Speed Trap Hunter Forum: Best Radar Detectors, Laser Jammers, Laser Detectors, Speed Cameras Forum  

Go Back   Speed Trap Hunter Forum: Best Radar Detectors, Laser Jammers, Laser Detectors, Speed Cameras Forum > National Motorists Association (NMA) Discussion Group & Forum > NMA Articles
Radar Detectors Forum Logon:


NMA Articles National Motorists Association (NMA) Articles

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 2009-03-04
NMA Reporter NMA Reporter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 2008 Feb
Posts: 125
NMA Reporter is on a distinguished road
Exclamation The Ignition Interlock Hoax

NMA Article: The Ignition Interlock Hoax

fuzzy-shot-beer

By James Baxter, NMA President


MADD and its bloated stepmother, NHTSA, have been pushing for mandated ignition interlock devices (IIDs), preferably in all vehicles, but they know from experience these things have to be done in an incremental fashion, or there could be severe public backlash and resistance. One can currently assume that the breathalyzer industry has been actively writing checks to “enhance public safety” through the legislated mandated use of these devices.


The first stage of the incremental process is to target “bad people,” that would be the two million people who receive DUIs, annually. The objective is to force the courts to require the installation in all cars driven by persons convicted of DUI. Obviously, this would be a bonanza for the companies that make and market IIDs. The country’s number one “early adopter,” California, jumped on this bandwagon in the late 1980’s. Subsequently, the CA state legislature had the foresight to insert a provision in the law that required an evaluation of the IID mandate. Here are some of those findings:


Although ordered by the courts to install IIDs, many DUI defendants did not do so, ostensibly because they could not afford to do so.


When comparing the DUI convicted drivers who actually drove vehicles with IIDs to DUI drivers who did not use IIDs, those using IIDs had significantly more crashes. (84 percent more)


First offenders with high BACs, .20 or higher, who were ordered to use IIDs had just as many subsequent DUIs and crashes as those first offenders who were not ordered to install IIDs.


However, the first offenders who actually had IIDs installed had far more crashes than those who did not.


If this measure is being considered for safety purposes, as is claimed by the proponents, why is the legislature considering a mandate that will substantially increase vehicle crashes?


The financial and collateral penalties, experienced by the average person convicted of DUI, ultimately constitute many thousands of dollars and lost educational and vocational opportunities. It hardly seems fair or rational to institute yet another penalty that does little more than benefit the Ignition Interlock Device industry, and body shops, while placing more burdens on hospital emergency rooms. That is, if the intent is to improve highway safety.


Are You A NMA Member? If not, read about the benefits and then join!


The Ignition Interlock Hoax


Further Reading:


© 2008 NMA
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:12.


©2019 SpeedTrapHunter