The idea of requiring convicted drunk drivers to have ignition interlock devices on their cars has stalled in the Kentucky Senate. It has MADD, the bill's sponsor and relatives of victims frustrated by the roadblock.

May Jane Oswald of Louisville lost her 33-year-old son, Trey, six years ago when he was killed by a drunk driver. She says if the safety device law had been on the books back then the drunk driver who killed her son would not have been behind the wheel.

"And, if he would have one on his car that night he wouldn't have had the choice of whether or not to drive drunk," Oswald said

The device requires drivers to blow into the machine, to prove they are not drunk, before they can start their car. "That interlock ignition would have made that choice for him and my son would still be alive today."

The bill passed the House 95-0 but has been stuck in the Senate Judiciary Committee since February 22.

Senator Tom Buford, ( R ) Nicholasville, wants to usher the legislation through the Senate. He says concerns over cost are one stumbling block. Defense attorneys may be another

"That's always a suspicion that those who handle defense cases, it's one more issue that they would have to deal with," Buford said.

The cost excuse is scoffed at by the bill's sponsor, Rep. Dennis Keene, (D) Wilder.

"Cryin' for the drunk driver doesn't go anywhere for me," said Keene bluntly.

David Warner, whose six year old grandson, Branson Warner-Cummins was killed October 2, 2004 by a drunk driver in Anderson County, also bristles at that reasoning. "If this gentleman can afford alcohol, and sometimes he'll put that alcohol ahead of family, then yes, he can afford this," said Warner.

Warner said he is frustrated by the inability to get the ignition interlock device made mandatory for all drivers who are convicted of DUI. It is currently law in 12 states.

The American Beverage Institute, which represents 95 Kentucky restaurants, is opposed to the bill. The ABI managing director, Sarah Longwell, says the restaurant trade association is against a "one size fits all penalty." Instead, the institute wants a judge to have discretion on whether to require the device on offenders who have levels between .08 and .15 blood alcohol content.

 Subscribe RSS

  Bookmarks  Email This   Hits : 722

Trackback ( 0 )
Trackback Link for This Article

Comments (1)

 steve mcintosh says:

2010-Mar-14 09:34

?

To oppose this bill is insane..and yes, if you can afford alcohol you can afford the device. I personally feel the 1st offense should be a mandatory 10 year jail sentence and a life time ban from driving. When you get behind the wheel of a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs you aren't caring about anyone else.

 Reply  

 

0

 

 

0

    Report

Your Comment

Name* Email* Website Title* UBBCode B i u Quote Code List List item Img URL Comment*   0 Characters Verify Code*    Notify me when new comment post on this article.  I have read and agree to Term and Agreement By submitting your comments ABC 36 we reserve the right, at our sole discretion, delete, or deny approval of your comments for any reason at any time without further notice. We do not rent, sell, or exchange your name, personal information, or email address to third-party companies for their marketing purposes. Please allow up to 24 hours for your post to be approved. Thanks from ABC 36 for your comment on our site wtvq.com