Dear Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica,
I urge you to remove the ignition interlock mandate for all first-time alcohol impaired drunk drivers from the Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009 (Highway Bill). I appreciate efforts to help make our roads safer, however, mandating ignition interlocks for low-BAC, first-time DUI offenders is the wrong approach. The focus of drunk driving legislation should be on high-BAC and repeat-offenders who cause the vast majority of alcohol-related driving fatalities.
The average BAC of drunk drivers involved in fatal accidents is .18—more than twice every state’s legal limit of .08. Several studies have shown that drivers are more dangerous talking on a hands-free cell phone than they are driving at .08 BAC. And yet that is the level at which this bill would mandate ignition interlock devices—which, due to their fallibility and intrusiveness, have previously been reserved for hard-core offenders.
The judicial system allows for a proportional response based on the different degrees of risk that drivers present on the highway when it comes to offenses. For example, someone going five miles per hour over the speed limit is punished differently from someone going 35 miles per hour over the speed limit. Similarly, judges should be able to recognize a difference when it comes to someone who is one sip over the legal limit versus a person who has had 10 drinks prior to driving. This bill takes that discretion away from judges, requiring states to impose a sentence typically reserved for reckless product abusers—installing an ignition interlock—on marginal, first-time offenders.
Interlock technology is effective for high-BAC and repeat DUI offenders, those who constitute the “hard core” drunk drivers and who don’t benefit from alcohol treatment and probationary programs the same way most low-BAC, first-time DUI offenders do. There is already a program option in the eligibility requirements for safety grants that requires additional sanctions or penalties for high risk drivers—those with a BAC over .15. Twelve states have already chosen this option, while 15 others have chosen to mandate interlocks for repeat offenders.
For those who choose to drive while extremely intoxicated and for those who repeatedly flout the law, ignition interlock technology is an effective and proper law enforcement response. However, we should not punish individuals who are one sip of wine over the limit the same way we punish hard core drunk drivers.
Again, I urge you to remove the low-BAC, first-offender mandate from the Highway Bill. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
