The Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office has decided not to prosecute John Kerry’s daughter Alexandra for drunk driving. Kerry’s daughter, you might remember, was driving below the legal limit. It doesn’t hurt that she comes from an important family. But if you get “caught” driving after having a glass of beer or wine with dinner, the prosecutor might not be so kind.
It’s curious why state law enforcement target under-the-limit drivers when we know that it’s the high-BAC drivers who cause the vast majority of fatal crashes and are the riskiest drivers. Take a look at this chart:
In fact, the average BAC of a driver involved in a fatal crash is .19 BAC – that’s more than double the legal limit of .08 (and more than triple what Kerry’s BAC was)! Police, state legislatures, and public awareness campaigns should target this dangerous population – not sober drivers like Alexandra Kerry.
Senator John Kerry’s daughter, Alexandra Forbes Kerry, was arrested early this morning on suspicion of DUI … law enforcement sources tell TMZ.
Cops took her to the station and then conducted a formal blood alcohol test which showed a level of .06. Under California law, the legal limit is .08, but a driver can still be prosecuted — even under a .08 reading — if the vehicle is being operated unsafely due to alcohol.
Bet you didn’t know that you can be arrested for drunk driving even when you aren’t drunk. But, it’s true.
You can be arrested and convicted for drunk driving below the legal limit in all 50 states. Some states set a “presumptive intoxication” level of .04 or .05, but police in every state may arrest motorists whom they deem intoxicated – regardless of what the breathalyzer says.
“Presumptive intoxication” is one excuse car companies will use to set interlocks below the legal limit when they starting put the devices are in all cars. Learn the other reasons.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has been quietly circulating a document that calls for some of the harshest alcohol policies we’ve ever seen. The Guardian reports:
Minimum price controls should be imposed on alcohol and tougher drink-driving laws introduced, policy options circulated by the World Health Organisation (WHO) suggest…
The draft recommendations – so far not widely distributed – have been released in the run up to a formal decision by member states next year.
… On drink-driving limits, the WHO suggests that the limit on drink driving should be 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, equivalent to a concentration level of 0.05%.
Higher drink prices and an even lower legal limit? That’s something evenMADD hasn’t openly called for (yet). One reason they’re probably mum is because lowering it from .1% to .08% had little – if any – effect on our safety.
The fact is that the average drunk driver involved in a fatal crash drives at about .19 BAC– more than double the legal limit. Lowering the limit to .05 won’t keep us any safer on the roads, but it will make responsible drinkers sweat over having even a single drink before driving home. (Oh, and we know that raising drink prices will not prevent alcohol abuse.)
The WHO’s campaign is one of neoprohibition – seeking to use a “public health” facade as an excuse to put a stop to responsible alcohol consumption. Raising drink prices and lowering the legal limit will serve to deter consumption – to make you second guess that first glass of wine or beer with dinner.
Our previous post on Smart Start brings to mind something else that interlock advocates don’t talk about much: How much trouble faulty interlocks could bring to your everyday life. Interlocks are subject to “false-positive” readings, which occur when it registers a positive reading, even though you haven’t consumed any alcohol.
To see how chaotic universal interlocks could be, look no further than interlock advocate Robert Strassburger of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. In a 2008 presentation, Strassburger presents two scenarios. In the first, interlocks are assumed to be “Six Sigma” devices. Six Sigma refers to a quality management system in which a product only has 3.4 defective parts per million. In other words, assume 99.99966%of device parts are free of fault.
But even if (and that’s a big “if”) interlocks met this high standard, Strassburger calculates there would still be almost 4,000 cases of misreadings per day. That’s thousands of people trying to go to work, school, or about their business who could find their car locked down by a faulty interlock or having to file an “appeal” with an interlock company.
In Strassberger’s second scenario, interlocks are only “3 Sigma” reliable, which he defines as 2,700 defective parts per million. This would cause almost3 millionmisclassifications every day, and these misreadings would outnumber the number of hypothetical DUI trips that the interlocks would stop. In other words, by this quality standard, interlocks do far more harm than good.
Today’s interlocks aren’t exactly Six Sigma quality if they’re being set off by people eating pizza and drinking coffee. Yet, MADD is looking to see interlocks—or similar alcohol-sensing technology—placed in all cars within the next 5-10 years.
Basically, Smart Start is accused of forcing drivers to keep interlocks installed on their cars for longer periods of time by deliberately delaying the process of reporting data on interlock usage to Arizona’s Motor Vehicle Division. The reporting delay denies drivers the opportunity to challenge the results.
The story explains that drinking coffee, eating a donut, or even a piece of pizza before driving can generate a false positive from the interlock and cause the engine to lock. And as KTVK points out, with each unchallenged false positive “drivers could be penalized and forced to keep the ignition interlock device in their cars for up to another year. That’s an extra year per violation.” And keep in mind: every offender in Arizona is required to use an interlock. Maybe not the best idea.
Obviously, Smart Start stands to benefit from its customers keeping the interlock on for longer periods of time. But, if this accusation is true, Arizonans should be outraged.
Yesterday, Virginia Gonzalez, executive director of MADD’s West Texas office revealed her group’s anti-alcohol sentiment when KFOX-TV quoted her saying: “If you drink and drive, you will ultimately end up in a body bag or behind bars. That’s the bottom line.”
Contrary to MADD’s zero tolerance stance on alcohol, the fact is that drinking and driving is perfectly safe and legal in all 50 states. There is nothing wrong or dangerous about having a glass of wine with dinner, a beer at a ballgame, or a champagne toast at a wedding prior to driving. Drunk driving is the true problem. That’s why we have a legal limit.
In the 1980’s and early 1990’s, MADD did great work to educate Americans about the dangers of drunk driving (their efforts resulted in a large decrease in fatalities). But in recent years, MADD has become, in the words of its own founder, “very neo-prohibitionist.”
KFOX’s story was about a tragic crash caused by a man whom police say was intoxicated. He was not simply “drinking,” as Gonzalez insinuated. He was drunk.
MADD wants you to believe that any drinking – even moderate and responsible drinking – prior to driving is immoral and dangerous. That’s not the case. In fact, the average drunk driver involved in a fatal crash was driving at more that double the legal limit. If MADD got back to basics and spent more time fighting drunk driving, instead of stigmatizing drinking, maybe this crash could have been prevented.
The strange part about this story is that all convicted drunk drivers in Alaska are required to install interlocks. Phillips was charged with a DUI in March, so while we know she was ordered to abstain from both alcohol and driving, we have to ask: Why didn’t Lori Phillips have an interlock installed?
Interlocks are not the silver bullet. They are just another tool in the toolbox. State legislatures would better serve their citizenry by targeting chronic (high-BAC and repeat-offense) drunk drivers, like Phillips, with interlocks and utilizing other penalties for low-BAC, first-time offenders.
Sunday’s Frederick News-Post featured “a 12-page special edition that reports on MADD’s progress and continuing work in preventing and educating about drunken driving.” We recommend giving the whole section a read, but here are the highlights:
“Dean-Mooney hopes that within the next 10 to 15 years, the technology will be in place that will not allow a car to start if the driver’s BAC is more than 0.08. The technology “has to be inexpensive, almost infallible and it has to be accepted by the public,” she said, as seat belts and air bag were easier.”
“But other devices are being developed that could become standard in every car — like seat belts and air bags. These devices would passively measure the BAC of anyone attempting to start the car.”
A few of the articles discussed policies that MADD supports. ABI was quoted in this story about sobriety checkpoints:
“The American Beverage Institute opposes sobriety checkpoints because they don’t believe they work and they are too expensive, said Sarah Longwell, managing director.
They inconvenience hundreds of drivers, intimidate people and catch only one or two drunken drivers at a time, she said.”
A lesser-known fact is that MADD’s poor fundraising and spending habits have led to poor charity rating grades:
The grade, based on an A through F scale, is intended to give donors an idea of how much money goes toward programs rather than fundraising.”
Over $15 million of MADD’s budget is spent on “salaries and wages of employees” and of the money MADD actually spends on programs, only “about a third goes to victim services.” Another third is spent on an aggressive, misguided legislative agenda. According to the News-Post:
“In the years since, MADD has become ubiquitous, taking in $44.4 million in fiscal 2008, but spending $47 of every $100 it receives on fundraising, and winning few federal legislative victories since the beginning of this decade.”
If MADD wants to improve its charity rating, perhaps it should spend more on victim services and less on efforts to pass draconian alcohol laws.
Today, the Baltimore Sun ran an ABI op-ed explaining why MADD’s proposal to mandate interlocks for all drunk drivers – regardless of BAC (blood alcohol concentration) – is the wrong move for Maryland. A highlight:
Perhaps the worst part of this proposed interlock mandate is what it foreshadows. According to MADD CEO Chuck Hurley, MADD has “a long-term goal to make alcohol interlocks a standard safety feature that is installed in all new vehicles.”
…MADD is trying to subtly encourage Americans to be supportive of such in-car alcohol-sensors by making interlock technology more ubiquitous. That’s why requiring interlocks for all offenders is MADD’s top priority in Maryland.
A letter to the editor in today’s Baltimore Sun began by discussing a bill that would require ignition interlocks for all drunk drivers. By the end of the letter, writer Jon Miller called for ignition-locking breathalyzers to be installed in all cars:
Those devices should be standard equipment on every car on the road.
…I’m sure the people that don’t drink would be more than happy to have a device on their car even if they don’t need to use it.
It’s funny how quickly activists go from wanting to mandate interlocks for drunk drivers to trying to require them for the rest of us.
We’ve argued for a long time that the campaign for interlock mandates for drunk drivers is just the first step toward getting them in all cars. Check out our interlock timeline.
