Recently after finding her way to the AboveTopSecret.com
discussion board for member commentary on Mother's Against Drunk Drivers,
Jeanne Pruett, the Founder, President and CEO of R.I.D.L., an awareness
and activism organization seeking Responsibility in DUI Laws, agreed to
an ATSNN.com interview to explain her mission and highlight issues in
DUI laws.
Q: What is R.I.D.L.?
A: Responbility In DUI Laws, Inc. (R.I.D.L.) is a non-profit organization
based in Livonia, MI. We are a group of concerned citizens who recognize
that the current trend in DUI laws is aimed at criminalizing and punishing
Responsible Drinkers and is having little if any affect towards curbing
drunk driving. Our mission is to educate the public and lawmakers about
the misdirection of the current laws, take the steps necessary to get
the current laws repealed and to provide alternative suggestions for dealing
with the problem of drunk driving. Our organization is nationwide and
is growing at a very fast pace. We currently have members in 33 states
and a few from other countries. We have members who drink and members
who don’t drink. We have members who’ve had a DUI and those
who have not. We even have members who have had a friend or loved one
killed by a drunk driver. What we all have in common is a concern about
how the “drunk driving” laws are eroding our hard-won liberties
and civil rights.
Q: What circumstances specifically prompted you to found RIDL?
A: A police officer lied on the stand under oath about me and the events
of the night he arrested me. He was caught lying by my attorney and yet
he was never accused or prosecuted for perjury and he still has his job.
I was astonished to learn that our court system allows police to perjure
themselves with impunity. After that I began to research DUI laws. In
particular I became interested in the FARS database and how NHTSA comes
up with the "alcohol-related" figure. When I discovered that
they were counting bicyclists, pedestrian and passengers who had been
drinking and were listing them as "drunk drivers" I felt it
was my duty to inform my fellow citizens of the deceit.
Q: A main goal of R.I.D.L. is to repeal the .08 BAC laws. What
would be an appropriate law your opinion?
A: .08 BAC laws have been mandated to states by the federal government
through TEA-21 under the threat of losing highway funds if they are not
passed. This is a blatant violation of the constitution of the United
States. Our number one goal and main focus is to repeal this requirement.
The .08 BAC laws are "per se" laws. That means that you are
guilty because a machine says you have a blood alcohol content of .08
or higher. No proof of impairment is required. You have no defense whatsoever.
Per se laws should be illegal at all BAC levels. The government should
have to prove impairment. In addition, we believe that the federal government
is violating the constitution of the United States by requiring states
to pass .08 BAC laws. An acceptable level of BAC should be determined
at the state level, not the federal level. MADD lobbied for years at the
state level to pass .08. They had very little success. It was clear the
states did not want to lower their BAC levels to .08. So MADD went to
the federal government to force the states to do what MADD wanted.
An appropriate law? In my opinion an appropriate law would be to fine
MADD for violating their 501(c)(3) stipulation that disallows them from
lobbying congress and ban them from further activities in that regard.
Q: Another main goal of R.I.D.L. is in countering some of the
statistics of MADD and NHTSA, such as "17,970 people were killed
by drunk drivers in 2002." Can you walk us through your counter findings?
What other stats are currently being manipulated in your opinion?
A: NHTSA has a variable in their database called DRUNK_DR. In their user
guide it is defined as "the number of drunk drivers in an accident".
This is the variable they use to come up with their "alcohol-related"
figure. We have proven that NHTSA increments this variable whenever ANYONE
in an accident, regardless of whether they were driving the vehicle, has
had any measurable amount of alcohol or drugs in their system. It is also
incremented if a police officer says a person had been drinking even if
later tests show them to be sober. This results in a figure a little over
15,000.
NHTSA then employs a methodology called "Multiple Imputation"
to add in "drunk drivers" for drivers who have no known BAC
level. This is done to drivers even though the police say a person was
not drinking. So on the one hand they believe the police if they say a
person WAS drinking, but they do not believe the police if they say a
person was not. The word "impute", by the way, means "to
point a finger at". It shows NHTSA's true motive is to attempt to
"point the finger" at "drunk drivers" as being the
cause of fatal accidents.
In addition, MADD has helped to develop extremely harsh penalties for
repeat offenders claiming them to be the worst culprits in drunk driving
fatalities. However, we have a yet to be published report that shows that
only 10% of drivers with BAC levels over .08 or who used drugs involved
in fatal accidents had a previous DUI.
MADD is now focusing on drivers who drink and have a child in the car
with them. They claim that 2/3 of the children killed in fatal accidents
that involve alcohol are riding with the drunk driver. We have found this
to be absolutely untrue. We also looked at drivers that had BAC levels
of.08 or .09 to evaluate how many of them were involved in an accident
where a child riding with them was killed. We found only 8 across the
entire country. We feel that to criminalize a man who takes his son to
the ball game and has two beers before driving home because of these 8
people is statistically and morally unacceptable.
Q: R.I.D.L. lists a number of other goals actually. Can you tell
us the rationale behind each?
~Require medical diagnosis of alcoholism prior to harsh sentence requirements
The AMA claims alcoholism is a disease. That means it can only be diagnosed
by a physician. Courts give DUI convictees a questionaire and then make
their own assessment. This is tantamount to practicing medicine without
a license. In addition, all convictees are required to attend alcoholics
anonymous meetings. If a person is not an alcoholic, they should not be
required to attend these meetings or be subjected to other forms of treatment.
Especially since people are forced to pay for this treatment that they
may not need.
~Require graduated penalties for DUI convictions
We do not penalize someone who speeds at 25mph over the speed limit in
the same way that we penalize someone going 5mph over the speed limit.
It's clear, and even MADD admits, that drivers with the higher BAC levels
are much more dangerous. So we should employ graduated penalities that
are less severe for someone at a lower BAC level than for those at higher
BAC levels.
~Encourage people to purchase and carry personal breathalyzers
While we do not think breathalyzers in general are accurate, in particular
when it comes to women, people of other races and the elderly, we do think
that if people purchase and use personal breathalyzers that it levels
the playing field. Most people today have no idea what their BAC level
is. And because MADD and NHTSA erroneously tell people it takes 6 to 8
drinks to get to .08, many people think they are ok to drive after 3 or
4. Those are they people who are getting trapped.
~Require police to notify people of their right to a blood test after
arrest
In many states a driver may request a blood test instead of or in addition
to a breath test. Blood tests are often more accurate then breath tests
and may show a driver to actually be innocent where a breath test may
prove them to be guilty (although there are some problems with the blood
tests as well). Often though, when a driver is pulled over, the police
tell them that they are required to give a breath sample and do not inform
them of their right to a blood test instead or as well.
~Require courts to provide alternatives to AA to deal with problem drinkers
Some people want to quit drinking but are offended or turned off by AA's
religious aspects. Today thought, AA is the only alternative offered by
courts. The Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that Alcoholics Anonymous is a
religious organization and courts imposing AA requirements on convictees
is a violation of separation of church and state.
~Require auto-expunge of DWI’s after seven years
Currently, a DUI conviction will remain on one's record forever. Often
a court will impose stricter punishment on someone with a prior DUI even
if that prior offense was 10, 20, 30 or more years ago.
Q: What resistance, if any, have you encountered?
A: MADD, of course. MADD automatically calls anyone who opposes them drunks
or says that they support drunk driving. This is absolutely false. We
do not, in any way, support drunk driving. But we feel that the lowered
BAC levels are ineffective in battling drunk driving and do nothing but
criminalize average social drinkers.
Q: What successes and exposure have you had?
A: We have had several news paper and magazine stories written about us.
Our members have written to their state and US representatives and senators
regarding this topic. Over the past year I have personally appeared on
six radio talk shows across the country to discuss this topic. Next week,
we will be receiving some coverage on a major radio station in the Detroit
area. Last year 20+ RIDL members logged on to MADD's discussion forum
to let them know that we exist and have come together to fight back. As
expected, we were not welcomed with open arms. But the experience taught
us a great deal about MADD and how they operate.
RIDL showed a presence in Lansing, Michigan last summer when the legislature
there was discussing lowering the BAC to .08. I had the opportunity to
debate the "expert" who said it takes 8 drinks to get to .08.
Most of the senators were in agreement that he was wrong. Our efforts
coupled with the efforts of other groups resulted in Michigan including
a sunset clause that our BAC level would automatically go back to .10
after 10 years if NHTSA and MADD cannot prove that lowering the BAC results
in lowered "alcohol-related" fatalities.
Q: Obviously, much of your initiative is directed at countering
the efforts of MADD, one of the most widely supported and well liked non-profit
organizations in America. How difficult is it to stand in opposition to
such a player?
A: It's extremely difficult on many levels. MADD has been around for 20
years and they are everywhere. They are in the churches, the schools,
the courthouses and in government. They have the advantage of having already
developed powerful relationships and allies. They have a very large income
and budget, we, on the other hand, are on a "shoe-thread" budget
and are still in start up mode at this time.
Q: Surely you sympathise with victims of drunk drivers; how do
you answer criticism?
A: Absolutely I sympathize with victims of drunk drivers. MADD would have
us believe that everyone who's been a victim or has lost a family member
automatically believes and supports all of MADD's tenets. But not everyone
who's been a victim believes in punishing everyone who has one or two
drinks and drives a car. Our vice president watched his best friend get
killed by a drunk driver before his eyes. Yet he does not support MADD.
Also, we believe that if the police focused their efforts on drivers with
high BAC levels, drivers using drugs and drivers combining drugs and alcohol
that they would be far more effective in ridding the roadways of dangerous
drunk drivers. It takes hours to process a drunk driver and when those
hours are spent on someone who's had one or two drinks and obviously poses
no threat to society, one must wonder how many truly dangerous drunks
are getting away.
We firmly believe that if someone is involved in an accident and an injury
or death results, if it can be shown that the driver was drunk and that
they actually CAUSED the accident and it was a direct result of them being
drunk, then we support strict punishment. However, many accidents that
happen would have happened regardless of the presence of alcohol. In those
instances where the driver was not at fault, we do not agree that long
jail sentences and/or other harsh penalties be given to the driver.
Background: Jeanne Pruett, Founder, President and CEO of R.I.D.L., has
worked as a computer network engineer and consultant since 1987. She specializes
in data mining and reporting and has utilized these skills in many of
the world's largest corporations including two of the big three automakers.
Ms. Pruett utilized these skills to evaluate the data in the FARS (Fatal
Analysis Reporting System) database which is the same database used by
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). In February
2003, Ms. Pruett and three other core members incorporated R.I.D.L. and
opened the online website www.RIDL.us in order to begin addressing the
DUI issues and to offer moral support to people who feel they have been
unfairly caught in the DUI system. R.I.D.L. has seen tremendous growth
in membership and interest in the industry over the past year.
Jeanne M. Pruett
President and CEO
R.I.D.L.
Responsibility In DUI Laws, Inc.
http://www.ridl.us
jeanne_pruett@ridl.us
734-306-7883 |