Previous poll Next poll

Do you favor requiring first-time DUI offenders to use ignition interlock devices?

Response Percent Votes
47% 697
47% 693
Not sure
5% 80
Total 1470


ralphralph 7 years, 3 months ago

Nazi-Moms of the World, Unite!

DUI x 1 (under 2.0 BAC) = solid head slap, fine, suspension, restriction.

DUI ever again = Heel on throat, never drive again, rot in jail.

gsxr600 7 years, 3 months ago

brb drinking 87 beers in under an hour to stay within 2.0 BAC

beatrice 6 years, 10 months ago


A Godwin on the very first post, with the very first word, no less! Way to step right in it straight out of the gate!

Godot 6 years, 10 months ago

I view "the first dui," in the same light as "the first time I ever hit her." Cannot be trusted. Must verify, with ignition interlock.

Liberty275 6 years, 10 months ago

Quit babbling about a long-dead internet meme and tell us what we need to protect ourselves fellow countryman! You are our only hope.

otto 6 years, 10 months ago

If you are at 2.0 you are probably dead.

slowplay 7 years, 3 months ago

How could anyone vote NO on this? You are pretty much saying " I don't care if people drink and drive".

nut_case 7 years, 3 months ago

I voted no because the legal system is not infallible. I have heard dozens - if not more cases of people being released from death row due to additional evidence proving their innocence.

If the extremely high legal standards required to put someone on death row can be wrong, what does that say about some 'street beat' or desk jockey cop with a BAC machine built by the lowest bidder and calibrated who knows when? (or worse yet, a cop with a needle and syringe wanting to draw blood at the side of the street?)

jafs 7 years, 3 months ago

If the penalty for the offense is to put an ignition interlock device on the car, then anybody who doesn't drink and drive will only suffer a small discomfort.

And, if they do, it will prevent them from doing so.

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 10 months ago

Have you ever been a passenger in a car that is being operated by someone that has an ignition interlock installed?

Every once in a while, the driver must take his attention off the road, look down at the device, handle it, and blow into the machine again in order to take the test again.

Untill he's done and can take a look at the road again, traffic conditions on the road is secondary. It happens regardless of traffic conditions.

Compared with that, talking on a cell phone or texting while driving is very safe.

jafs 6 years, 10 months ago

Then the technology should be improved.

And no, I've never been in a car with somebody who has one - I try to avoid being in cars with drunk drivers.

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 10 months ago

"a cop with a needle and syringe wanting to draw blood at the side of the street"

That does not happen!

It is done at a hospital, after a suspect has been forcefully transported there. Whether you are a suspect that is taken there for the test depends upon whether you pass the breathalyzer test on the side of the street.

giggity79 7 years, 3 months ago

First let me start off by saying I am against drunk driving.... I can admit I got one in 2001after five beers at a holiday party... I am 6'2 215 and by all accounts sober, the breath test fails to take size or tolerance into account.... I voted no to this because members of madd are a great group of people however members of their chapters are not perfect and I don't see any of you crying over the chomo, or the intoxicated woman waving a gun impersonating a police officer or the countless members with dui's while they served.... I may sound cold hearted or rude but I would bet atleast 1/3 of you have driven a car after drinking a couple beers.... None of you want to admit it but you know who you are.... And as for the 75% of traumatic brain injuries are caused by drunks??????????? I looked and looked and nowhere in modern medical history does that statistic exist.... In fact football accounts for the majority of high school students (concussions) head injuries.... I just hate everyone not looking at facts and seeing tax payers would still be paying more with the interlock system on first time dui's... More cases go to trial thus costing more for tax payers.... Communities can't ever solve the problem of dui's when half the people complaining about them have already done it atleast once..... Hypocritical standards have never solved a problem... I am new to Lawrence and find jayhawk taxi to be the best bet.... KU has safe ride, but people will make mistakes and the last thing they need is their name in the paper and to be judged by hypocrites who claim they have never been behind the wheel after a beer.... Losing a license costs a job so how do they pay for the breath test or ua's hmmmm unemployment or welfare.... Victims panels and the 48 hour that was mentioned are good ideas.... Second dui lock them up or halfway house their ass.... One time probation, loss of license, 3000 dollars, ua's, worked for me and a few others I know.... Let's try more resources versus more costs.....

beatrice 6 years, 10 months ago

"the breath test fails to take size or tolerance into account"

The breath test measures the amount of alcohol in your system. Period. While you might be able to drink more than a smaller person, that difference would also appear on the test. They would have a higher blood / alcohol reading than you for the same five (FIVE!) beers.

"Tolerance" is just another way of saying "but I'm not drunk." Sorry, but it was not the test's fault you got a DUI. It was your fault. Five beers is obviously too much for your system to tolerate and allow you to drive safely.

"by all accounts sober" ... well, except for the test. That account said otherwise. Also, if you were pulled over rather than a roadblock test, why do you think that was?

For the rest of your comment, yes, some others will get away with the crime of driving while drunk. So what. Like cheating on an exam at school, if only one student gets caught and all the rest get away with it, that doesn't make the one who got caught innocent. It makes him unlucky.

Finally, it doesn't matter if people have ever driven under the influence in the past without getting caught. What matters is, will they ever do so again?

Liberty275 6 years, 10 months ago

I'll say it for you so can quit making up your story. Those devices are a tremendous intrusion into a what is probably just an ordinary person's life. As long as no life or property was damaged, a monetary fine or a few days in jail are punishment enough. Offenses beyond that should be treated as repeat offenders (there is no luck), then yes, put the device in the car and let them only use it for specified errands for a month or a year or so.

jafs 6 years, 10 months ago

What if the second offense involves loss of life, which might have been prevented?

beatrice 6 years, 10 months ago

So you believe people should be given a second chance to kill others. Got it.

Your argument seems to be that if they don't kill someone the first time, they should be given another chance -- no harm, no fool. Correct?

For argument's sake, what if, instead of driving drunk past you, someone were to shoot at you at random, but missed? Should there be no restrictions on their future access to firearms, as long as they promise to be good and not shoot at people again? Maybe a day in jail and pay a fine and that is it, lesson learned?

If you are shot and killed, are you any less dead than if run over and killed by a drunk driver?

Why just give people a second chance to kill you? I know I wouldn't.

50YearResident 6 years, 10 months ago

Then do you believe first time speeders should have to install a govenor on theit car which limits the available top speed of the car to 55 MPH?

jafs 6 years, 10 months ago

Good point.

Doesn't it stop you from driving drunk?

jafs 6 years, 10 months ago

Take away their driver's license?

Jail time?

Heavy fines?


cowboy 7 years, 3 months ago

I have always thought that the more impact you have on arrest the longer lasting the lesson learned. Keep DUI offenders in jail for 48 hours before setting bail. Let there be some actual inconvenience , learning time , involved in the arrest process. Now you are out in an hour or so.

Simple learning theory is that the punishment applied must be immediate to have any impact. You get bonded out in an hour then take six months to work your way thru court. This is not a traumatic event.

Ignition interlocks just make money for the monitoring companies. They can go get another car in a heartbeat if they want to.

tolawdjk 7 years, 3 months ago

agree with you to a point.

1 hour is short, but 48 is 48 more hours that they are on the state dime. If the end result is going to be the same, why bother to keep them. And while this is just my guess and not backed by data, but I would think that you get diminishing returns when looking at the hours kept in the pokey. Those that are going to be scared straight are probably pretty good and terrified in the first hour after sobering up.

cowboy 7 years, 3 months ago

You aren't sober in an hour , you don't miss work , you are home before the family knows you're gone , you are back in control within an hour or so , all of which diminishes the impact directed at you for your behavior. cost to the state or county is minor when compared to the danger these folks create. Laying on a bunk in county jail is not a real treat and does have a major impact the first time.

guest 7 years, 3 months ago

Then the same should go for texters; First offense gets their license taken away for a year and then some sort of cell phone interlock device installed for an additional year after that. Only seems fair to me.

CLARKKENT 7 years, 3 months ago


sr80 7 years, 3 months ago

you want to talk about m.a.d.d. getting mad you just try something like that, all of them and their daughters would be affected and they can do no evil.they are law abiding citizens.

sr80 7 years, 3 months ago

there was a special commission that met a couple of months can find at the c-span library online.texting & driving was the topic.go see.

LoveThsLife 7 years, 3 months ago

There have been some studies out of the University Of Utah on this.

Here is an NPR article. If your interested you could probably find the actual study in the journal Human Factors published by the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

LoveThsLife 7 years, 3 months ago

I've actually heard this particular psychologist discuss his research and it's a little more in depth that what you are presenting.

In addition, he's not just some random some psychologist, it's Human Factors psychology which deals with people and technology. They used a driving simulator which is pretty standard in this field when studying driving behaviors. They are basically studying cognition and it's actually really interesting to read what they have found in this particular instance.

Thanks for the links I'll look at them.

slowplay 7 years, 3 months ago

"Ignition interlocks just make money for the monitoring companies. They can go get another car in a heartbeat if they want to."... I don't think so. Are you going to let your drunken friend use your car because he's too loaded to use his?

booyalab 7 years, 3 months ago

I don't really have sympathy for people who find those devices inconvenient. It's not like they acquired it in the first place by gargling with mouthwash.

CHKNLTL 7 years, 3 months ago

i'm against this if it costs taxpayer money. If it is funded solely by the individual, then go for it. we need less alc'ees on the streets.

Chelsea Kapfer 7 years, 3 months ago

I vote yes. people rarely get caught the first time they drive drunk. I have worked in a traumatic brain injury unit and at least 75% of the patients there are victims of drunk driving.

Judgesmails 7 years, 3 months ago

'I vote yes. people rarely get caught the first time they drive drunk.'

good point.

jayhawk4life88 7 years, 3 months ago

Well as a prior offender who got 2 DWIs in 4 months when I was 18, now I realize that getting the ignition interlock after the 1st may have helped me. Now I understand how much of a pain of the A** it is to get it installed, and then pay everymonth, and get it serviced everymonth, it just ain't worth it now at 22 I finally realize...It maybe would have opened my eyes a little more and got thru this hard head of mine. And 48 hrs in jail..Yeah thats not gonna accomplish anything most of the time. I was left in there several times to sober up, and well I didnt learn much at the time from it. It may scare a few, but most will be out drinking again the next weekend or month. Well I ended up doing 9 months in county jail over my drinking arrests..That'll get you to learn something. Just imagine if they could come up with an economical device that car manufacturers could install in every vehicle made. Yeah the people that dont drink are gonna say "I dont need that", but oh well, it takes 2 extra seconds to start your vehicle and is gonna save thousands of lives. I think that would be a great way to deal with DWI. Taxi business would skyrocket so invest.. But then the state wouldnt get their money though for alcohol arrests/offenses.

Chrissy Neibarger 7 years, 3 months ago

How are you going to make it so they don't ever drive again? Blind them?? Just because someone doesn't have a valid drivers license doesn't mean that they don't drive. I see no problem with this. If my child was ever caught drinking and driving, I would insist upon this!

WHY 7 years, 3 months ago

Why drink and drive when you can smoke and fly.

dogsandcats 7 years, 3 months ago

First-time? No. Repeat offenders? Sure. Give the first-timers a chance to learn their lesson before imposing this extreme of a restriction.

jafs 7 years, 3 months ago

Why is it extreme?

It prevents future offenses - isn't that better than waiting for them, and having somebody possibly injured or killed?

Chris Ogle 7 years, 3 months ago

Too bad the bars don't offer some kind of device that shows your BAC (if you request it). I would certainly use one if it was offered. .

slowplay 7 years, 3 months ago

Why are you so concerned as to how much trouble it is?

fu7il3 7 years, 3 months ago

If they don't want to have to get one, it is really simple. Just don't drink and drive. Amazing!

jayhawkstalk 7 years, 3 months ago

People know they aren't supposed to drink and drive. They know intellectually that it causes accidents and death. But even being pulled over is far from the worst thing that could happen. I think they should be forced to use the breathilizer as well as seeing pictures and video of other drunk driving accidents. Maybe even videos in Imax so they can feel the devastation. They got off light by being pulled over, when they could have killed someone or been killed. No punishment is really too hard, when it is just luck that kept them from being a statistic.

greenworld 7 years, 3 months ago

Quit spending money on something that rewards the person. How about a good quick kick in the azz or design something that punches somebody in the face...wouldnt that be better. What keeps anybody drunk from jumping into somebody else's car and driving drunk. People wont do this... come on. Why dont we work on something more scientific that has an electronic thing that makes people who dont pay or have insurance not be able to get a driver's license?? How many accidents a year occur and the other person doesnt have insurance or a job more less and the only thing you can do is turn around and sue your own insurance. Once again the loser prevails. I mean I know up front in order to get a license or tags you have to provide poi but what keeps you from only paying it for one month and then the other 11 you drive around with no insurance and still have a license and tags. To many loopholes in to many things and people have figured out how to beat the system. If you give somebody something free, they will take 10-15 more times then you have given them. I understand why so many people dont work and live off welfare because its to freaking eazy. Basically you put your hand out and somebody puts something in it and you come back for seconds and thirds and then work under the table to still make cash. Unfortunately this is how the middle and lower class have to live now to survive and the upper class or millionaires dont care because they are so above the poor people that they wouldnt even know how to spell the word WIC. Enough of my soapbox. One last thing, how come not one person from Canada jumps across our border yet are friends to the south jump everyday?? When you can answer that you will know which way our country is headed. Ignition locks?? Get out of here with that BS.

coderob 7 years, 3 months ago

What do all of the lawyers out there think of this idea? Drunk driving is serious and all but I'm sure they'd stand to lose some money if this policy passes and works.

JackMcKee 7 years, 3 months ago

Drunk driving is a serious offense, but we have to use some common sense when it comes to penalties for first time offenders. I don't think MADD will be happy unless prohibition returns.

JackMcKee 7 years, 3 months ago

Are you suggesting that we put interlock devices on cars before someone even receives a first DUI? I'm willing to sacrifice a little safety for personal freedom. That seems more than a little intrusive.

JackMcKee 7 years, 3 months ago

Who is going to pay to retrofit every car on the road with an interlock device? Add the cost of inspections. Add the inconvenience that it would impose on innocent people. Add the loss of personal freedom. I don't think that sounds like an idea that would get a lot of support.

giggity79 7 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

beatrice 6 years, 10 months ago

I really don't like it when people do things that risk my life and the lives of others. Their own life? Not a problem, just don't risk mine with your actions. If a person demonstrates that they are willing to risk other people's lives by driving drunk even once, then I favor the penalty of installing the breathalyzer on a car.

Doing things that risk other people's lives is a zero times activity. Get caught doing it once, pay a big penalty that takes away the probability of your doing it again. Why would I want to give someone a second chance to kill me?

Russell Fryberger 6 years, 10 months ago

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. If you drink, stay the hell out of the driver seat.

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 10 months ago

"Once the interlock was taken out of his vehicle his airbag would continuously fault and his digital dash no longer worked."

Couldn't he take the car back to the company that installed it, and if they can't correct the problem, sue them?

This would only work for low value cars, but I think you would win in small claims court.

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 10 months ago

I think I would quickly either sell my car immediately, or trade it in for a car that would not run anyway.

If the company wants to install the interlock, let them tow it in.

jafs 6 years, 10 months ago

Well, your dad wouldn't have had to use one if he hadn't been drinking and driving, right?

And, what you did was clearly circumventing the whole point of the device - shame on you. If he couldn't demonstrate his sobriety, then why didn't you just drive the car?

The "it's too inconvenient" argument doesn't impress me much. Drunk drivers kill people all the time in this country - losing a loved one is much worse than "inconvenient".

Of course, if there are improvements available for the technology, I'm all for it.

Richard Heckler 6 years, 10 months ago


Establish a national database STAT to prevent buying another car.

I also say make some very very very stiff penalty for anyone who loans out a vehicle.

Are these devices any more expensive than drinking to excess frequently?

pace 6 years, 10 months ago

Beware the drunk that can hold his booze. Beware the fool that thinks after 5 drinks he isn't affected. I don't like drunk drivers, I think they kill people. I don't see the down side of requiring ignition interlock devices. I don't think a person who was a fool once wont be a fool again.

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 10 months ago

Since alcohol is such a terrible thing, why is it legal in the first place?

avenger 6 years, 10 months ago

I'll say this. 2 years ago I got a DUI. Never been pulled over by a cop before in my life, no speeding tickets, hell no parking tickets. I made a bad choice one night driving literally one block home. Was it stupid? Yes. Did I deserve a DUI? Yes. The punishment I got for cooperating with the police officer and not lying to him or trying to hide anything was over $5000 in fines, court costs, lawyer fee's, etc as well as one year with no liscense at all and on top of that one year with an ignition interlock device (which by the way costs $100 to install and remove and $75/month to maintain which costs a total of $1100 additional to everything else). Had I not cooperated with the cop, who by the way recommended a lighter sentence to the judge for me being so cooperative, I would've lost my license for the same year and would've been done with it. Our system is teaching people that not cooperating with law enforcement will get you in less trouble than if you do and that, to me, is wrong.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.