Last night, the ABC-affiliate in Palm Springs, KESQ, ran an investigative report on the effectiveness and cost of DUI checkpoints. The American Beverage Institute is interviewed in the piece:
Archive for February, 2010
Are sobriety checkpoints effective?
Friday, February 19th, 2010
Fact Check: New Mexico Stats
Friday, February 5th, 2010ABI 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.
New Mexico Interlock Fund Goes Broke
Thursday, February 4th, 2010New 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.
CDC expert says interlocks “not a silver bullet”
Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010Yesterday, 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.
Not to say ‘we told you so…’
Tuesday, 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.