Under provisions of Leandra's Law, when a person is convicted of DWI, and he can't afford to install an ingition-locking device, the manufacturer will be required to front the cost.
That's a problem according to Scot Lewton, owner of Owner of Consumer Safety Technology, maker of Intoxalock.
When DWI convicts don't have "skin in the game," meaning a financial investment, Lewton said, they won't take the program as seriously.
"When it’s totally free, we tend to have more abuses," Lewton said. "We tend to see abuse of the equipment. We have a tendency to not get the equipment back. Without having some skin in the game, indigency can be the Achilles' Heel to a program."
He pointed out that the ignition-control program in New Mexico is failing, where the indigency rate is 40 percent of all convicted DWI subjects.
Lewton is in town for a couple of meetings in Batavia. The first was today. Lewton met with 13 Western New York probation directors to go over how Intoxalock works. The second is tomorrow with members of the Genesee County Legislature.
We happened to find Lewton at Bill's Auto on Evans Street today, and he displayed a sample of his company's device and talked a little about the new Leandra's Law provisions.
He was mildly critical of the law for not taking into account all of the impacts of such broad legislation.
"I think the law has merit," Lewton said. "I think it probably needs to be better defined, both for the monitoring side as well as for the manufacturing side. But the law is in place and it can be adjusted over time and I’m sure it will improve."
Some estimates say that over the next year, 25,000 more New Yorkers will be required to install ignition-control devices.
Lewton doesn't believe the rate will be that high.
He said there is a big difference between conviction and participation.
He expects the participation rate to be about 30 to 40 percent of all DWI convictions.
Some people won't participate because they choose not to drive, and many others will simply ignore the law and choose to drive illegally. Another group will find relatives not living them and switch their car registration and deny to judges they even have a registered vehicle.
With such low participation rates and four or five more companies supplying the devices in New York, Lewton doesn't anticipate his company having any trouble keeping up with demand.
Soon, Lewton said, his company will release the next generation of Intoxalock, which will include options for GPS and video.
"When it’s totally free, we
"When it’s totally free, we tend to have more abuses,"
Really......... here is my shocked face
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aBTpjkPiVyg&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aBTpjkPiVyg&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
Awesome post, Dave. LOL.
Awesome post, Dave. LOL.
It's a sad but very true fact that when we give a hand out instead of a hand up, the individual and society both get burned.
If only our state and federal governments would realize that.......
Can't the just put a balloon
Can't the just put a balloon with sober breath over the thing to make it work?
Can't the just put a balloon
Can't the just put a balloon with sober breath over the thing to make it work?
Then the DNA comes back after the drunk KILLS someone, and whoever blew in the baloon gets in BIG trouble! Dumb.
To operate the device, you
To operate the device, you must blow quite hard and exhale. A balloon couldn't do that.
A large squeeze bottle from
A large squeeze bottle from ketchup or mustard might if fashioned properly. I am sure there is away around it and someone will find it.
Scot Lewton said they've
Scot Lewton said they've tried a number of different mechanical methods to fool the system, but haven't yet.
Also, the next gen of machines will have a camera attached.
This is a copy of a previous
This is a copy of a previous post I made on this same topic. I am reposting it because of Mr. Lewton's claim that they haven't been able to fool the system yet.
I am by nature, a skeptic, believing that anything that sounds too good to be true generally is not true. There seems to be a lot of unanswered questions regarding the Intoxalock system, so I did a little research.
I found an interesting criminal court case where a defendant had an Intoxalock system installed in his car, yet was arrested for DWI. Surprisingly, not for the reason you might think.
After attending an out-of-town concert, the defendant knew he was over the legal limit to drive...so he didn't. He didn't even blow into the unit to attempt to start his car. So far, it sounds like it worked as a deterrent.
He was unsuccessful in trying to secure a hotel room for the night, so he decided to sleep in his car. A police officer tapped on his car window to investigate. He displayed all the signs of intoxication, so he was arrested for DWI because he was in his car, had access to his keys, and was presumed to have control over the vehicle.
His defense was that he had an Intoxalock system installed in his vehicle, so he didn't have control over the vehicle because he would not have been able to start it.
Here's the most interesting part:
A representative from Intoxalock testified as an expert witness for the prosecution:
"Here we must determine whether the installation of an Intoxalock device precludes a finding that Howie was in physical control of his vehicle. While Howie argues that the Intoxalock would have prevented him from starting his car, testimony established that the device is not foolproof. For example, the expert witness from the manufacturer admitted there are several ways to bypass an Intoxalock system, allowing an intoxicated person to start a vehicle fitted with the device. The only immediate consequence of bypassing the system is the recording of an "unauthorized start" on the Intoxalock data log."
"Because the record establishes that the Intoxalock could be bypassed, we must conclude that Howie could have operated his vehicle. The district court thereby properly determined that Howie was in physical control of his vehicle."
This raises doubts in my mind as to the effectiveness of this program.
When it does in fact work as a deterrent, and an intoxicated person makes the right choice NOT to drive, the system does not support that decision.
My bigger concern is that we will be lulled into a false sense of security that our roads will be safer with these devices installed; as evidenced by the testimony of Intoxalock that there are several ways to bypass the system.
Safer roads is the goal here. I'm just not sure that this is the right solution.
Who in their right mind would
Who in their right mind would blow into one of these things so that their drunk buddy can drive home??
I'm not one for mandates and regulation. However the DWI thing puts me on the fencefor some issues. I mean what about requiring these things on school buses....municipal snow plows (didn't some drunk plow driver kill someone last year?)? Wouldn't that lower the municipality's exposure to a terrible lawsuit? Could that potentally SAVE taxpayers money?? I have no idea...Just throwing it out there...(shrug)
My experience with drunks ( and their apparent need to drive no matter what) is : they just don't care. It's as simple as that! I can't count how many times we would make arraingements to get a drunk a sober ride home. Then as soon as we turned around to get our keys or coats or whatever.....The drunk staggers out the door and tries to drive away!!! Unbelievable!
Julie; it's a common belief
Julie; it's a common belief that "It won't happen to me". I don't think it's a just don't care thing, it's an ignorance or arrogance thing. Also, there's the alcohol inhibiting normal thinking thing.
JoAnne posted: <<> I know
JoAnne posted: <<<the defendant knew he was over the legal limit to drive...so he didn't. He didn't even blow into the unit to attempt to start his car. He was unsuccessful in trying to secure a hotel room for the night, so he decided to sleep in his car. A police officer tapped on his car window to investigate. He displayed all the signs of intoxication, so he was arrested for DWI because he was in his car>>
I know that DWI is a terrible problem in this country. In no way would I attempt to minimize the effect that the thoughtlessness of a drunk person who drove and hurt/killed someone could pose. But, this is ridiculous! I don't care how someone spins it. It's clear that his intent was to NOT drive. Since he didn't drive no one will ever know if someone's life was actually spared that night. What this tells me is that the next person who this scenario might happen to will remember this case and think that they may as well just drive because if they try and spend the night in their car and get caught they will get the same punishment as if they'd driven. And, maybe that person will actually kill someone while trying to drive home. The goal here is to save lives. Not give more DWI tickets. It's clear that giving tickets and jail time didn't work.
My opinion(from 30 years in the bar and restaurant business): This Intoxalock is just more regulation. Regulation that isn't guaranteed to work. If a drunk driver wants to drive, he/she is going to drive. If they have this system on their car and want to find a way around it they will. And making the manufacturer front the bill for those "who can't afford it" (but can afford to stay drunk) is just another entitlement program where the recipient gets rewarded for bad behavior.
a person can stay sober
a person can stay sober Friday, start everyone's cars, then drink on them for free Sat night. Nevrmind D.D. (designated driver). U can now be a D.C.S. (designated car starter).When I come back to visit, I MAY JUST HAVE to drink on Patterson's (and your) dimes. ;) Fools. I hereby declare Sat night "Empire State" night at Goats, TF's and god-knows-wherever else i'm going to cavort upon my return. BOTTOMS UP! ps - I can now afford Blackhaus because i found viable work in the lovely (sic) hoosier state. lol