Fact Check: New Mexico Stats

February 5th, 2010

ABI took MADD to task over its use of interlock stats from New Mexico in today’s Albuquerque Journal. We argue that interlocks are not the primary cause of New Mexico’s decline in drunk driving fatalities and that most stats coming out of the state about interlocks are inflated.

Give the piece a read here.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • del.icio.us

New Mexico Interlock Fund Goes Broke

February 4th, 2010

New Mexico’s KRQE reports today:

The state’s Ignition Interlock Indigent Fund has run out of money.

The New Mexico Department of Transportation has given notice that reimbursements for interlocks given to low-income drunken-driving offenders has been “suspended until further notice.

As we’ve been saying, interlock laws are not budget-neutral. Not only do states have to think about indigent funds, they have to pour millions into enforcement.

Cost is just one reason why interlock mandates should target hardcore drunk drivers, instead of low-BAC (blood alcohol concentration), first-time offenders.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • del.icio.us

CDC expert says interlocks “not a silver bullet”

February 2nd, 2010

Yesterday, Randy Elder, scientific director for systematic reviews at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Community Guide Branch was quoted saying something we’ve been trying to explain to legislators about interlocks:

They’re not a silver bullet. It does cost money to monitor them and it’s an administrative burden.”

He also explained:

“People tend to revert back to what they did before the interlock was installed. Interlocks work while they’re in the car, but they don’t have any lasting effects.”

We’ve been echoing both of these points for years. Hopefully legislators will start listening.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • del.icio.us

Not to say ‘we told you so…’

February 2nd, 2010

The Watertown Daily Times reports that New York probation officers are concerned about handling an increased caseload due to the new ignition interlock law, especially now that Gov. Paterson has proposed a probation department budget cut.

We’ve been explaining to legislators that interlock mandates are hard to enforce because probation officers need to monitor offenders to verify they’ve installed the device and are using it. Now that all offenders must get an interlock, the probation department is overwhelmed.

As Jefferson County probation director Edward E. Brown explains:

“We have really been accustomed to having more felony DWI offenders being on probation, but now including the misdemeanors [first-time offenders] will be a whole different gamut for our office.”

Interlock requirements are also expensive. Based on conservative estimates from the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA), the interlock mandate will cost New York over $19 million per year to enforce.

This is just one reason why interlock mandates should target hardcore offenders – those with high-BACs (blood alcohol concentrations) and/or repeat offenses, instead of marginal, first-timers.

New York passed this law hastily, without public hearings, over the course of a few days. A little more scrutiny and attention to detail might have helped legislators craft a better law.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • del.icio.us

Check out ABI in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer

January 25th, 2010


Today’s Philadelphia Inquirer published an ABI letter to the editor about MADD’s campaign to see interlocks in all cars:

Your editorial (“Locked for safety,” Jan. 16) didn’t mention that mandating ignition interlocks for all drunken-driving offenders is an incremental step in a project that seeks to put alcohol sensors in all cars.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is trying to subtly encourage Americans to be supportive of such in-car alcohol sensors. But once in all cars, interlocks would be set well below the legal limit.

You will no longer be able to have a glass of wine with dinner, a beer at a ball game, or a champagne toast at a wedding before driving home. That application of the technology isn’t anti-drunks, it’s anti-drinks.

Sarah Longwell

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • del.icio.us

Check out ABI in the Chicago Tribune

January 13th, 2010

Today, the Chicago Tribune published ABI’s letter to the editor debunking one of MADD’s worst stats:

This is in response to “Women gain on men in drunken driving arrests” (News, Jan. 1). One of Mothers Against Drunk Driving’s favorite talking points was quoted: “A first-time drunken driving offender on average has driven drunk 87 times before being arrested.” This goes so far as to accuse Americans of criminal acts with no proof to back up the claim.

Before advocating for new laws, we need an accurate, up-to-date measure of drunk driving behavior. It’s reckless to act based on one thing, when the reality is another.

– Sarah Longwell, managing director, American Beverage Institute, Washington

Learn the truth about other bad stats here.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • del.icio.us

Smart Start to North Carolina: Show me the money!

January 12th, 2010

This just in: Interlock company Smart Start is suing North Carolina’s DMV. According to the Associated Press:

“The company filed a lawsuit Friday at North Carolina’s Office of Administrative Hearings, accusing the Division of Motor Vehicles of unfairly blocking its attempts to win the state’s contract for the devices.”

The North Carolina interlock market is worth about $10 million a year. No wonder Smart Start wants in. And if legislators expand the use of interlocks to more offenders, those profits could triple. Gee, maybe that’s why Smart Start lobbies for increased use of interlocks.

But, seriously, maybe North Carolina is better off without Smart Start and its questionable business practices.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • del.icio.us

California Assemblyman says ‘I’ll be back’ to tax your drinks

January 7th, 2010

After the California legislature soundly rejected a nickel-per-drink alcohol tax increase last year and the Assembly Health Committee twice voted down a dime-per-drink tax hike “fee,” you would think that the anti-alcohol legislators introducing these proposals would get the message. Not so for Assemblyman Jim Beall (D-San Jose).

Despite his best efforts – and coordination with the notoriously anti-alcohol Marin Institute – Beall’s 10-cents-per-drink tax increase “fee,” failed for a second time in committee yesterday. But, the eager Assemblyman says he’ll be back soon with another tax hike proposal:

“I’m going to wipe it off and come back in a few weeks with something different.”

Not only is right now a terrible time to raise taxes as Americans struggle with financial concerns and unemployment, but alcohol tax increases always hurt businesses, negatively impact the poorest among us, and kill jobs in the hospitality industry.

The hospitality industry isn’t alone in opposition toward the alcohol “fee.” Check out this video we came across of some pretty angry college students confronting Beall:

Our advice to Beall: Realize that California doesn’t want an alcohol “fee,” tax increase, or whatever else you call it. Don’t come back in a few weeks with the something cut from the same cloth.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • del.icio.us

ABI in USA Today

January 4th, 2010

Check out ABI’s letter to the editor in this morning’s USA Today:

USA TODAY’s editorial on Dec. 28 didn’t mention that mandating ignition interlocks for all drunken-driving offenders is an incremental step toward putting alcohol sensors in all cars.

Read more…

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • del.icio.us

More like the year of bad ideas

December 21st, 2009

California’s Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) has declared 2010 (drum roll please) “The Year of the Checkpoint.”

It’s great that California wants to get drunk drivers off the roads. But, a hyped-up, waste-of-money checkpoints push isn’t the way to do it. Just look at the results of California’s 2008 roadblock campaign: over a million vehicles went through 1,469 checkpoints. Police arrested just one-third of 1 percent of those motorists for drunk driving.

And 2009 doesn’t look much better. Checkpoints in Barstow, Costa Mesa, Fairfield, Fort Bragg, Orange County, Redding, Ripon, San Francisco, San Rafael, and Ukiah caught zero drunk drivers. Checkpoints in Coachella, Clovis, Folsom, Fresno, Martinez, Norco, Palm Springs, Petaluma, Porterville, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Maria made just 1 arrest each, and stopped thousands upon thousands of innocent drivers in the process.

If you’re thinking 1 arrest is better than nothing, think about this: saturation patrols in Alameda County, Fontana, North County, San Bernardino, and Visalia caught anywhere from 6 to 47 drunk drivers each.

Checkpoints are just PR stunts – a way to look like you’re cracking down, when really you’re just standing around. But, that won’t stop the OTS from going into spin mode:

Since OTS and law enforcement began placing increased emphasis and funding toward sobriety checkpoints in 2006, alcohol-related deaths have declined in California. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) Fatality Analysis Reporting System, DUI deaths declined in California by 9.1 percent between 2007 and 2008, marking a total decrease of nearly 21 percent from the most recent high point in 2005.

As we’ve pointed out, anyone calling the drop in fatalities in 2008 more than a fluke is fooling themselves. Or maybe they’re just fooling you.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • del.icio.us