Senate focus on DUI laws a worthy pursuit

On the precipice of another big party weekend, the messages about road safety and the perils of drinking and driving are all around. So prevalent are they that they almost become white noise in the hustle and bustle of the holidays, a mere afterthought in the mad rush to get from one social engagement to another.

The vast majority of weekend revelers, like the vast majority of those who get behind the wheel on any given day, will do so responsibly. But the pages of this newspaper, especially the listings of police activities in each edition, offer black-and-white testament to just how little the &#8220Don't drink and drive” message resonates with some.

Law enforcement agency holding cells and area court dockets are regularly peopled with multiple offenders of the state's drinking and driving laws. So it is no stretch to presume that something is not working.

As is usually the case when personal responsibility is lacking to the point where others are imperiled, government must step in. So it is encouraging to note that the state Senate, through its Judiciary Committee, has made cracking down on drunken drivers a priority for the new legislative session, which is slated to begin

Jan. 16.

Among the remedies on tap to be addressed is the use of ignition interlocks for designated problem drinkers. According to the Web site 1800DUIlaws.com, an ignition interlock is &#8220a sophisticated system that tests for alcohol on a driver's breath. It is a device that requires a vehicle operator to blow into a small handheld alcohol sensor unit that is attached to a vehicle's dashboard.” The car cannot be started if the operator's blood alcohol content is above a preset level.

Interlock critics say the system is wide open to abuse. But if the system is required to meet National Highway Traffic Safety Administration standards, a breath test is needed not only to start the car, but also to keep it running. This prevents a sober person from starting the car then yielding the wheel to an impaired person.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving says, with modern safeguards, ignition interlocks are extremely difficult to circumvent when properly installed and monitored every 30 to 60 days.

It's hard to argue, then, against a tough, comprehensive and, most important, viable plan that includes the use of ignition interlocks for all repeat offenders - and tough, enforceable penalties for impaired drivers who try to circumvent the system.

Is this a silver bullet? Unlikely. But something needs to be done to protect Alaskans from the scourge of drunken driving. This proposal is a step in the right direction.