Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Maker of Ignition Interlock Devices: Public Safety Demands Law Requiring Ignition Interlock Devices
The Agitator ^ | 07/11/2011 | Radley Balko

Posted on 07/11/2011 3:30:55 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour

Shocking, isn’t 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 state’s 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. Lautenberg’s 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. “They’re going to them and saying if you mandate this thing, your version of the world will come along, and it just so happens we’ll get rich – but of course they don’t say that part.”

I’m 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 don’t think it’s unreasonable to worry about the possibility that this campaign will expand to demand the devices in all new cars.

I’d also add here that there may indeed be good public safety arguments for this policy. I just don’t 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, MADD’s objective analysis determined that every state was in urgent need of an ignition interlock law, regardless of whether the state’s DWI stats were trending up, trending down, or unchanged.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: dwi; madd; nannys

1 posted on 07/11/2011 3:30:59 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

It’s for *your* safety...why can’t you see that? ;)


2 posted on 07/11/2011 3:32:41 PM PDT by Mr.Unique (The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

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!


3 posted on 07/11/2011 3:33:06 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour (With The Resistance...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

Don’t worry, most of the congressmen and senators would end up with one installed.


4 posted on 07/11/2011 3:33:51 PM PDT by donhunt (I am sick and tired of those bastards insulting and lying to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

If You Haven't Yet Donated This Quarter
Please Remember To Help
The FR FReepathon
By Clicking here!!

5 posted on 07/11/2011 3:34:10 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
Those devices would be set to detect blood alcohol content near the legal limit, likely through skin contact with the steering wheel.

Has anybody over there heard about "driving gloves"?

6 posted on 07/11/2011 3:35:36 PM PDT by Former Fetus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

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....


7 posted on 07/11/2011 3:36:58 PM PDT by Uncle Ike (Rope is cheap, and there are lots of trees...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

Punish everyone for the actions of a few.

Like the TSA.


8 posted on 07/11/2011 3:40:00 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
Very typical.

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.

9 posted on 07/11/2011 3:40:07 PM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

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?


10 posted on 07/11/2011 3:49:35 PM PDT by Jonty30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
The looters are at work getting laws passed to require purchase of their products. Products that nobody would buy without a law requiring them. The money whores masquerading as our representatives will eagerly write such laws in exchange for some campaign cash.
11 posted on 07/11/2011 3:55:37 PM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

this company is full of scum.

they actually had salesmen going from judge to judge advocating this white elephant.


12 posted on 07/11/2011 3:56:37 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

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.


13 posted on 07/11/2011 4:02:08 PM PDT by SkyDancer (You know, they invented wheelbarrows to teach FAA inspectors to walk on their hind legs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

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.


14 posted on 07/11/2011 4:02:23 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
Does this imply that we are all going to have to blow before we drive?

More or less, yes...

15 posted on 07/11/2011 4:05:57 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour (With The Resistance...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

“And I don’t think it’s 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.


16 posted on 07/11/2011 4:09:17 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

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.


17 posted on 07/11/2011 4:09:31 PM PDT by GreyHoundSailor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

I wonder when they’ll require a bloodtest before we drive?


18 posted on 07/11/2011 4:12:18 PM PDT by Jonty30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
The anthrax vaccine patent issue?

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.

19 posted on 07/11/2011 4:18:57 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
Crazy liberal idea, defeated..


20 posted on 07/11/2011 4:21:52 PM PDT by mylife (OPINIONS ~ $ 1.00 HALFBAKED ~ 50c)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

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.


21 posted on 07/11/2011 4:39:15 PM PDT by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

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.


22 posted on 07/11/2011 4:41:20 PM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
It's a technicality. Patents are granted to individuals. Ivins had no real property rights ~ like to walk off with all of them and sell them to the Saudis or something.

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.

23 posted on 07/11/2011 4:55:54 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

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.


24 posted on 07/11/2011 5:04:39 PM PDT by BobL (PLEASE READ: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2657811/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp

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.


25 posted on 07/11/2011 5:04:48 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
You are just in denial it seems. Bruce Ivins held two anthrax vaccine patents. That's just a fact. Federal employee or not he held two vaccine patents. Vaxgen paid Ivins royalties amounting to $12,100 between 2001 and his death. It wasn't quite the windfall he had hoped for when he mailed those envelopes since the government didn't launch a big public vaccination campaign, but they were his royalty payments.

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.

26 posted on 07/11/2011 5:20:10 PM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
Ivins was a US government employee. He didn't work for a contractor.

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.

27 posted on 07/11/2011 5:41:26 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
-- 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. --

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.

28 posted on 07/11/2011 5:47:32 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

So Vaxgen just sent him royalty checks because they liked him?


29 posted on 07/11/2011 5:50:20 PM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
by Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg

Is that f***ing zombie EVER going to pass on?

30 posted on 07/11/2011 5:50:37 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Until Obama, has there ever been, in history, a Traitorous Ruler?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

“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!


31 posted on 07/11/2011 6:00:44 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp

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.


32 posted on 07/11/2011 6:01:25 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

Then you’re not going to learn how to stick shift,


33 posted on 07/11/2011 10:14:02 PM PDT by Jonty30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

In my 40 coupe in the early 50s I reversed the column shift so that I had my right hand free for the girls!


34 posted on 07/11/2011 10:27:20 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

If it weren’t for sex, men wouldn’t be creative at all. :D


35 posted on 07/12/2011 12:09:38 AM PDT by Jonty30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson