Yesterday, 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.

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.

ABI called out MADD’s phony claims in yesterday’s Miami Herald:

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.

UPDATE: This letter was also published in today’s Fort Worth Star-Telegram.