AUGUSTA, Maine — The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is urging states to require first-time drunken drivers to install ignition interlock devices that prevent their vehicles from starting if they have been consuming alcohol.
But the uncertainty of federal funding and the lack of a good system for assessing current practices is causing the administration effort to draw little support in Maine.
“The NHTSA has always been pushing interlocks,” said Public Safety Commissioner John Morris. “We do have an ignition interlock program, but it is not mandatory. Judges can order interlocks [in Maine] but only for habitual offenders, but they don’t have to.”
David Strickland, administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, announced last month that the agency has $20.8 million set aside for grants to help states implement a mandatory interlock program. There are currently 17 states that require first-time drunken drivers to equip their vehicles with the devices.
Data compiled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration indicates that drunken drivers involved in fatal crashes were four times more likely to have a prior drunk-driving conviction than were sober drivers.
The agency is using the data to push for the mandatory ignition interlock law.
“We really haven’t looked at this as a mandatory law,” Morris said. “If a bill comes in next session, we will need to review it and take a position.”
The secretary of state’s office administers the current law, but it does not have statistics on how frequently the existing law has been used. Neither do the courts, which may collect data individually, but do not have a central database where the information from all of the courts is amassed.
That bothers Secretary of State Charlie Summers.
“I think it is an interesting idea, but I want to know how what we have now is working before we take that next step,” he said. “There will be a cost if it is mandated and even if there [are] federal grants available, what happens when that money runs out?”
If use of the devices is mandated, people who are indigent and found guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence will have to have their device provided by the state. The units cost from $50 to $200 to install, and the monthly fee to replenish the chemicals and have a service check ranges from $50 to $100.
The issue has caused concerns in other states where the device is mandated. States have used a number of funding mechanisms to pay for the ignition interlocks including additional fines on those who can pay the fines and the dedicating of a portion of the alcohol taxes put aside. But some states have had to suspend programs for lack of funds.
For example, New Mexico allocated a portion of its alcohol tax and levied an additional $100 fine on convicted drunk drivers to pay for providing the devices to indigent drivers. New Mexico is a little larger than Maine with a population of a little more than 2 million people, but 40 percent of those using the interlock devices are indigent. The state had to suspend the law when funding ran out last year.
Summers also is concerned with the lack of data in Maine on how the existing system is working. He said if lawmakers consider a first-offender mandate, they should know how the current law has worked and what the actual costs to operate an interlock device are.
“The first thing we have to look at is the cost,” said Sen. Garrett Mason, R-Lisbon Falls, co-chairman of the Legislature’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee. “We have to find out if we can fund this first. It’s part of the economic times we live in.”
He also is concerned that the grants being offered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration could turn into a cut in federal funding if the state does not require the devices. He said when federal agencies were pushing mandatory seat belt laws, they started with grants and ended up penalizing states with loss of some of their federal highway safety funding if they did not adopt the law.
Rep. Anne Haskell, D-Portland, the ranking Democrat on the panel, argues that mandates don’t solve the problem of getting drunks off the roads.
“You can put all the mandatory laws in place that you want, but they are still going to drive drunk,” she said. “It’s a tool, but I don’t think it should be mandated.”
Haskell agreed that she would like to see some data on the current ignition interlock law to see if there are ways to improve it before the state looks at a mandate. Even though she does not like the proposal, she expects someone in the new Legislature elected in November will submit legislation on the subject.
“It’s the open session when anyone can put in anything and often they do,” she said.
and if there is a second time….they lose their vehicle and the proceeds go to some kind of treatment program for alcoholics and they cannot drive for 5 years…First time is a whoops…second time is totally wrong….and treat the car like any other deadly weapon used in a crime….take it away :)
I agree with this completely since so many oui offenders are not only repeat offenders, but they drive around drunk without getting caught more times than not. It is so frustrating to see recent offenders out buying alcohol, or being seen drinking at parties, and you know they are driving (Corey Dionne).
Why should the state pay for that!? If you do the crime you should have to pay to have it installed or lose your license til you get one installed.
How about first time offenders get the option of paying for one these to be installed, on top of their fines or losing their license for 5 years? Maybe they won’t make such stupid mistakes again.
Sounds more like the NM system which sounds good.
If the legal blood alcohol level were raised to be realistic, say .12, then yes. At .o8, that’s really not drunk.
a five foot 3 female doesn’t have your tolerance. Not to mention most people that ARE impaired will tell you they aren’t.
.08 is .08 no mater what size you are….
Women tend to have less body mass and less ethanol oxidase. This leads to more facile inebriation for women.
Says you. Drive a lot with > 0.08?
Drunken men sober up, but, Gawd damn a fool. The number of things that impair a driver of a automobile in this world, in Maine, in these times is so varied, it would take 25 machines, gadgets to monitor a driver. I think it is going to be, just plain old punishment, a longer time the license is taken away.
If the license is taken away for a longer time, then the perp will just drive without one. After all, it is a “right”!
I don’t have a problem with the state doing this, but it shouldn’t be at the “urging” of the national government. All costs should be the responsibility of the offender.
Driving is a privilege not a right. Don’t do the crime if you can’t afford the time.
I wish Officers were stationed outside every bar. Many, many people don’t get caught every weekend which gives them confidence they won’t get caught next time.. and the week after that and the week after that.. until… BANG!!!
Getting a license is a privilege. Driving is a right.
Huh?
Don’t even try, Gopher. This is a fantastic display of willful ignorance.
You have a right to drive a car, incorporated wants you to have a licience.
How about vehicle confiscation? Makes more sense, and cost less. Wait, follow the money. Is this being pushed by someone who makes, and services these “ignition devices”?
Banks would really like Vehicle confiscation.
More useless government nanny-stater politicians wasting more time & money on useless ideas as the country continues its decline. Brilliant.
Would you say the same thing if you had lost a loved one to a drunk driver?
That means that half the cars in Maine will have to be equipped!
Very easy to overcome those devices.
yeah, like buying a beater, having someone else register it and leave your “equiped” ride at home. Get the best of both worlds.
And will we be confiscating the blackberries of people who text while driving?
There they go again our goverment with bright ideas they like trying to tell the states what they should do.The bottom line is if you want to drink don’t drive. find another way of getting to your destination.don’t make it a final destination. every body has common sense . just gotta use it.
If everyone used common sense, we wouldn’t have 12,000 deaths or so, each year, from drunk driving.
The federal government, at least this one time, has a good suggestion. Usually it is a new mandate. Maybe taking the suggestion before it becomes a mandate would be a good idea.
Acting to make a rule the feds suggest before they feds force it on us is the same as mandate.
Nope. It’s taking the initiative. We maintain more control that way.
That’s a good point.
Drunk driving is a myth made up by Liberals to keep Patriots from driving home from Tea Parties…
LOL
It’s easy to see some lobbyist is pushing this so some well connected company can make money on an unnecessary expense. Half of OUI’s are .08 to .10 anyway; not even impaired yet. I would be more apt to go along with it for the 2nd offence.
I personally believe all cars should have them. That would wipe the huge DUI industrial complex that that has sprung up and expanded over the years. If you can’t drive drunk, you won’t be going to some mandatory program that some politicians friend is profiting from after he lobbied the politician to have it made a requirement. etc.
Why don’t they mandate they be included from Detroit on all vehicles….
Fact of the matter is the laws in place can’t always be enforced…My nephew was killed by a habitual drunk driver!! I think using our money to mandate this would be a waste of money. Who’s to say that they would always drive just that one car?? I think stricter penalties is the answer, but getting them enforced is another matter altogether!! People should just plain old be responsible!!!
I am not a drinker nor do I use drugs but believe the Federal Government is over stepping its bounds and infringing on the rights from the American people! When I read constantly about four, five or even six time repeat offenders being arrested whether they be drunk drivers, rapist, child molesters or drug dealers etc. it tells me that the system does not work and making such a move against first time offenders will be another Federal screw up in a very long list of Federal screw ups! I am ashamed of our Local, State an Federal Governments and can’t wait until the American people wake up and take a firm stand against them, restoring them once again to an honest and proud Government!
The state should continue the practice of leaving it up to the judges. The federal government has already dictated the age that one can legally drink, we don’t need any more interference in these matters from them. WE, the individuals reading this article, don’t know the details fo each case-the judge does and the judge is the one who is best qualified to order an ignition lock should it be necessary.
And we don’t even know how well the current system is working. Knee-jerk feel-good federal legislation that the puts the cost burden on the states (like the REAL ID law) needs to be studied hard before we can just say, “Sounds great! Let’s do it!”.
12,000 deaths a year, roughly, are a result of drunk driving. That tells us quite a bit about how things are working.
The question I have: what prevents a drunk from getting in someone else’s car? Still, this can’t hurt, and should help.
The convicted OUI offender should pay every penny for the device. If s/he wants to have the privelege to drive, that is the price to be paid.
No, that doesn’t tell us how this current system is working. And you are correct, there are ways around such an ignition-block.
I beg to differ. 12,000 deaths a year is an incredible scandal. It is utterly ridiculous that we as a society take that so casually.
How about an idea from you, Joe. If you have a good one, I am listening.
And you are technically incorrect on the Feds mandating the drinking age. Maine can set it where Maine wants to. What the Federal government has done is say that Federal Highway Trust Fund monies will not be disbursed to states that do not set it at 21 or higher. That leaves Maine the option – set the drinking age lower and forego the money, or set it at 21 and receive the obligational authority and apportionment available for the Federal Aid System.
Yeah, the idea is to do a real study on how effective the current system is and to see how many people in Maine die from drunk driving each year. And how many of those people would have been stopped by a federally mandated ignition-lock system and how many people ARE told that they must have the ignition lock by a Maine judge. I am not sure where the 12,000 figure comes from-is that in Maine? Because we’re talking about the federal government dictating to Maine.
That’s my idea. It’s not a blind knee-jerk reaction-it involves study and thought.
Yes, that would be a good study. And I like study and thought; I agree, we do too much on a knee-jerk basis, usually so a politician can say he/she “has introduced legislation”, and so the public “can feel like something has been done.”
The 12,000 is a number I heard quoted in a AAA Defensive Driving Course. I actually think it might be low. The 12,000 deaths is nationally. I think Maine usually has around 200 fatalities in total, annually. 300 would be a very bad year; I am not sure we’ve ever hit 300 total fatalities. I think you could safely say there are 100 deaths annually from drunk driving in Maine and be in the ballpark. Somewhere around 35-50% are alcohol related.
One of the biggest problems I see is how to keep the impaired driver from using the kid’s car – or the spouse’s car – or the company car. By definition, impaired drivers have lousy judgment and lowered inhibitions, so they might even “borrow” a car.