Yesterday, the Baltimore Sun posted a decidedly unbiasedblog entry responding to last week’s ABI blog post on Thomas Meighan. Had the writer called us, we could have explained a couple of things that he got wrong. We’ll have to settle for an ex post facto breakdown. Here is the piece in full, with our corrections and notations in red.
Can state track thousands of interlocks?
The American Beverage Institute opposes mandatory ignition interlocks for first-time drunk driving convictions. So Sarah Kapenstein of the institute coouldn’t [sic] wait to share an item from the group’s blog with me and my readers.
Essentially, what the institute is doing is trying to use the tragic case of Thomas Meighan, the man accused of killing Johns Hopkins student Miriam Frankl (rright [sic] ) in a hit-and-run, to advance its position [No, that is what MADD and the Baltimore Sun are doing.].Meighan, a serial drunk driver, is charged with operating a motor vehicle in defiance of an order to use an interlock device.
At first, I thought this was a classic case of lobbyist logic[ABI is not a lobbying group. We are a restaurant trade association representing 220 Maryland restaurants.] — using one high-profile failure as an excuse to scrap an otherwise good idea. But on reflection, the institute raises a good question — even if it does so in a crass way. [Reread our original post. There is nothing crass about it. We call for Meighan to be punished as harshly as possible.]
Proponents of using the interlocks for first-time offenders need to make the case that requiring the the [sic] Motor Vehicle Administration to monitor large numbers of drivers ordered to use ignition interlocks devices wouldn’t degrade current efforts to keep tabs on the hard-core offenders. [The American Probation and Parole Association letter that we linked to in our post pleads against such an interlock mandate: “A workforce of probation officers is needed to ensure compliance with court-ordered ignition interlocks. Probation officers nationally already have excessive caseloads and unmanageable workloads… Furthermore, requiring ignition interlocks for all DWI offenders is an unnecessary and costly response.”]
My impression, however, is that there’s not much the MVA can do to assure compliance by folks who are determined to game the system. So there might not be any harm to existing compliance efforts from adding the new interlock customers. A high percentage of people will always comply because it’s the law and there are punishments for being caught breaking it[Wrong. 68% of offenders in New Mexico – the state that boasts the HIGHEST compliance rate with an interlock mandate – do not install the devices.].
If Meighan is found to have bypassed the ignition interlock requirement, the real lesson is that there are some cases in which the only effective measure is vehicle confiscation. In cases where a driver disables an interlock device, there should be automatic impoundment upon arrest and auction upon conviction. Does the poor offender need to drive to work to feed the babies? Tough. Take a bus. Walk. Put the babies up for adoption[Now that’s crass.]. He or she shoulda thought of that before defying a court order.
An Associated Press story this week covered the decrease in drunk driving fatalities from 2007 to 2008. In an all-too-predictable move, MADD is attempting to credit harsh interlock laws for the drop:
Chuck Hurley, the chief executive officer of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, also noted that improvements were made in states such as New Mexico and Arizona which have adopted tough laws using breath-monitoring ignition interlock devices for offenders.
It’s disingenuous for Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to credit ignition interlock laws with the decrease in drunk driving fatalities in New Mexico and Arizona.
Fatalities went down in 43 states, not just the handful of states with interlock mandates on the books in 2008. In fact, the biggest decreases occurred in Wisconsin, Maine, and Vermont – none of which have the draconian interlock laws of the two southwest states. Vermont doesn’t even use the devices at all.
These numbers don’t tell us much about drunk driving behavior or the effectiveness of interlock laws. The decrease in fatalities can be attributed to a bad economy and high gas prices. Put simply, Americans drove less in 2008.
There’s no credible data to support MADD’s claim that interlock laws save lives. But it’s no surprise that they’d try to spin the numbers.
Chalk up another entry in MADD’s long, sad history of distorting stats and facts to push for greater regulation.
Sen. Jamie B. Raskin and Del. Benjamin F. Kramer both said they will introduce legislation to require the Motor Vehicle Administration to install ignition interlock devices in the cars of convicted drunken drivers, including first-time offenders.
The proposed legislation comes in the wake of an October incident in which the vehicle of a previously convicted drunken driver struck and killed a Johns Hopkins University student in Baltimore.
But he didn’t, and now a young woman has been killed.
As we’ve been explaining to lawmakers, implementing and maintaining an interlock program is time consuming and expensive. That’s why we can’t stress enough how important it is for states to target the hardcore offenders – high-BAC and repeat-offenders – like Meighan. Mandating interlocks for one-sip-over-the-limit, first-time offenders is neither an effective policy nor a good use of limited state resources. Especially because government statistics show it’s the hardcore offenders who cause the vast majority of fatal crashes.
Maryland couldn’t even ensure that an eight-time drunk driver installed an interlock. How does anyone expect the state to enforce an interlock mandate for the 24,000 or so other cases that will flood the system should MADD’s bill pass?
UPDATE: We just learned that Meighan actually has 9 previous convictions. Thanks to Baltimore Sun reporter Tricia Bishop for the updated information.
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.
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.
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.
Some foresee a time when drunken- driving deaths will be rare because every car will come with an interlock device.
” ‘Star Wars’ meets drunk driving,” Susan Ferguson labeled it at a traffic safety summit in New Mexico.
The program she manages, Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, has awarded grants to develop advanced technologies that could detect intoxication without requiring a driver to breathe into a tube…
“I think within 10 years, we could have technologies that would be vehicle-ready.”
Just more proof that your next car could come equipped with an interlock.
