Share this article:
Print

Bill requiring those with DUI to have breathalyzers in vehicles could become law

Click here for a free download of the latest Adobe Flash Player.

WHAS11.com

Posted on February 10, 2010 at 6:17 PM

Updated Wednesday, Feb 10 at 7:00 PM

(WHAS11) - A device that could stop drunk driving and the bill attached to it is making its way through Kentucky's General Assembly.
 

The bill has already passed its first hurdle and would lead to breath-alcohol monitors in vehicles of those caught driving drunk.
 

It's an ignition lock system already used in many states.
 

In New Mexico, drunken driving crashes dropped 65% after the first year in use.
 

Nearly every state is looking at this device and wondering if this could be the fix to stop drunk driving.
 

Kelly Keene graduated from college, but her injuries from a drunk driving accident led her father - a member of the State House - to take action.

"I don't think that gentleman woke up one morning and said I'm going to kill Kelly Keene but he made a bad decision that day and he ended up impacting my child's life along with my whole family," says Dennis Keene.
 

Now Dennis Keene is working to make an impact on drunk driving.
 

His bill he hopes will become law would require a breath alcohol monitor in the cars of those caught driving drunk.
 

Mothers Against Drunk Driving has been working to make this device law in Kentucky for years.
 

The locks require a driver to prove they're not drunk by blowing into the device before the car will start. The cost is about $3 per day.
 

But the state's public advocate warns there could be unintentional costs to the poor, saying that those who can’t afford the ignition lock would have difficulties getting to work.
 

"Indigent criminal defendants who are authentically poor and do not have the ability to afford the ignition interlock that would almost undoubtedly result in difficulties getting to work."
 

The driver who hit Kelly Keene had a prior dui and the device could have made a difference.
 

Those who advocate using this lock system say the cost is minimal.  They like to say the price of a beer.
 

And the newer devices do require a breath ID of sorts so that the driver charged with dui couldn't have someone else breathe into the device and pass.
 

Next this goes to the full house for a vote and WHAS11 News and WHAS11.com will keep you posted.
 

Share this article:
Print

To add a comment, please register or login.

Leave your comment
1000 characters remaining

Submit

We welcome your comments on this story's topic. Off-topic comments, personal attacks, and inappropriate language may be flagged and removed, and comment privileges blocked, per our Terms of Service. Thanks for keeping the comments space respectful.

Privacy Policy

HTML is not allowed.

You have indicated this comment should be removed.

Close

The comment has been submitted for review. Thank you .

Comments: Displaying 1 - 3 of 3

lmm2010 said on February 11, 2010 at 10:28 AM

I agree with dogfan. What is $3.00 a day when it cost way more than that to get wasted. Quit making excuses for these people who obviously care little for there own quality of life and even less for the innocent people around them. Plus all the money they spend on lawyers to get them back behind the wheel is way much more than what one of these devices costs them. Want to drink, pay the price for the right to drive after you have already broke the law and possible hurt or killed someone in the past from their irrisponsible behavior. I don't feel one bit sorry for these people. Lucky they are allowed to drive at all.

37421676
Flag this comment

dogfan said on February 11, 2010 at 12:35 AM

This should be a law. Drunk driving is not acceptable. How ridiculous that the concern is the "poor" might not be able to afford the device. The "poor" can apparently afford to buy enough alcohol to become intoxicated! The "poor" can make the choice to drive while intoxicated. This is some of the most ridiculous logic I have ever heard. If the "poor" cannot afford the device maybe they should exercise some judgement and not drive drunk! I would be embarassed to take the position we should not have a law in place to protect the lives of innocent people because some people might not be able to afford the repercussions of their own actions. The argument someone needs to get to work is as old as the hills - if offenders and their families have to suffer from a poor decision so be it, better than innocent people suffering from their actions.

37408563
Flag this comment

guest2 said on February 10, 2010 at 9:14 PM

They should have had this a long time ago.

37399666
Flag this comment