Mothers Against Drunk Driving has an ambitious long-range plan to prevent drunk driving: Have ignition interlock devices which sense alcohol and prevent the vehicle from starting installed in every vehicle in the country, whether the driver has been convicted of drunk driving or not.
And of course they have state and federal government officials behind them, ready to offer whatever support they might need.
But first, they’ll start by pressuring states to adopt laws requiring them to be installed for anyone convicted of drunk driving, even on a first offense. Currently only New Mexico requires this, and MADD presents (with help from the New York Times) some badly fudged numbers to try to say that this actually helped reduce drunk driving fatalities in that state.
With that tactic and others, the state saw an 11.3 percent drop in alcohol-related fatalities last year.
New Mexico was not the only state to record a decline in alcohol-related motoring deaths, and several states showed even bigger drops. For example, from 2004 to 2005, Maryland showed a decrease to 235 from 286, or 17.8 percent. In New Mexico, which has had a chronic problem with drunken driving, state officials cited the new rule on interlocks as a significant factor in their campaign to cut the fatality rate. The rule did not take effect until June 17, 2005.
“It is an integral part of our success,” said Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who thinks others should follow his state’s lead. — New York Times
Did you catch it? No? They really have no idea what effect the new interlock rules had on drunk driving fatalities in the state. They’re just throwing out numbers and hoping nobody catches on to the deception.
Jacob Sullum of Reason explains more:
The policy has been strikingly effective in New Mexico, the Times suggests, but it immediately undermines the claim of success [in the quoted paragraph shown above] . . .
Undeterred by the lack of evidence to support this expansion in the use of BAC-keyed ignition locks, Mothers Against Drunk Driving looks forward to the day when everyone has to prove his sobriety before starting his car. MADD Executive Director Chuck Hurley suggests insurers will begin offering discounts to drivers whose cars are equipped with the devices. I’ve got no problem with that in principle, except that the cutoff is established by legislators in response to political pressure from groups like MADD. . . .
Speaking of which, the Times suggests that progress in reducing alcohol-related traffic deaths has stalled during the last decade because the total number has remained more or less steady at around 13,000 a year. But it also notes (in a clause that for some reason appears only in the print version of the article) that “the rates of deaths per car and per mile traveled have declined,” which sounds like progress to me. A more fundamental problem with the numbers is that the definition of an “alcohol-related” accident does not require any evidence that drinking actually contributed to the crash — just a BAC above zero in one of the drivers. By the same logic, we could conclude that sobriety is responsible for more accidents than drinking is. — Hit and Run
The Times then goes on to survey some of the new technology that might be used in the future to “unobtrusively” determine whether a driver is under the influence of alcohol before allowing the car to start.
And completely glosses over the rest of the details of MADD’s mad plan: First, have these devices installed in fleet vehicles, such as taxis, and later in everyone’s vehicle. They’ll first offer insurance incentives, and then they’ll just push for laws making it mandatory for all vehicles to have such a technology.
Never mind that the technology is completely unreliable in the first place. “These machines aren’t nearly as accurate as law enforcement would have you believe,” says California DUI attorney Lawrence Taylor.
MADD ultimately wants to bring back alcohol prohibition. “Mothers Against Drunk Driving is a well-organized, well-funded and dangerous group of well-intentioned zealots,” said Taylor.
Update: Readers who did not want to be identified pointed me to the National Motorists Association’s much more sensible position on drunk driving, as well as Lew Rockwell’s most sensible idea of all.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Bad Behavior has blocked 2533 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Timothy
Nov 21, 2006
The National Motorists Assn. advocates ‘rehabilitation’ for DUI offenders.
Michael, what is your position on forced treatment?
Michael Hampton
Nov 21, 2006
You might have gotten some idea of my position if, after coming back from the NMA web site, you’d finished reading the sentence.
In general, I think rehabilitation is a better idea than just locking someone up, which doesn’t help anybody, and hurts us all. But it’s far from a perfect solution; after all, you can’t forcibly rehabilitate someone, and sentencing someone to AA is completely silly. They have to WANT to change, or it’s a pointless waste of time, effort and money.
I like the idea of restitution much better. Dent somebody’s car, you pay the cost of repairing it. Break someone’s leg and you pay their hospital bills.
Timothy
Nov 21, 2006
What if AA (etc) was 100% effective (even for people who didn’t really want to change their drinking behavior), would you then be in favor of the government mandating it?
jon
Nov 21, 2006
Another CHP officer arrested? YIKES!!! At least it wasn’t an embarrassing charge, no big deal. He was arrested (allegedly) for what most Cops have committed. But this one was arrested by one of his own, for ‘alleged’ DUI (emphasis on alleged.)
What’s real interesting is the alleged suspect arrested, is an assistant chief of the California Highway Patrol’s Inland Division.
And worse, he was said to have been arrested in an official police car. OH NO, it can’t be?
It gets even worser. He was arrested while pulling into his own driveway.
Oh the good old days when we stopped Cops and gave them a ride home, are gone. However in most of my career, I gave almost EVERYONE a break, Cops included. Of coarse making sure they didn’t drive their car from the scene. Maybe one day I tell you how I accomplished that. But I can assure you, the drivers later realized how lucky they were (spirit of the law.)
Maybe this CHP official will agree with me. Despite of what MADD says, I believe the DUI BAC level in Calif should be raised from .08% back to .10% (at least.)
Remember all accused are innocent until proven guilty.
Here’s the Article
http://www.sbsun.com/ci_4697918
Here’s the Video, it’s about 3/4 thru this 5 minute video
rob
Nov 21, 2006
Heh, I remember seeing a documentary on their implementation in Australia: all that happens is the drunk gets a sober (or at least able-to-drive-legally) person to blow into the breathalyser for them, then drives away. Madness.
Elliott
Nov 22, 2006
FYI.. Washington state mandates an ignition lockout on first time offenders, they do it through the department of transportation instead of through the criminal department to make it mandatory for just being arrested!
I didn’t realize how bad the DUI laws were, until I was recently arrested for a DUI. Now, remember in the old days there was probable cause? HAHAHAHA.. no need for that now! JUST GET EM! I’m a stand up guy, well respected, not a drunk, contribute more than my fair share to society. I’m 42, never been in an accident, had my share of speeding tickets when I was young, but no record of poor driving. Here is my experience, albeit not as bad as hundreds of THOUSANDS of other individuals that are getting nabbed and treated worse than a convicted murderer. These laws are creating criminals and destroying ANY respect for the police! I feel sorry for my friends that are cops, it’s a horrible position their in.
March 17 (St Patricks Day) I volunteered at a private club as a bartender and spent most of the evening entertaining, mixing drinks, helping others get home, checking for anyone too drunk to drive and making sure everyone is having a good time. I don’t have a drink all night. We close down at 12:00, and I take one of my friends down to his boat since he’s plastered (break up blues). I have a couple of drinks with him say goodnight, and head home to my wife and kids. Incidentally my wife was pulled over at 7:30 that night for “looking like she was going to fast”!!! and let go, probably because she didn’t smell like alcohol!
It’s now 1:30 as I get on the long left sweeping freeway on-ramp for my 8 mile trip home. I accelerate in my 2005 Mustang GT up to speed, as I round the corner there is a State Patrol in a REALLY poor spot to be parked, protruding into the on ramp, I of course break, glide around him, and continue on my way. He comes after me and claims he heard me accelerating a high performance vehicle and I spooked him, then asks how fast I was going and states I read your speed as 61…. MERGING INTO A 60 MILE AN HOUR FREEWAY!
It’s over.. I am toast at that point, 1:30 am, St Patricks day, smell like alcohol.. could you step out of the car… Now this is on a freeway, on a bad corner, on a pitch black night, where there ARE STUPID DRIVERS that DO kill people regardless of drunkenness and usually related to being tired. How many of us have been driving and fighting the doze? We should convict them too! And for all the IDIOTS that can’t drive, why don’t we have “Mothers against Idiots”? Oh thats right, thats the MOTHERS driving their KIDS and talking on the cell phone while fixing their MAKE UP! Or better yet driving on valium, vicoden and oxy! How are we going to stop them? Blood testing in the vehicle? Put your finger here and take a swab, wait an hour and then you can drive?
Outcomes at this point: Banned from entrance to Canada (I live 10 minutes from there), banned from a obtaining a Captains license (sea), Commercial Pilots license, and a Commercial Drivers license FOR LIFE. Then there are the penalties, rehab, alcohol evaluation, victims impact panel, 2 years probation, breathalyzer in vehicle, urinalysis, no entrance into any drinking establishment, no drinking during 2 year probation, 90 day suspended drivers license. 7 court appearances (the Prosecutors weren’t ready to evaluate), and money money money. If I were 19 this would be a VERY BLEAK thing affecting the rest of my life. I might as well have been a drunk that did get kill someone, better yet, just a criminal that decided to shoot someone, there is less of a penalty. We’ve gone WAY to far… and OVERLOADED the justice system and courts for REAL CRIMINALS.
Concerned
Nov 22, 2006
I am of the same opinion, the legal limit on the BAC should be raised to .10 in all states. In recent the past, I have blown a .10 and was allowed to call someone to come pick me up. Just recently, my father, who frequents a bar just 1/2 mile from our neighborhood was pulled over, pulling into our neighborhood, after which our house is 1/4 mile from the entrance. The officer offered no explanation to the reason my father was actually pulled over, he blew a .09, and was immediately placed in the back of the patrol car. His brand new car was towed, and damaged in doing so, of which the city claims no responsibility due to the fact he was pulled over and arrested for a DUI. He has been told by the court, he can plead guilty to a first time offense, do several hundred hours of community service, along with substance abuse classes, defensive driving classes, and heavy fines, and it will stay off of his record. I should also note the entrance to our neighborhood is the end of the city limits in the jurisdiction he was pulled over in.
James Marley
Nov 22, 2006
Too bad the pressure to install this equipment comes from statements that assert themselves with obviously useless information. Such as “With that tactic and others, the state saw an 11.3 percent drop in alcohol-related fatalities last year.” While this might be accurate, this doesnt at all neccesarily mean that the equipment has anything to do with the results, and we still don’t even know how much the rates jump around from year to year. I was wondering if you could make your own artificial machine to mirror a person breathing to trick the system, I dont have any experience with it, but Im sure it can be done. I only believe in raising standards, not intensifying forms of control. But I guess we could all copy the herd and sit quietly? I dont believe in lowering standards and letting more people under the bar of safe driving though, really, if you need to kill brain cells at least do it without the bang.
Rick
Nov 22, 2006
MADD is a lobbyist group. they pay over 19% to “administration” and yet claim to be a charity. Some people out there need to be stopped from the foolishness of drinking impaired but when MADD advocates a .05 breath for a criminal offense and adding alcohol detectors to everyones vehicles something has gone very wrong. Mothers against drunk driving sounds like such a honorable concept and yet where are they taking it.
I have 3 speeding tickets in almost 30 years driving. I do not drink and drive and yet this corporation bothers me.
A liberty lost today is a liberty gone forever.
Rick
Nov 22, 2006
sorry above I meant driving impaired.
Mark Rutherford
Nov 22, 2006
MADD is a dangerous organization that must be stopped. Spread the word. There are insidious in how they get their programs into government.
Mark W. Rutherford
Chairman
Libertarian Party of Indiana
CHP Reformer
Nov 23, 2006
You need to read this:
CHP
CHP Reformer
Nov 23, 2006
This article’s a report on California’s use of faulty DUI equipment that can cause a person with a .07 reading to come out .11 depending on the person — but a 27 percent error rate!
Read:
CHP
jerry
Dec 03, 2006
im writing about the jackson county sherifs dept in south mississippi i was accused of 2nd dui refusal an couldnt afford a $4000 attorney so i plead guilty an was fined $600 two yr supspension of driving 6 months probatation supervised
an 10 days community service an attend vechile impact madd an install the interlock device i have to attend these requirements an not able to drive to theses locations there like an hour drive to differnt places an my job that i have to work an pay this legalized mafia law that we have allowed to be passed in the united states its legal to make the taxes from acohol but not moonshine because people will make it an theres no taxes from it tobacco causes cancer in different ways so why cant we form a coalition to outlaw these crimals to stop manufacturing the things that our state an federal goverment from making money its all legal to make an steal from the poor an feed the rich people that fianace the legalized mafia of america i hope this world gets over thrown by the gangs an dope dealers an terriosts this world has gone to pot by the politics policeing the world comminisom is here an hate an drugs are more upbeat than drinking so im punished by not being able to afford an attorney an there was a ship that came into our homeport pascagoulia with a motherload of weed an cocaine an now half of it has come up missing an the drugs are constantly being found on people cause the narcotics task force are suppling the public to make more money by putting it in the states an busting more people to make more money for the state of mississippi county an state goverment we need people to reform our state officals an police departments an lawyers our homeland is outta bounds im a merchant mariner i had coast guard training an they allow the oil companies marine transportaion vessels to pump oily bilges an sewer rom the ships into the gulf of mexico an inland waters ive worked there an it happens everynight in the darkness so why? isnt here anything we can create to stand up an flex or rights against the untied states of america.. email me @ l0rds_0f_ka0s_l0st_s0uls@yahoo.com
jerry
Dec 03, 2006
im a mechanic an im gonna try this new machine out man made it man can bypass it because if ya can crank a engine on the ground out of the car are on the engine stand i will create a new way to power your car with a bypass kit then ill be making my own money to help combat madd thats what our world is about yes ill be busy so line up for your devices
Anonymous
Dec 06, 2006
I am at my wits end with a husband who drinks and drives. I gave him the choice to either get one of these devices or get arrested. I can just see it one day he is going to kill himself and someone else and I will get sued. Like the time he was arrested for a DUI in TX he didn’t tell me. We were only living together at the time and MY insurance cancelled ME because of HIS DUI while his insurance (state Farm) continued to give him the “good driver’s rate” Any advice?
jerry
Dec 06, 2006
liberties can erode if we are to give an inch to some administrations. I really wouldn’t have a problem with it if it would stop with the alcohol but I just don’t know if it would. I have long thought of a drinking permit along the lines of a gun permit. Something completely separate but easily revocable. If it could be made to work it might even help the recovering alcoholics. They could make the choice to destroy their drinking permit so that in a fit of desire they would have more difficulty laying their hands on the alcohol.
Maybe though the first step is making it more difficult to drink and drive in the first place. Get rid of the alcohol in the gas stations. I have noticed when I visit Texas that they have the most f’ed up ways of dealing with booze and cars. You go through a fast food drive thru and you can get beer and such right there. I have even seen drive thru liquor stores there. They aren’t explicitly telling folks to drink and drive but they sure aren’t making it any more difficult to do so in the first place.
Of roughly 40k highway deaths a year, approx. 40% are still blamed on drunk drivers (it may do readers well to research the methodolgy usewd to compile these statistics – I’ve heard that if even a passenger was considered ‘impaired’ by an officer, it’s reported as alcohol-related…and breath tests aren’t required for non-drivers, it’s solely up to the officer’s opinion) – but what about those 60% caused by SOBER drivers??
And given that auto accidents ARE ACCIDENTS (unless you’re intentionally trying to hit someone), couldn’t many of those have happened even if the driver was sober?
I think the Republic started going to hell, when restaurants started requiring shirts and shoes…
pick any behavior, someone won’t like it, why don’t we just use the awesome power of the state to use the (barely subliminal) threat of violence to stop it?
After all, someone might read the Preamble of the Constitution to think that they’d be justified in killing people to overthrow the government. We’d better outlaw reading…
A woman from MAAD, on NBC’s Today Show, said: One out of every
ten Americans has a drinking problem, and that 10% consumes 60%
of all alcoholic beverages sold in the U.S..” If this is true, there could be
financial problems for breweries, liquor stores, bars, rehab centers, etc., as
well as lawyers, massive amounts of tax revenue “down the drain,” and so on.
But it doesn’t seem as though anyone would have a valid argument
against a proposal such as this for financial reasons. To do so would be
morally wrong, and could be likened to a drug-pusher attitude.
Even with the problems this new law could present,
it still could, in one sense, be considered the simple solution
to the number one drug problem in the U.S. and elsewhere.
alcoholism.
jerry
Dec 06, 2006
Hey, I knew driving was a privilige, but drinking?
Smoking kills 10 times as many people as car collisions, by the way
you’ve pumped out/generated some controversy. What’re you trying to do, generate hits?
Sorry, this is a dumb idea. I started drinking at roughly 16. I’ve never, ever had a problem getting alcohol — the 21 legal age was only a minor speed bump on the road to a buzz prior to my turning 21.
All this idea will do is create a black market for those over 21 — as there is for those under 21. That’s why I’m for removing controls on drug use and alcohol use. Having traveled extensively in Europe, I can tell you that in either case society isn’t going to collapse just because there’s a policy of tolerance in place.
In fact, when in the Netherlands, I didn’t seem to notice an excessive amount of alcoholics or stoners wandering about. Seemed like everything’s under control over there. I’ve been all over the Netherlands, so’s I can tell you that the situation doesn’t seem to change from province to province.
The big problem we have in this country is the fact that we have a lot of religious people running around trying to tell people what to do — in almost all areas of life — in every imaginable way.
Please, do us all a favor — don’t join ‘em. This idea sounds tailor-made for their type of meddling.
LYLE
Jan 24, 2007
TRY ALANON IT MIGHT HELP YOU UNDERSTAND.