California drunk driving defense lawyer news
Thanks to the American Beverage Institute, news agencies are used to receiving notices of the California Highway Patrol’s latest DUI crackdown, interspersed with the odd release on the governor’s highway safety conference or Mothers Against Drunk Driving effort to curb teen drinking.
Reading a header that made reference to something being “good for Lindsay Lohan,” one almost sent it to spam-heaven, but then one sees it was about ignition interlocks:
WASHINGTON – Today the American Beverage Institute (ABI) launched a national radio and print advertising campaign to educate the public about the proper application of ignition interlock devices (IID).
A full-page ad running in USA TODAY explains that while IIDs are a good idea for someone like Lindsay Lohan (pictured in the ad) who has multiple DUI arrests, they shouldn’t be applied to all drivers.
A first concern was for Miss Lohan, who I would imagine is not happy having her face appropriated for advertising of any kind, to say nothing of being designated the poster child for hardcore drunken driving.
Secondly, you wonder how you would handle such a campaign, were it your job to take the position of ensuring Americans’ right to drink and drive.
So you call the institute in Washington, D.C., to tease out a bit more information on its war on interlock systems.
“The goal is to educate,” explains Sarah Longwell, ABI’s managing director. Right now, people think of an interlock system as “clunky breathalyzer equipment,” but really, it’s gone way beyond that.
Nissan, she says, has developed a sniffer to detect alcohol in the vehicle, and (this is fascinating) Toyota has devised sensors that can detect the alcohol seeping from a would-be driver’s skin. If too much is detected, the car wouldn’t start if the interlock is installed and working properly.
So you’re thinking, hooray, we now have a solution to a problem that kills more than 13,000 Americans a year! But wait: Interlock systems are an assault on our very way of life.
Until now, Longwell explained, interlock systems have been reserved for “hardcore” drunken drivers, and her institute fully supports that. But MADD and other entities, like the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and automakers “have made no secret” of the fact that they want nothing less than an interlock in every garage.
“It’s kind of like big brother in your car, but also because its unfair to punish people for something that they haven’t done.”
But what about people who have done something?
Let’s go back to the ABI’s press release:
While the ABI aggressively supports the use of interlocks as punishment for high-BAC (.15% and above) drunk drivers and repeat offenders, it opposes mandating the technology for low-BAC (between .08% and .15%), first-time offenders.
Such a move, would be a step on the road to putting it in all cars, according to the institute, and that could lead to this ghastly scenario, described in the USA Today ad:
Ignition interlocks, or in-car breathalyzers, are a great tool for getting hard-core drunk drivers off our roads. However, activists now want to put one in every car in America. That means the end of moderate and responsible drinking prior to driving … No more champagne toasts at weddings, no more wine with dinner, no more beers at a ballgame.
Let’s stop drunk driving without eliminating our traditions.
That’s accompanied by three photos, one of three men dressed for the office sitting at a table with tall beer glasses, another with two women drinking something pink out of martini glasses flanked by two men with beer glasses.
And there’s a third photo of a bride and groom kissing under a blue sky with as their two champagne flutes snuggle.
One couldn’t help thinking of the tipsy young bride snapping, “I can’t believe you forgot to call the limo service!”
The institute does not represent booze makers or even breweries. They represent places that serve the stuff, namely restaurants.
“We want people to be able to drink moderately and responsibly before driving,” she told me, adding that what MADD, the feds and carmakers are gunning for was a “de-facto zero tolerance standard.”
“It will vastly change the way that we as a culture are able to enjoy a glass of wine with dinner,” she said.
“It will change things drastically if people aren’t able to drink moderately and responsibly.”
That will be especially magnified if California and other states adopt what are known as low BAC first-offender mandates, which Longwell recently showed in Sacramento to testify against. They would allow interlocks and other measures on anyone who gets nabbed for DUI.
But I’m thinking about the steering wheel sensors and wondering out loud, “what about designated drivers?” I mean, can’t they be counted upon to uphold our great tradition of drinking and still get us home safely?
A very clever advocate, she countered with a jab at cell phones.
“We would encourage everybody to have designated drivers if they’re going to be drinking above the legal limit,” she said, leaping directly to “You are more impaired talking on a hands-free cell phone than you are driving at .08 BAC.”
You think it’s good that we as a society encourage people to use mind-altering substances responsibly. On the other hand, when it comes to guns, motor vehicles and other deadly weapons, you just don’t get how you argue against erring on the side of sobriety.