“Pre-emptive war” got us into a real mess in Iraq. So maybe we
ought to think twice before adopting similar measures when it comes
to traffic law. Specifically, when it comes to an idea floated by
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to require that all new cars
be fitted with an ignition interlock that can detect alcohol in the
driver’s system — and shut the car down if it does.
Several large automakers (including GM, Ford, Toyota and Honda)
also support the idea — and are working on ways to get these
things into new cars, maybe within the next two or three years, if
not sooner.
Sounds OK in principle — sort of like the idea of liberating
Iraq. The devil’s in the details, though.
The technology itself is pretty straightforward. Key fobs are
being developed that will be capable of detecting blood-alcohol
concentrations either through contact with a person’s skin or by
sampling his breath. These are basically miniaturized, higher-tech
versions of the interlocks some states already require convicted
DWI offenders to install in their vehicles as a condition of being
permitted to retain their driver’s license. The chief difference
between the two is that the systems envisioned for the general
public are what’s known in the car business as “passive” systems —
meaning the driver doesn’t have to do anything consciously to be
screened by the interlock. The court-mandated systems force the
driver to blow into what amounts to an in-dash Breathalyzer before
the engine will start.
So what’s the problem? After all, we don’t want drunks driving
any more than we want a beret-wearing strong man ruling Iraq. But
here’s the rub: These little gems may impose de facto Prohibition
by making it impossible to drive home if you’ve consumed even very
small amounts of alcohol. Not enough to render you “impaired” (let
alone “drunk”) as far as the law is concerned. Just enough to
trigger the interlocks.
The legal threshold defining “drunk” driving is already quite
low. In all 50 states, you are over the line when your Blood
Alcohol Content (BAC) reaches .08. (This is down considerably from
the previous threshold, which was .10 BAC or higher. Thirty-plus
years of statistics reveal that it is drivers with BAC levels of
.10 or higher who are most likely to have an actual accident;
drivers with BACs under .08 typically give no outward evidence of
being liquored up. Instead, they’re caught in “sobriety
checkpoints.” Most would — statistically speaking — make it home
without incident absent the checkpoints.) And you can be arrested
for “impaired” driving with a .06 BAC in most states. In 22 states,
in fact, you are considered “presumed to be intoxicated” with a
measured BAC of .05 or below.
Now here’s where the interlocks get tricky. They are not
perfectly accurate and must be set within their margin of error.
That margin of error is a “swing” of .02 percent BAC. And that
means you might be unable to drive home in your 2009 model car or
truck after having had as little to drink as a single glass of wine
over dinner since that’s all it takes to bring many people within
range, BAC-wise, of the transistorized Alcohol Nanny.
Megan McDonald of the American Beverage Institute writes: “With
interlocks in place, the debate over BAC limits would be moot.
Technology — not democracy — would decide.” Nor the law, for that
matter — since the much-lower threshold of the interlocks would
effectively trump the higher legal thresholds defining DWI and
DUI.
MADD’s CEO Chuck Hurley calls the interlocks a “vaccine on the
car,” but the question on the table is whether we want to support
outlawing any drinking at all before driving. If you’ve had a glass
of wine or a beer with dinner before driving, you may have consumed
alcohol, but you are neither “drunk” nor “impaired” by any sane
definition of either term. There is no medical or other data
establishing a correlation between modest consumption of alcohol
and either increased likelihood of motor vehicle accidents — or
actually having an accident.
Chuck Hurley and other zealots want to impose their
neo-Prohibitionist agenda on America by equating any
drinking and driving with drunk driving. That’s just nonsense. The
interlocks Hurley wants installed in all new cars would treat the
driver who enjoyed as a glass of wine over dinner and the lush who
slurped down a fifth of cheap gin the same. A little to drink — or
a lot — you’re a “dangerous drunk” and must be kept off the
roads.
The problem with drinking and driving, however, is (and has
always been) the relative handful of louts who get into a car with
BAC levels well above .08 — not the “social drinker” with a BAC
half that high who rolls through a “sobriety checkpoint.” Or buys a
new car with an alcohol-sniffing interlock.
And besides, what’s to prevent the clever drunk who is
determined to drive no matter what from simply having a sober buddy
start the car for him? Or simply disabling the thing? Remember seat
belt interlocks? All they did was add expense and hassle to new
cars. And were easily gotten around.
Hurley and others should keep their focus on the “real killers”
— drivers with BAC levels above .08 (who also tend to be the ones
who have multiple DWI offenses on their rap sheets, by the way) —
instead of demanding that anyone who has had anything
alcoholic to drink before driving be considered a threat to public
safety.
