Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

Letters

Implications of anti-DUI device

June 01, 2008

I couldn't believe the quote from Sarah Longwell of the beverage industry: "This is an effort to educate the public about the threat of universally mandated ignition interlocks." ("Keeping the drunk driver off the road," The Garage, May 24.)

Did she really use the word "threat" to describe a potentially life-saving device? Bit heavy on the rhetoric, don't you think?

But even better was her comment, "We're trying to get people to look 10 years down the road and realize what this could mean." I can look that far and see hundreds, if not thousands, of people's lives saved from the idiots who drink and then get behind the wheel.

Julie Bixby

Huntington Beach

--

Mothers Against Drunk Driving will not rest until we have total prohibition. The funny thing is, the only accidents I've narrowly avoided were caused by soccer moms and others driving while talking on the cellphone. I guess being killed by someone talking on the phone is preferable to being killed by someone who had a drink.

Kathy Straedey

Los Angeles

--

How is it possible to object to having cars equipped with a device that will deter drunk drivers? Drunk drivers kill more than 35 people every day -- more than 13,000 every year. More than four times as many as were killed in 9/11.

But our legislators are unwilling to do anything to help, because, we are told, attaching a Breathalyzer to the ignition might invade the privacy of a drunk who is trying to start his car.

I like a drink as well as the next guy, but I would be thankful to have my privacy invaded if it prevented my killing someone.

Arthur O. Armstrong

Manhattan Beach

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|