Those convicted of DUI will have to keep using Ignition Interlock Devices in four counties (SB 61, Hill) – Ensures that all DUI offenders in Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Tulare counties continue to install Ignition Interlock Devices on their vehicles to protect the public from drunk drivers. The bill extends the sunset by 1.5 years (from Dec 2015 to July 2017) for the Department of Motor Vehicle’s four-county IID pilot program so the Legislature can review the DMV report on the program, which is due out in early 2016, and determine the best way to move forward in 2016. Without this legislation, the DMV report will be released when the program sunsets and the Legislature won’t have an opportunity to decide if it wants to continue, expand or end the pilot program. A recent report from Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) found that IIDs in California have prevented over 1 million instances of drinking and driving since 2010: http://www.madd.org/local-offices/ca/documents/California-Report.pdf (Info courtesy of Sen. Jerry Hill)
I will never defend drunk driving. Personally, I am not much of a drinker. I have more fingers than beers I have per year. I understand the desire to keep DUI offenders off the road if they are a repeat offender.
An Ignition Interlock Device is essentially a breathalyzer built in to the car, requiring a sober exhale in order to start the car. According to the statistics by folks that support the pilot program in four counties, the device has prevented over a million potential drunk driving incidents in the last five years.
Good. Fine. I get it.
But, let's understand what is going on, here. Because, as a society, we have ceased to be virtuous and the incidents of alcohol related activities are on the rise (or at least, that is what we are being told), the government is cracking down. They are telling people whether or not they can even start their car.
My question is, "Will it stop at drunk driving?"
Do we really want to open the Pandora's Box of government installing mandatory devices to our private property?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary