public safety or drunk driving.
I’m betting 100% the companies lobbied this guy to increase their profit margins from “some of the ppl convicted of dd” to “all of the ppl convicted of dd”. Nothing more.
Maybe let’s make it easier to get around other than by car, rather than trying to outlaw drunk driving again. Which is already illegel.
Well for one don’t make it illegal to sleep drunk in a car, fund uber like services going to and from bars, and so on.
Another problem is that america makes drunk driving uniquely dangerous. With smarter road design you can slow down drivers (including drunk ones) so that accidents aren’t so lethal.
Much of which can be done with relatively minor road changes.
Yeah, because those things are known to work flawlessly with no false positives ever.
Go Wisconsin. Let’s push to make this a federal law
As a hacker, I don’t feel like this is the right direction. I agree with the goal, which is to reduce drunk driving. Maybe as I stream-of-consciousness this reply, I’ll change my own mind.
On one hand, assume anything can be bypassed. If a drunk is absolutely needing to get on the road, they’ll find a way. I think about people without licenses/insurance, while absolutely illegal, still do it because they don’t have any other alternatives. Of which, there absolutely is alternatives, but they’re often feeling like there isn’t and that’s why they chose that reckless behavior. Drunks already fall in the reckless circle.
On the other hand, forcing seatbelts, while annoying, did change cultural behavior as a whole. People WANT seatbelts. Sure, you got half-brains who buy gadgets to disable seatbelts. The difference is that seatbelts don’t disable the vehicle though.
I dunno. Thanks for reading as I puzzle this without a cup of coffee on a Sunday morning.
