IN just a matter of days, a new law will come into force that requires drivers to install devices to their cars that can completely stop them from starting.
Set to take effect in a US state, it will see drivers who repeatedly break DWI violations required to install ignition interlock devices in their cars.
2
2
According to KAALTV, this device prevents the car from starting if alcohol is detected on the driver’s breath.
The law, which specifically targets repeat drink-driving offenders, comes into effect on August 1 and matches similar efforts made across the US to reduce dangerous driving and improve road safety.
In Minnesota, where this new law takes effect, will also extend the lookback period for DWI offences from 10 to 20 years and require repeat offenders to use ignition interlock devices.
These changes were prompted by a deadly drink-driving crash which happened last autumn in St. Louis Park.
On September 1, Steven Bailey, 56, drove his BMW X5 into a restaurant’s outdoor patio, killing two people and injuring twelve others.
The victims included Kristina Folkerts, a 30-year-old server, and Gabe Harvey, a hospital employee.
Five of the injured sustained serious injuries.
Bailey, whose blood alcohol level was 0.325% – over four times the legal limit – had a history of five prior drink-driving convictions, with the most recent in 2014.
He had previously used an ignition interlock device for six years, which expired in 2020.
At the scene, Bailey reportedly admitted he “hit the gas instead of the brake.”
This tragic incident has since accelerated change in legislation and included an extended lookback period for DWI offences, requiring repeat offenders to use ignition interlock devices to prevent similar tragedies in the future.
Bailey later pleaded guilty to multiple charges and is expected to face up to 30 years in prison.
This comes as, elsewhere in the US, states are beginning to utilize Intelligent Speed Assist (ISA) systems.
ISA systems are advanced technologies that help enforce speed limits using GPS data, road sign recognition and digital maps, and can range from simply alerting drivers when they exceed the speed limit to automatically limiting a vehicle’s ability to accelerate beyond the allowed speed.
While ISA systems are not yet widely mandated in the US, some places, such as Washington D.C., are piloting programs requiring repeat speeding offenders to install these devices.
California has also proposed legislation requiring new cars sold or manufactured in the state by 2032 to include passive speed limiters.
These passive systems simply alert drivers if they exceed the speed limit by more than 10 mph.
Although ISA systems have proven effective in reducing speed-related accidents, their adoption in the US lags behind countries like those in the European Union – where ISA has been mandatory for all new car models since 2024.
Reckless driving legislation in the US, which includes severe penalties for dangerous behaviours like excessive speeding, street racing, or fleeing law enforcement, certainly complements the goals of ISA technology.
Some states are now considering laws that require repeat offenders to install ISA systems into their cars to prevent future violations.
How to fight a speeding ticket
According to a legally reviewed post, there are five effective strategies to fighting a speeding ticket if it was wrongfully issued.
- If pulled over and issued a ticket, drivers can argue or dispute a driver’s personal opinion. When issuing a speeding ticket, an officer is required to write their opinion and come to an “objective” conclusion. If the ticket was written based on that judgment, it can be contested. An example would be if you were going 75 mph in a 65 mph zone because others were traveling at the same speed, you could argue that it would be more dangerous to travel at 65 mph.
- You can dispute the officer’s presentation of evidence. If you were ticketed for something like running a stop sign or making an illegal u-turn, you can’t contest that if an officer saw you, but you can call things into court like eyewitnesses, diagrams, or photos.
- Argue that the ticket was issued by a “mistake of fact.” This is tricky, but a “mistake of fact” is a mistake made by a driver about a situation that was beyond their control, or if a driver legitimately did not know they were violating the law. For example, you were driving in two lanes because the lane markers were so worn down that you could not see them.
- You could say circumstances justified your driving. You could say you were speeding to pass a possibly drunk driver, or avoiding an accident by rapidly changing lanes. However, the argument won’t work if there’s proof you continued to speed after passing.
- Similar to the above, it could be argued that speeding was necessary to avoid harm. The key is to argue that if you weren’t speeding, you or someone else could have been harmed.
- Consult a traffic attorney, if all else fails. Many have free consultations to decide whether or not there’s a case.
Source: FindLaw
