Interlock Facts

WASHINGTON – Today the American Beverage Institute (ABI) criticized Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) for manipulating the results of a Parade Magazine poll that posed the question: Should ignition interlocks be mandatory for drunk drivers nationwide? Over the weekend, MADD sent an email to thousands of their supporters urging them to vote ‘Yes,’ making an already unscientific poll an even more unreliable indicator.

Yesterday, MADD put out a press release claiming that Americans support their campaign to mandate ignition interlocks in the cars of all offenders, even those just one sip over the legal limit.

“It’s no surprise that 95% of poll respondents voted how MADD told them to. The group falsely inflated poll numbers and is now using the phony results as support for their misguided campaign,” said ABI Managing Director Sarah Longwell. “This might be forgivable if it was the first time MADD has fudged the numbers for their own agenda. Unfortunately, it isn’t.”

MADD’s press release cited a study about the success of New Mexico’s ignition interlock law. This study was conducted by MADD itself and produced findings that conveniently (but not surprisingly) served their own purposes. Additionally, the group consistently exaggerates alcohol-related fatalities and other statistics. For example, it claims that “first offenders drive drunk on average 87 times before they are caught,” which comes from a study based on rough estimates from self-reported data -- commonly criticized as being unreliable -- collected from a small sample 13 years ago. Even the study’s own authors admit the estimates are “crude.”

MADD is using these manipulated statistics to convince state legislatures to require ignition interlocks for low-BAC (blood alcohol concentration), first-time offenders as the first step in their goal of having them installed in all cars as original equipment. The level would be set so that millions could not drive after one glass of wine.

Data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) show that the average BAC of a drunk driver in a fatal car crash is 0.18% -- twice the legal limit. Additionally, a NHTSA administrator has said that today’s problem is “by far and away” made up of “those who have alcohol use disorders.” Former MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) president Katherine Prescott has made similar statements, saying that the drunk driving problem has been reduced to “a hard core of alcoholics who do not respond to public appeal.”

But MADD’s campaign fails to target this dangerous population and instead seeks to force first-time DUI offenders, even those just one sip over the legal limit, to install breathalyzers in their cars.

The group would do well to heed former MADD chapter Executive Director Charles V. Peña’s advice: “a first time offender - at the legal limit of .08 BAC should not automatically receive the same punishment as someone driving at more than twice that and with prior convictions.

“MADD needs to stop manipulating statistics and focus on hardcore drunk drivers. With the drunk driving limit set at .08 BAC, MADD’s proposal would mandate that drivers install a breathalyzer in their car for behavior that, according to numerous studies, impairs them less than driving while talking on a hands-free cell phone,” said Longwell. “A 120 pound woman can reach the .08 BAC level by having two 6 oz. glasses of wine in two hours. Should she receive the same punishment as a repeat offender caught driving with a .20 BAC level?