Skip to comments.Maker of Ignition Interlock Devices: Public Safety Demands Law Requiring Ignition Interlock Devices
Posted on 07/11/2011 3:30:55 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour
Shocking, isnt it?
But good on the Washington Times for exposing the money grab behind the public safety campaign to mandate the devices for first-time DUI offenders.
A bill that would withhold up to 5 percent of each states highway funding unless that state requires such as device in the cars of all convicted drunken drivers was introduced in the Senate in February by Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, New Jersey Democrat, and last month in the House by Rep. Eliot L. Engel, New York Democrat.
For the past 18 months, lobbyists for ignition interlocks, as they are called, have jockeyed to inject a provision into the crevices of the transportation reauthorization bill, a tentative outline of which was released Friday by Rep. John L. Mica, Florida Republican.
The hospitality industry says a mandate could pave the way for a different type of sensor, other than a Breathalyzer, to be made standard in all cars within five years, in line with a separate House proposal introduced last month that would allocate $60 million over that period to develop the technology. Those devices would be set to detect blood alcohol content near the legal limit, likely through skin contact with the steering wheel.
The Coalition of Ignition Interlock Manufacturers hired lobbyist David Kelly, a former chief of staff and acting administrator at the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration. Mr. Lautenbergs former chief of staff, Tim Yehl, now lobbies for Ignition Interlock Systems of Iowa . . .
The manufacturers are taking a page from a well-worn playbook: lobbying campaigns in which private companies advocate for government requirements that would make them rich by aligning with activist forces who provide moral pronouncements that are appealing to politicians and once on the table the public . . .
The overwhelming majority of entities that want to regulate in some way are composed of Baptists and bootleggers, said Peter Van Doren, editor of the quarterly journal Regulation, referring to the two groups that pressed for Prohibition 90 years ago: religious zealots who viewed alcohol as immoral and the gangsters who profited from its illegal status.
Manufacturers are probably sincere and also making an alliance with Mothers Against Drunk Driving the mothers would be the Baptists, he said. Theyre going to them and saying if you mandate this thing, your version of the world will come along, and it just so happens well get rich but of course they dont say that part.
Im fine with mandating these devices for repeat offenders. But first-time offenders is too much, especially for someone barely above the too-low legal limit. And I dont think its unreasonable to worry about the possibility that this campaign will expand to demand the devices in all new cars.
Id also add here that there may indeed be good public safety arguments for this policy. I just dont think the anti-alcohol fanatics can be trusted when they try to make them. A few years ago, for example, I wrote about a MADD report that evaluated DWI fatality data in all 50 states. Somehow, MADDs objective analysis determined that every state was in urgent need of an ignition interlock law, regardless of whether the states DWI stats were trending up, trending down, or unchanged.
It’s for *your* safety...why can’t you see that? ;)
Coming soon to all cars, the presumption your guilty until proven innocent... why don’t we just outlaw alcohol?
Oh yeah... that worked about as well as drug prohibition...
How about we outlaw cars? That’ll sole this once and for all!
Don’t worry, most of the congressmen and senators would end up with one installed.
Has anybody over there heard about "driving gloves"?
This is the kind of nonsense law that ‘conservative’ Pubbie Congresscritters just luuuuuv to climb on board...
It’s ‘for da Chillll-drun’ after all....
Punish everyone for the actions of a few.
Like the TSA.
Unfortunately this sort of thing occasionally goes beyond
bribery lobbying. Remember Bruce Ivans, the guy who sent the anthrax letters? Turns out he was the holder of several patents for an anthrax vaccine. He had been trying for years to get the Army to mandate it for the troops without success.
Breathalysers are going to be required equipment within 5 years?
Does this imply that we are all going to have to blow before we drive?
this company is full of scum.
they actually had salesmen going from judge to judge advocating this white elephant.
Coming soon too: banning all types of firearms in the name of public safety. So only the military and police can have them. Oh, I forgot, street gangs too.
car thieves have no problem whatsoever bypassing this joke.
it is alleged it is unfoolable but I guarantee it can be tricked fooled and bypassed without much effort. law or no law.
More or less, yes...
“And I dont think its unreasonable to worry about the possibility that this campaign will expand to demand the devices in all new cars.”
I predict the author is wrong about that. Once able to tie their corporate agenda to a “moral” agenda the manufacturers of such devices, and their moral-advocate friends, will not rest at trying to continually “expand the market”, by law, for such devices. [Once an addict with success - for government assistance - always an addict.]
Where this agenda belongs is not with the law but with automobile insurance providers. Insurers willing to insure someone with prior DWI charges should be the ones that have a right to know (they are the ones insuring the driver) if an insured driver is keeping to their no-drinking while driving pledges. An insurer unwilling to demand the driver install such a device is the one foolishly taking a financial risk on what may result from their driving.
In my book, other than the proper fines and suspensions for DWI, and convictions for damages, injuries and death to others during a DWI episode, there is no further need for the law in these matters. Simply adding new and additional “laws” on top of laws, over the same “crimes” only makes the legal code longer, not better.
There is a perverse mindset that legislators get into that assumes that no matter what the law already says, they are always supposed to write new laws, again, and again, and again as if their busy-work is helpful instead of what it really is - the work of busybodies.
I’ll charge a ‘reasonable’ fee for my newly developed ignition interlock bypass device. And, as a bonus, you can use this device to eat soup with as well.
I wonder when they’ll require a bloodtest before we drive?
Patents have to be issued to individuals. As a federal employee any patents assigned to him as a consequence of his work as an anthrax researcher actually belong to the government per an agreement executed at the time he was hired.
Everybody knows that.
But Ivins didn't mail the anthrax.
A 5 year pilot program should be implemented where ALL elected officials, judges, celebrities, professional athletes, journalists, and their immediate familiy members, be mandated to use the devices.
Ivins did indeed own the anthrax vaccine patents. And yes, Federal contractors can patent their discoveries. It just depends on the nature of your employment contract. They wouldn’t get any researchers to work for them otherwise.
It doesn't happen that way. Uncle Sam makes sure you reassign them ~ and you can do that or your heirs can do it.
He was not a contract employee.
I’m surprised that Rick Perry hasn’t mandated these Interlocks on ALL cars here in Texas.
...but then again, perhaps he hasn’t been offered anything in return.
FROM WIKI: Ivins was a coinventor on two US patents for anthrax vaccine technology, U.S. Patent 6,316,006 and U.S. Patent 6,387,665. Both of these patents are owned by his employer at the time, the US Army.
I used to work for a major research university. We did Federal contract and grant research. Believe me, those researchers got every patent they could and would have disappeared overnight if anyone had told them they couldn't. It just depends on the terms of your agreement when you take the job. Ivins worked at a research institute. He patented two vaccines while he was there, and he received royalties from them.
I know contractors are corrupt.
I also know pretty much what the federal standards are for researchers who "get a patent" regarding stuff they worked on.
No, Ivins was not likely going to sell his patent rights ~ since it's just a perfunctory assignment of rights to meet the constitutional standard.
And he didn't mail the letters.
You really need to catch up on the last 10 years of discussion of this issue.
Just a matter of terminology. The inventor(s) has/have the right to the patent, but may assign it to the government, a company, or any person. An assignment works to transfer rights from one owner (in the case of a patent, the first owner is ALWAYS the inventor) to another.
When patents issue, they will be in the name of the inventor, and may include a naming of an assignee.
So Vaxgen just sent him royalty checks because they liked him?
Is that f***ing zombie EVER going to pass on?
“Does this imply that we are all going to have to blow before we drive?”
I’ll avoid it by never having a male passanger in my truck!
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/02/nation/na-anthrax2 Check that piece ~ about 2 down ~ about Ivins. As a US government employee anything he might have gotten as a consequence of any of this depended on the contract SIGNED WITH THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER for the contract to make the anthrax vaccine. You really need to read these articles very carefully to keep track of the who struck johns. Ivins was a government employee and we get jack sh*t from any of these deals. Our annual income is MAXED OUT at just under what a Congresscritter gets ~ you can’t get more government money than that.
Then you’re not going to learn how to stick shift,
In my 40 coupe in the early 50s I reversed the column shift so that I had my right hand free for the girls!
If it weren’t for sex, men wouldn’t be creative at all. :D