Newsroom

MADD's interlock proposal lumps all drinkers in same category

Tennessean
February 18, 2010

This week, Mothers Against Drink Driving (MADD) voiced support for a bill to require ignition interlocks for all drunken driving offenders in Tennessee. And while at first glance it might seem like a good way to get drunks off the road, readers should know that there is an important argument to be made against the mandatory use of these devices in the cars of all offenders.

Ignition interlocks are in-car breathalyzers that prevent a vehicle from starting if its driver's breath registers above a pre-set blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) limit. Because interlocks are expensive, intrusive and prone to technical failures, this penalty has typically been reserved for the hard-core DUI offenders who cause the vast majority of alcohol-related fatalities.
To this end, the hospitality industry has been working with traffic safety advocates to require these devices for repeat offenders and those caught with high BACs (.15 or above) on their first offense. We've succeeded in passing such laws in 26 states. But the proposed law supported by MADD would force judges to order low-BAC, first-time offenders — even those just one sip over the legal limit (and occasionally under the limit) — to install interlocks.
A 120-pound woman can reach the legal limit of 0.08 after two 6-ounce glasses of wine over a two-hour period. Under this new mandate, if she drives she will automatically be punished with an interlock for behavior that, according to studies, is equivalent to driving while talking on a "hands-free" cell phone.
Mandating ignition interlocks for all DUI offenders is a one-size-fits-all approach that would punish that woman the same way as the hardcore abusers who cause the vast majority of alcohol-impaired fatalities. It eliminates a judge's ability to treat these very different offenders differently.
America's criminal justice system has a terrible record with universal sentencing guidelines. It's a lesson that the California legislature learned after a "three strikes" law sentenced a man to 25 years in prison for stealing a piece of pizza. Judges should be able to adjust some sentences based on circumstances and common sense.
Think speeding laws. Speeding is the No. 1 cause of fatalities on the highway. Yet we don't punish someone going five miles over the speed limit the same way as someone caught driving 30 miles over the speed limit. We recognize that these two speeders present two very different levels of risk on the highway, and therefore the law treats them differently.
In addition to targeting the wrong offenders, this mandate will cost millions of dollars to enforce. Based on estimates from the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA), it would cost Tennessee at least $10 million per year to ensure that offenders comply with the interlock mandate.
Most state legislatures have already made it clear that they favor judicial discretion for marginal DUI offenders by rejecting low-level first-offender mandates or passing ignition interlock bills that target high-BAC and repeat offenders. Tennessee should do the same.
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."
The federal government and auto manufacturers have partnered for this goal. Their objective is to put alcohol-sensing technologies, such as advanced breathalyzers, steering wheel sensors and alcohol sniffers, in all cars. Some of these technologies are already being tested.
Once in all cars, interlocks would be set well below the legal limit — at 0.02 or 0.03 BAC. That means the end of moderate drinking before driving. You will no longer be able to have a glass of wine with dinner, a beer at a ballgame or a champagne toast at a wedding before driving home. That application of the technology isn't anti-drunks, its anti-drinks.
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 Tennessee.
Tennessee should reject this proposal to require interlocks for all offenders. Instead, the state should target the high-BAC and repeat offenders who pose the biggest threat to safety on the roads.

Sarah Longwell is the managing director of the American Beverage Institute in Washington, an association of restaurants committed to the responsible serving of adult beverages, which represents more than 230 Tennessee restaurants. Learn more at www.InterlockFacts.com.