More MADDness
RODNEY BALKO BLOG
Friday, March 14th, 2008
So I was looking at Mothers Against Drunk Driving's "States Progress Report" chart (pdf) while researching an upcoming article. There are several things wrong with the chart, most notably that they measure "success" by percentage of traffic fatalities that involved alcohol. This is problematic for several reasons. The first is of course the usual complaint about the overly broad definition of "alcohol-related." But it's also the wrong way to measure progress. There will always be a group of hardcore alcoholics on the road who are impervious to PR campaigns, roadblock checkpoints, and the like. As technology makes cars safer, then, the total number of traffic fatalities is going to continue to decline. But that core group of alcoholics will still be out there, meaning the percentage of total traffic fatalities caused by drunk driving is likely to increase. A better measure would be to look at the number of deaths caused by drunk drivers for every million miles driven.
The other mistake with the chart is that MADD is measuring progress by whether a state went up or down in the percentage of highway fatalities related to alcohol in the previous year. So if a state has shown 20 years of progress, then blipped up a bit (as many have, I'd argue in part because they've adopted some of MADD's counterproductive policy recommendations), MADD says they need all sorts of newer, tougher laws.
But this, of course, assumes that MADD is interested in displaying data in an intellectually honest way. We know that isn't the case. Which brings me to the more amusing problem with the chart: For each and every state, MADD looks very carefully at the numbers, then concludes that–surprise!–the number demand that state must adopt the organization's latest public policy crusade–mandatory ignition interlock devices for first-time offenders.
Utah, for example, has by far the lowest percentage of traffic fatalities related to alcohol. MADD says of Utah, "The nation's best, but an alarming 64% increase in fatalities in 2006 means they need to require interlocks for all offenders."
Hmm. Okay. Well how about Alaska, which had a 30 percent decrease in percentage of alcohol-related fatalities over the previous year. MADD writes, "Had a significant decrease in 2006, but will need to pass mandatory interlock
law in order to sustain the decreases."
How about Nebraska, which has the third lowest percentage of alcohol-related fatalities and showed a 5 percent drop from 2005 to 2006? MADD says, "Among the nation's best, but they need to pass a mandatory interlock law to sustain their decreases."
In fact, just about every state "needs an interlock law," no matter what the number say. Which would be fine, except that MADD pretends to have arrived at the recommendation for an interlock law only after carefully studying the numbers.
BTW, I'm not dead set against interlocks. They make some sense for repeat offenders, though even then there are some problems with the idea (emergencies, the offender could merely drive a friend or relative's car, etc.). But no, I don't think someone who gets a DWI for blowing .085 should have to pay $1,000 and blow in a tube before starting a car for the rest of his life, in addition to the thousands of dollars in fines and fees he'll already have to pay.
theagitator.com |
