The Ignition Interlock Device
Sadly it is a misconception that the IID
is used only to ensure the driver is sober enough to allow the engine
of the automobile to be started. When the devices were first
manufactured they actually were geared to this end. When it was
discovered that upon occasion drivers who had been drinking got a friend
to perform the test for them, the manufacturer built into the machine a
process referred to as the Random Rolling Retest,
At random intervals while the car is
being driven, the driver will be asked by the machine to provide a
breath sample. Within a specified interval of time the breath sample
must be provided. If it is not, the horn begins to sound off and the
lights begin to flash continuously until the automobile is brought to a
complete stop and the sample provided. The results will be recorded by the machine should the driver fail to make the test. The machine will not turn the engine off. THIS DISTINCTION WILL NOT REALLY MATTER AS THE DISTRACTION REMAINS AS INDICATED IN THE EXPLANATION WHICH FOLLOWS.
Should you be in a situation which
requires your undivided attention while driving, the manufacturer
claims, that if you fail to complete the test successfully, you will
have enough time to either clear the scene or pull off the road to a
stop.. The time frame for this is not given in the instructional video.
Failure to provide a successful sample within a predetermined time
will cause the horn to sound and the lights to flash continuously until
the car is brought to a complete stop and a sample provided. A
warning to pull off the road will also be provided should you fail the
breath test or fail to complete the test within the time limits allowed
by the machine. For example, should you drop the device onto the floor
of the car and be unable to safely recover it in time, the results are
inescapable.
So what repercussions may result from using this device in a rolling retest?:
The sequence of events involved not only
in manipulating the device but providing the correct steps in the right
sequence to provide a breath sample, employ a considerable mental and
physical effort when blowing into the handheld monitor and driving in
heavy traffic. Taken together, all at the same time, this will result in an unacceptable distraction possibly further resulting in an accident.
The time frame for providing a sample
for the rolling retest can result in considerable driver distraction if
he/she is hemmed in, in heavy traffic and attempting to exit a busy
freeway. Stress levels may rise unacceptably. Improper lane changes and
the like can be extremely hazardous. This has the potential to cause an accident.
If a driver fails a rolling retest (for a
reason which may be totally unrelated to a sample failure) the
resulting cacophony of horn blaring and lights flashing almost surely
will cause increased stress levels and distraction inside the vehicle
for both driver and passenger(s) and for other drivers in the vicinity.
This has the potential to result in an accident.
(This might be dated but it would seem that the study was a valid one and should hold true for today). "Dramatic findings in a recently released study by the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) show that interlock devices had no statistically significant effect in preventing subsequent drunk driving convictions, but they increase their users' general crash risk by up to 130%".
http://abionline.org/press_release/293/
Just as a further note an additional study was done in 2004 by the California Dept. of Motor Vehicles. Please note the quote from the conclusion section of that study:
"The relationship between IIDs and crashes changes when crashes are examined for offenders who installed an interlock device. Surprisingly, the two analyses that examined this both showed that the risk of crashes was higher for offenders installing an interlock."
One other point of note is that upon attempting to follow past research paths the author has noted that since posting the original website from which this blog is derived, some manufacturers seem to have either played down or removed altogether references to the consequences of either failing or missing a Random Rolling Retest. Also I have checked extensively. Manufacturers vary slightly in vehicle reactions to failed random rolling retests but basically most are as described above. I have searched extensively for information on how the random rolling retest works in Ontario. I have not been successful. Dare we say this is a deliberate attempt to mask the truth. What do you think?
(This might be dated but it would seem that the study was a valid one and should hold true for today). "Dramatic findings in a recently released study by the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) show that interlock devices had no statistically significant effect in preventing subsequent drunk driving convictions, but they increase their users' general crash risk by up to 130%".
http://abionline.org/press_release/293/
Just as a further note an additional study was done in 2004 by the California Dept. of Motor Vehicles. Please note the quote from the conclusion section of that study:
AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF IGNITION INTERLOCK IN CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN ACCORD WITH ASSEMBLY BILL 762
CHAPTER 756, 1998 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
September 2004
OF IGNITION INTERLOCK IN CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN ACCORD WITH ASSEMBLY BILL 762
CHAPTER 756, 1998 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
September 2004
"The relationship between IIDs and crashes changes when crashes are examined for offenders who installed an interlock device. Surprisingly, the two analyses that examined this both showed that the risk of crashes was higher for offenders installing an interlock."
One other point of note is that upon attempting to follow past research paths the author has noted that since posting the original website from which this blog is derived, some manufacturers seem to have either played down or removed altogether references to the consequences of either failing or missing a Random Rolling Retest. Also I have checked extensively. Manufacturers vary slightly in vehicle reactions to failed random rolling retests but basically most are as described above. I have searched extensively for information on how the random rolling retest works in Ontario. I have not been successful. Dare we say this is a deliberate attempt to mask the truth. What do you think?
In some jurisdictions, the province
of Ontario, for example, a new law has come into effect barring the use
of handheld devices while driving. This law seems to be specifically
geared towards the use of cell phones but is broad enough to include
many other activities. It would seem to be hypocritical, that in the
list of devices arbitrarily decided to be exempted by the Dept. Of
Transportation that the IID be included.
The following is from the RCMP website:
"Distracted driving: qualifies as talking on a cell phone, texting, reading (e.g. books, maps, and newspapers), using a GPS, watching videos or movies, and playing extremely loud music.
A study has found that taking your eyes off the road for two or more seconds increases your risk of being in a car accident by about double
(Ministry of Transportation)."
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cycp-cpcj/id-cfa/index-eng.htm
You can put away a cell phone in a heartbeat. You cannot ignore the IID in a Random Rolling Retest.
In the same vein, the IID is mandated for DUI convicted drivers who wish to or have an urgent need to return to driving possibly, for example, for maintaining one's career. The penalties for dui are extremely harsh under the guise of re-education. (Is this a valid judgement call? - Perhaps the only one truly qualified to put forth a valid judgement call is the founder of MADD, Candy Lightner. With the extremes of legislation subsequently fomented under the powerful lobbying efforts of MADD she quit in disgust claiming that she had never intended the movement to go so far. At this point in time she has disavowed any connection to this organization as it is today.)
Personally this author does not wish to be driving in the vicinity of any driver required to take a Random Rolling Retest in heavy traffic
The following is from the RCMP website:
"Distracted driving: qualifies as talking on a cell phone, texting, reading (e.g. books, maps, and newspapers), using a GPS, watching videos or movies, and playing extremely loud music.
A study has found that taking your eyes off the road for two or more seconds increases your risk of being in a car accident by about double
(Ministry of Transportation)."
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cycp-cpcj/id-cfa/index-eng.htm
You can put away a cell phone in a heartbeat. You cannot ignore the IID in a Random Rolling Retest.
In the same vein, the IID is mandated for DUI convicted drivers who wish to or have an urgent need to return to driving possibly, for example, for maintaining one's career. The penalties for dui are extremely harsh under the guise of re-education. (Is this a valid judgement call? - Perhaps the only one truly qualified to put forth a valid judgement call is the founder of MADD, Candy Lightner. With the extremes of legislation subsequently fomented under the powerful lobbying efforts of MADD she quit in disgust claiming that she had never intended the movement to go so far. At this point in time she has disavowed any connection to this organization as it is today.)
Personally this author does not wish to be driving in the vicinity of any driver required to take a Random Rolling Retest in heavy traffic
I'm really surprised that someone/company hasn't come up with a bypass unit that simply plugs into plug that the hand held unit plugs into.Service Center
ReplyDeleteFirst off, a bypass would negate the reason for implementing the Random Rolling Retest in the first place. I am not suggesting that the RRR is a valid addition to the IID. It is not. As a matter of fact some studies have shown the IID to be completely ineffective as a long term solution. Unfortunately the overall issue is not that simple. When powerful neo-prohibitionist special interest groups (e.g. MADD) use impaired driving as a vehicle to help promote their agenda, it is not a stretch to attribute to this agenda, influence on government agencies to place more stress on punitive measures rather on rehabilitative ones. Pushing the envelope as with the RRR most often can result in these kinds of excesses. Unfortunate to say the least. I suspect that should this kind of distraction result in a serious accident I would hope that this issue would be brought to the fore. But don't hold your breath.
ReplyDeleteNice article! I suspect that should this kind of distraction result in a serious accident I would hope that this issue would be brought to the fore. But don't hold your breath. Thanks for sharing the information.
ReplyDeletePhoenix ignition interlock provider
Thank you, Andrew, for your kind words. You may be right concerning the case where this may never become a visceral issue in the public eye. This issue has come to the fore for me as I do believe that our democracies are reasonably stable but still subject to the potential subtle erosion of our rights and a practical level of vigilance (not to the point of obsession) and involvement in the public forum to highlight potential issues is a healthy endeavour for all citizens. Fortunately, retirement allows me a greater opportunity to contribute in however meagre a fashion. How effective this may be is moot. And perhaps, as you say, one should not hold one's breath. My particular concern is with special interest groups with hidden agendas who use an issue with negative optics as a vehicle to further their cause. I am certain that Candy Lightner would agree whole heartedly with this. Such groups can wield a great deal of influence on legislators and bureaucrats and with funding as a charitable organization are able to promote their agendas with slick marketing. Only education in the public forum can help to engender awareness and truth. A favourite quote of mine:
DeleteThey must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as authority.
Gerald Massey (May 29, 1828 – October 29, 1907)
I always thought that the IID is used only to ensure the driver is sober enough to allow the engine to get started. Being caught with DUI can be very stressful, but there are DUI Lawyers who can request court to reduce your punishments or even acquit you from your DUI case. My cousin works with a DUI attorney Los Angeles and often tells importance of selecting a good attorney.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. It seems very hypocritical that with the latest initiatives by legislators to crack down on distracted driving with phone texting that the IID remains a requirement where DUI convictions are concerned. It is folly beyond belief. One result which becomes glaringly obvious is that it serves the interests of the hidden agenda of the neo-prohibitionists.
ReplyDeleteI have addressed in my blog and elsewhere on the internet other concerns more along the lines of short circuiting the defense initiatives of
exceptional litigators. I am not sure about the US but in Canada a point of litigation has been taken from civil law and used in criminal law. This is the principle of “Balance of Probability.” This is the principle upon which the issue of “Care and Control” is based. This is a DUI conviction if a person is apprehended or reported by two or more witnesses as having simply entered an automobile's front seating area with the ignition keys in their possession and suspected of impairment they may be detained and given a breathalyzer. They need not have started the engine. They may be asleep in the front seat. It matters not. The rationale is that the balance of probability is that they will eventually drive drunk. They are convicted of DUI. Add to this section 254 (1) which
“If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has alcohol or a drug in their body and that the person has, within the preceding three hours, operated a motor vehicle or vessel, operated or assisted in the operation of an aircraft or railway equipment or had the care or control of a motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment, whether it was in motion or not, the peace officer may, by demand, require the person to [accompany the officer for sobriety testing and/or breath testing].
(Criminal Code, s. 254(2), as amended)
Then the police can enter a person's home 3 hours after he had been reported as getting into the car with his keys, by vindictive neighbours (as witnesses). Should he have consumed several drinks over that time police may remove him from his home and he may be given a breathalyzer. A subsequent DUI may be issued. There is actually a very similar case where a good litigator got the subject a much lesser charge. The costs involved were extreme to say the least.
There are also issues with another initiative involving the medical one year license suspension by the Ministries of Transport in Canada. But I will deal with that at a later date if requested.
At what point do victims become survivors? 5 times as many deaths are caused by texting as DUI's, 6 times as many accidents and twice as many pregnancies are caused by sexting as alcohol. The entire public school lunch program is funded by the Utah State Liquor Stores - what a message to children of Utah, right? Intoxalock devices on cars are responsible for 87% more accidents as they are the same/worse than texting and the randomness has caused 11% more heart attacks - those victims should sue every state who has them mandated. MADD receives 47 million taxpayer dollars to "buy" legislators and law firms to prosecute punitively ONLY DUI's yet texting is far more addictive and destructive than alcohol to the brain -some studies are even suggesting brain cancer!
ReplyDeleteThe panels and the entire judicial system is punitive - there is nothing restorative. The system uses guilt and shame to beat down and persecute some one who drinks, someone who self medicates. Orin Hatch just ran over a person in D.C. while texting but wasn't give a ticket because he is protected by "the law" that frees him from the justice system because he is a legislator. What happened to that victim? Every single legislator should have to have an intoxalock placed on their car for one year so that they can realize how unsafe it is-worse than texting. Every texter should have a device placed on their car and they should be placed in therapy programs and have to bring in their phone records and driving records and be persecuted and punitively treated far worse than dui's. MADD are victims who feel self righteous because the can flog, diminish, beat up, demoralize,shame and denegretize others-it empowers them - they need help - where is this restorative justice? If a person has been put through the system of peeing in front of a one-way mirror randomly weekly, being punitively treated by one panel after another, spent tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers and loosing their jobs and then their families...all for 2 beers and no turn signal, then they have more than "paid" - where's the restorative justice? And then to attach a device to a vehicle so that even if they have breathed in Lysol spray, the device will shut down???? If there is a God, then those that participate in this persecution will truly suffer for their punitive participation.
Whenever an initiative goes way over the top like this you will usually see a spacial interest group behind it. In this case Candy Lightner (founder of MADD) can vouch for that as she quit in disgust seeing it turn to extreme measures (potentially as a vehicle for the neo-prohibitionist movement. You be the judge!). In cases like this reason seems to fly out the window and we can see the devastating result. It would be a fair move, for a change, to see the pictures of loved ones lost to imperatives such as the IID, appear in advertisements and the like. Not about to happen though as the special interest groups are heavily funded and can engage in extensive displays in the media. It is true that those who are truly impaired and not able to handle a vehicle responsibly should definitely not be on the road. However, this is not about the "Whether" but about the "How." That is what has become so alarming to me. It has gotten way out of hand to the point of becoming downright criminal.
Delete
ReplyDeleteGTAcrete is the top concrete contractors Toronto which offers efficient installation and maintenance services. We offfer interlock and pavement,concrete driveway,concrete sidewalk,concrete foundation,stamp concrete etc.
On this subject internet page, you'll see my best information, be sure to look over this level of detail. appliance repair los angeles free estimate
ReplyDeleteAnother factor behind the trend where more and more people are opting for sandstone paving is the increasingly easy availability of such sandstone-based paving. Best paving company
ReplyDelete