Group questions DUI-offender provision

The restaurant and beverage industry is pushing back against a bipartisan proposal in the House highway bill that seeks to punish states that fail to require ignition locks in cars driven by convicted drunk drivers.

A provision in Rep. Jim Oberstar’s (D-Minn.) $500 billion highway bill would deny federal transit money to states that did not require ignition interlocks in cars and trucks owned by first-time drunk driving offenders. Ignition interlocks are installed on car dashboards, forcing motorists to register their blood-alcohol level through a Breathalyzer before allowing their cars to start.

The American Beverage Institute, a trade group that represents restaurants, says the language is part of a longer-term campaign by the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and others to install alcohol-sensing technology in all cars.

{mosads}“MADD has been pushing very hard over the last five years to push these kinds of laws; however, the vast majority of states have rejected these low [blood alcohol concentration] first-offender mandates,” said Sarah Longwell, managing director of the trade group. “Putting the interlock technology in as many cars as possible and pumping up the interlock manufacturers so they can further develop the technology is all part of that plan.”

Longwell said judges should determine the appropriate punishment for DUI convictions. Her group also contends that interlocks frequently misread alcohol levels.

“They give false reads all the time, so expanding these drastically, when they still have so many problems would be another reason we’re against it,” Longwell said.

Nine states now require an ignition interlock for all first-time offenders, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association. Seven states require the devices to be put in vehicles operated by drivers who had a particularly high blood alcohol concentration level, and three states require installation for repeat offenders only.

J.T. Griffin, vice president of public policy for MADD, said the claim that MADD wants the devices installed in all vehicles is false. But he said more and more states are considering requiring interlocks for first-time offenders as a way to combat drunk driving.

New Mexico saw a 35 percent decrease in fatalities related to alcohol after implementing a similar interlock law, Griffin said.

State judges have not been effective in deterring DUIs, Griffin said.

“In California, there are 310,000 drivers on the road with more than three DUIs, and that’s what judicial discretion will get you — it gets you the fact that judges aren’t as willing to put these devices on vehicles,” Griffin said.

A number of members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, including ranking member John Mica (R-Fla.), have joined Oberstar in supporting the interlock measure.

“We have to take action in this bill,” Oberstar said. “We will double funding for highway safety. Part of that is changing habits.”

Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.) said that the prevalence of DUI offenders still driving with suspended licenses shows ignition interlock mandates need to be federally enforced.

“State laws requiring ignition interlocks for convicted drunk drivers are already saving lives in some areas, so it makes sense to expand this successful program to protect law-abiding drivers across the country,” Bishop said.

{mosads}Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis.), an opponent of the provision, said through a spokesman that lawmakers might have other ideas about how to deal with the problem.

“It would be better to set a standard — tell the states to make progress toward ea goal, but give them more leeway to figure out how to do it,” said Niel Wright, Petri’s spokesman. “Also, because there can be extenuating circumstances, Rep. Petri thinks judges should have discretion at least in first-offense cases.”

Wisconsin is the only state where a first-time DUI is considered a traffic violation.