Comments on: The Ignition Interlock Hoax http://blog.motorists.org/the-ignition-interlock-hoax/ News For Drivers Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:16:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Mick Peterson http://blog.motorists.org/the-ignition-interlock-hoax/comment-page-1/#comment-13576 Mick Peterson Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:54:35 +0000 http://www.motorists.org/blog/the-ignition-interlock-hoax/#comment-13576 I have a Smart Start unit for 14 months, (Only ordered to be on for 12 months). In my last month they "Extended" my use of it(They =MVD) they claim "Due to Tampering". I have had nothing but problems with this unit. ALL of my claims are backed up with such things as when it "FAIL"ed me the first time, I had the Highway Patrol give me a BAC test that showed .000 (8 minutes after the unit "FAIL"ed me). When my battery died, it showed I tampered with it. Same as when my alternater quit. It gave me a strong "Warn"ing when I was eating my yogurt for breakfast on one occasion and when I drank my nutritional supplement separate occasion. And the last time it "Fail"ed me I went to the local Police Department in the city it happened (minutes after the system "FAIL"ed me)and took ANOTHER BAC and blew a .000 again. For the record, I live in Arizona and was convicted of DUI in the slightest degree with a BAC of .081. This unit has overheated and burned out internally and Smart Start had to drive me another unit to a different town due to the fact my vehicle was stranded when the unit literally melted down, it was new and had been in vehicle for only 2 hours when this happened. The courts do not want to hear about these things, the system needs more work and the courts need to see that they are not even close to where they need to be. I have a Smart Start unit for 14 months, (Only ordered to be on for 12 months). In my last month they “Extended” my use of it(They =MVD) they claim “Due to Tampering”. I have had nothing but problems with this unit. ALL of my claims are backed up with such things as when it “FAIL”ed me the first time, I had the Highway Patrol give me a BAC test that showed .000 (8 minutes after the unit “FAIL”ed me). When my battery died, it showed I tampered with it. Same as when my alternater quit. It gave me a strong “Warn”ing when I was eating my yogurt for breakfast on one occasion and when I drank my nutritional supplement separate occasion. And the last time it “Fail”ed me I went to the local Police Department in the city it happened (minutes after the system “FAIL”ed me)and took ANOTHER BAC and blew a .000 again. For the record, I live in Arizona and was convicted of DUI in the slightest degree with a BAC of .081. This unit has overheated and burned out internally and Smart Start had to drive me another unit to a different town due to the fact my vehicle was stranded when the unit literally melted down, it was new and had been in vehicle for only 2 hours when this happened. The courts do not want to hear about these things, the system needs more work and the courts need to see that they are not even close to where they need to be.

]]> By: james wesley landrum http://blog.motorists.org/the-ignition-interlock-hoax/comment-page-1/#comment-13367 james wesley landrum Thu, 09 Apr 2009 01:57:22 +0000 http://www.motorists.org/blog/the-ignition-interlock-hoax/#comment-13367 I myself have an ignition inerlock device in my vehicle " smart start " provides me with ... i pay a little over 100 dollars a month to use a device that is unaffective . im on probation with the IID as a sanction the entire time of my probation sentence. i believe spreading the truth about iid's is verry important thank you Mr. Baxter for publishing this page I myself have an ignition inerlock device in my vehicle ” smart start ” provides me with … i pay a little over 100 dollars a month to use a device that is unaffective . im on probation with the IID as a sanction the entire time of my probation sentence. i believe spreading the truth about iid’s is verry important thank you Mr. Baxter for publishing this page

]]> By: Brian E. Simoneau http://blog.motorists.org/the-ignition-interlock-hoax/comment-page-1/#comment-13120 Brian E. Simoneau Fri, 27 Mar 2009 02:53:05 +0000 http://www.motorists.org/blog/the-ignition-interlock-hoax/#comment-13120 Ignition Interlock Devices are unreliable. I have personally represented clients who have not had a drink in years, but who have registered alcohol on their Ignition Interlock Devices. These devices are so unreliable that they are not admissible as evidence in criminal trials in Massachusetts. Because they use fuel cells instead of infrared technology to measure blood alcohol, they are not approved by the Massachusetts Office of Alcohol Testing. Nevertheless, the Registry suspends licenses for 10 years or life based on the results reported by these devices. Here's an example: vapors containing alcohol from a vehicle's windshield washer fluid get sucked into the passenger compartment of a vehicle through the defroster. The unsuspecting motorist inhales the vapors and then blows into the IID. The Interlock Device shows alcohol. Another example: a motorist uses hand sanitizer and then blows into the device. Hand sanitizer contains 62% alcohol; again, a false reading and a potential lifetime license suspension. The Registry considers these devices "breathalyzers;" they are not. IIDs are cheap interlock devices and not scientific test instruments. One interlock provider instructed a user to bang the device 5 times if it did not work. When the user reported that it still did not work, the employee of the interlock company said to bang it harder! Interlock readings should not be taken as Gospel, but taken with a huge grain of salt. I stongly beleive that the IID program could be dramatically improved by increasing the lockout / violation threshold, allowing users to get an immediate comparison test, decreasing the harsh suspension penalties, and using better / more reliable equipment. Interlock has cost my clients needless legal expenses as well as sleepless nights and considerable anxiety. Imagine getting a letter stating that your license will be revoked for life because of an alleged violation when you did nothing wrong? It happens routinely in Massachusetts. Attorney Brian E. Simoneau http://www.rmvlawyer.com Ignition Interlock Devices are unreliable. I have personally represented clients who have not had a drink in years, but who have registered alcohol on their Ignition Interlock Devices. These devices are so unreliable that they are not admissible as evidence in criminal trials in Massachusetts. Because they use fuel cells instead of infrared technology to measure blood alcohol, they are not approved by the Massachusetts Office of Alcohol Testing. Nevertheless, the Registry suspends licenses for 10 years or life based on the results reported by these devices. Here’s an example: vapors containing alcohol from a vehicle’s windshield washer fluid get sucked into the passenger compartment of a vehicle through the defroster. The unsuspecting motorist inhales the vapors and then blows into the IID. The Interlock Device shows alcohol. Another example: a motorist uses hand sanitizer and then blows into the device. Hand sanitizer contains 62% alcohol; again, a false reading and a potential lifetime license suspension. The Registry considers these devices “breathalyzers;” they are not. IIDs are cheap interlock devices and not scientific test instruments. One interlock provider instructed a user to bang the device 5 times if it did not work. When the user reported that it still did not work, the employee of the interlock company said to bang it harder! Interlock readings should not be taken as Gospel, but taken with a huge grain of salt.

I stongly beleive that the IID program could be dramatically improved by increasing the lockout / violation threshold, allowing users to get an immediate comparison test, decreasing the harsh suspension penalties, and using better / more reliable equipment.

Interlock has cost my clients needless legal expenses as well as sleepless nights and considerable anxiety. Imagine getting a letter stating that your license will be revoked for life because of an alleged violation when you did nothing wrong? It happens routinely in Massachusetts.

Attorney Brian E. Simoneau
http://www.rmvlawyer.com

]]> By: Wisconsin considers bill AB 17, ignition interlocks. Studies show negative effects of device | Drunk Driving Blog http://blog.motorists.org/the-ignition-interlock-hoax/comment-page-1/#comment-12633 Wisconsin considers bill AB 17, ignition interlocks. Studies show negative effects of device | Drunk Driving Blog Wed, 04 Mar 2009 21:18:24 +0000 http://www.motorists.org/blog/the-ignition-interlock-hoax/#comment-12633 [...] got into 84% MORE accidents! Read “Lawmakers focus on new drunk driving laws” from WKOW Read the National Motorists Association’s blog against the ignition interlock device. Read the study about ignition interlock by the California DMV [...] [...] got into 84% MORE accidents! Read “Lawmakers focus on new drunk driving laws” from WKOW Read the National Motorists Association’s blog against the ignition interlock device. Read the study about ignition interlock by the California DMV [...]

]]> By: Tom Alciere http://blog.motorists.org/the-ignition-interlock-hoax/comment-page-1/#comment-12631 Tom Alciere Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:19:22 +0000 http://www.motorists.org/blog/the-ignition-interlock-hoax/#comment-12631 Make the IID allow the car to start but not move, if the driver is drunk (like when you start a car with a remote starter.) Nobody has ever been hit by a car that wasn't moving. At closing time you can warm up your car and climb in drunk. The law should be changed so that's not a DWI. Now the drunks have a way to get home: They already ARE home. Just climb in. When they feel sober three hours later, the ignition interlock tells them otherwise. That's just as innocent as using a speedometer to make sure you don't drive too fast. But then where will MADD get all their Victim Impact Panel fees? Make the IID allow the car to start but not move, if the driver is drunk (like when you start a car with a remote starter.) Nobody has ever been hit by a car that wasn’t moving. At closing time you can warm up your car and climb in drunk. The law should be changed so that’s not a DWI. Now the drunks have a way to get home: They already ARE home. Just climb in. When they feel sober three hours later, the ignition interlock tells them otherwise. That’s just as innocent as using a speedometer to make sure you don’t drive too fast. But then where will MADD get all their Victim Impact Panel fees?

]]>