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.
|
|
|
ABI in USA TodayJanuary 4th, 2010Check out ABI’s letter to the editor in this morning’s USA Today:
More like the year of bad ideasDecember 21st, 2009California’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:
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. Setting the record straightDecember 16th, 2009Yesterday, the Baltimore Sun posted a decidedly unbiased blog 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. MADD’s bad statsDecember 11th, 2009An 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:
ABI called out MADD’s phony claims in yesterday’s Miami Herald:
Chalk up another entry in MADD’s long, sad history of distorting stats and facts to push for greater regulation. UPDATE: This letter was also published in today’s Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Where was Thomas Meighan’s interlock?December 10th, 2009Yesterday, the Maryland Gazette reported:
That drunk driver, Thomas Meighan, has a whopping 8 previous drunk driving convictions. He deserves the harshest penalties Maryland has to offer – in cases like Meighan’s, an ignition interlock is an ideal punishment. But, he doesn’t just deserve an interlock, he was ordered by the MVA to use one. 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. Voluntary checkpoints: An oxymoron or just another absurd idea?December 9th, 2009We can’t make this stuff up. A police department in Wisconsin has proposed holding “voluntary sobriety checkpoints,” in which motorists can choose to be screened or avoid it. The Police Chief in charge of the proposed stunt, Kevin Wilkinson, said “he hopes at least one in 10 motorists will stop.” We won’t hold our breath. You see, sobriety checkpoints are illegal in Wisconsin because state law says that officers only can detain motorists based on a reasonable suspicion of a violation. So, why would the police chief – the highest authority on stopping crime and keeping residents safe – station a dozen officers at a voluntary checkpoint that will be easily avoided by every single criminal? Supposedly to serve as a (surprise, surprise) PR gimmick:
If you thought that checkpoints already have a poor record for making drunk driving arrests, just wait until this silly program kicks off. If Neenah police want to get serious about drunk driving, they should beef up roving patrols, not dream up fruitless PR stunts. UPDATE: See today’s follow-up story that mentions this blog post. ABI in the newsDecember 2nd, 2009ABI started a campaign against sobriety checkpoints last week prior to the Thanksgiving holiday weekend. So far, our efforts have resulted in a story on CBSnews.com, articles in the Courier-Times and News-Post, and stories on NBC and CBS affiliates in California, Florida, Maine, Mississippi, and Virginia. In addition, the Kansas City Star, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, and the New Jersey’s Courier Post published ABI op-eds against checkpoints. Alexandra Kerry Was LuckyNovember 25th, 2009The 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. John Kerry’s daughter arrested for drunk driving BELOW the legal limitNovember 19th, 2009
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 WHO’s quiet march toward prohibitionNovember 17th, 2009The 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:
Higher drink prices and an even lower legal limit? That’s something even MADD 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. |
|
| Copyright © 2010 American Beverage Institute. All Rights Reserved | |