Study Finds Ignition Interlocks Increase Auto Crash Risk

[Micky Dee]

And they needed a report to tell them that.
Hell they could just asked RIDL.
Or any human being that has a functioning brain.

[jeanne_pruett]

I just got the same story from the NMA. Looks like it's going around.

I can't wait to see MADD's reaction to this one. Hmmmm.....maybe I'll send it to them. They'll probably just that it's just hype from the alcohol industry.

[Micky Dee]

What gets me is this.

Why did the ABI have to be the one to release this bit of news? How come to this day none of the other major new organizations have pick it up and reported on it.?

I can't wait to see MADD's reaction to this one. Hmmmm

I bet at this very moment MADD, NHSTA, or whoever is working on some so called piece of..... "research" that will be released shortly.

It will say how great these things are and claim that they have saved hundreds if not thousands of lives. Blah blah blah.

And mark my words it will be covered by every major and minor news organization out there. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it on the evening news.

Thats what really gets me.

..

[jeanne_pruett]

You have to wonder what kind of kickbacks MADD is getting from these ignition interlock manufacturers. They have really been pushing these devices hard and they have to know how dangerous and fallible they are.

[jeanne_pruett]

I just thought up a new acronym for MADD. If you ever want MADD to do something for you, just remember:

Money Always Does the Deed

[Micky Dee]

You have to wonder what kind of kickbacks MADD is getting from these ignition interlock manufacturers. They have really been pushing these devices hard and they have to know how dangerous and fallible they are

.
I don't know but take a look at the company called "Smart Start" located down in MADD's home state of Texas.
http://www.smartstartinc.com/home.htm
Right on their home page they are displaying of all things a MADD BAGDE as if they are some sort of Law Enforcement Organization or PART OF MADD!!!..

Founded in 1992 and based in Irving, Texas, Smart Start is the nation’s leader in ignition interlock services. Smart Start is fully integrated providing manufacturing, installation, service, and comprehensive monitoring and reporting

Smart Start is the nation’s premier provider of ignition interlock services and technology. Every day, Smart Start prevents intoxicated drivers from endangering themselves, their families and their fellow citizens by separating drinking from driving. Smart Start is the smart choice for both monitored drivers and court/public safety authorities.

..

[Micky Dee]

Boy, like I said in my post above it didn’t take them long to come out with some rubbish to deny the truth. But I bet this is not the end of it. Right this very second the NHSTA is probably imputing the data in a manipulative fashion to contrive some other report to back up these defenders of junk science and their contraptions. Its kind of funny how they have resorted to the pot calling the kettle black.

It's really sad how they have once again resorted to poo-pooing the lives lost in 911 as being insignificant when compared to their holy crusade of vengeance. link!



..

[Micky Dee]

California DMV Report Sparks Controversy Over Safety of Ignition Interlock Devices for DUI
Monday March 21, 6:41 pm ET
Source: American Beverage Institute

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050321/dcmv005_1.html

- Agency Explicitly States, 'No Evidence That Interlocks Are an Effective Traffic Safety Measure For First DUI Offenders'


SANTA FE, N.M., March 21 /PRNewswire/ -- Despite an attempt to back away from its own findings, the California Department of Motor Vehicles' (CA DMV) new report specifically states that ignition interlock devices (IID) are an ineffective tool for first-time DUI offenders, reporting "there is no evidence that interlocks are an effective traffic safety measure for first DUI offenders" and concluding that "the use of the devices should not be emphasized" (p. 22). The report also found that IIDs increase their users' general crash risk by up to 130% (p. 16).
Controversy has surrounded the California DMV report, starting with a March 15th press release by the American Beverage Institute (ABI), which highlighted the report's findings about the ineffectiveness of IIDs for first- time DUI offenders to both the New Mexico legislature and its governor. Well known anti-alcohol lobbyists and the California DMV responded in subsequent days, highlighting other findings on IIDs in the report, which were irrelevant to New Mexico's proposed law.

They did, however, readily admit to the ineffectiveness of IIDs among first-time offenders -- the very subjects of recently passed legislation in New Mexico. In fact, the California DMV report's lead author David DeYoung stated the following in a March 21st press release: "It's true that we found court orders to install an ignition interlock device have no significant effect in preventing repeat DUIs among first-time DUI offenders."

"Clearly the California DMV doesn't like to have their own scientific conclusions repeated back to them when it doesn't suit their agenda," said ABI executive director John Doyle. "Through creative cherry-picking, they are attempting to bury the findings that highlight the unintended consequences of mandating ignition interlocks for first offenders.

"But the facts remain -- New Mexico is poised to enact this legislation even though the California DMV found 'there is no evidence that interlocks are an effective traffic safety measure for first DUI offenders,' and that these devices will likely increase threats to highway safety. We invite the Governor and the public to review the DMV report themselves as these facts couldn't be any clearer." To see a complete copy of the CA DMV report, please visit http://www.americanbeverageinstitute.com/.

The American Beverage Institute is an association of restaurants committed to the responsible serving of adult beverages.

Story is starting to gain some traction in the media.

link!

..

[jeanne_pruett]

Story is starting to gain some traction in the media.

Good!!!

[Micky Dee]

The report's lead author is one David DeYoung. A quick search shows that he has supported and advocated the use of these contraptions for years. So one can hardly call him an unbiased researcher. What’s important is the reason why this report was done in the first place.

Well according to Mr. DeYoung's own words it was not because he and the others who supported the use of these contraptions were interested in objective unbiased research. Oh no!. You see they were ORDERED to do so by the California Legislature.

Excerpts from:
Research Notes- 2003

An Evaluation of the Implementation of Ignition Interlock in California
By David DeYoung

When the Legislature passed the current interlock law, they added a provision mandating that DMV conduct a rigorous, scientific evaluation of California's interlock program. ........ The outcome evaluation, which is just underway, is to be reported to the Legislature by July 2004

Secondly, and more importantly, an outcome study will soon be underway which will provide valuable information about the effectiveness of IIDs in California, and it is critical that the current IID laws remain in place until the study is completed.

So back in 2003 before any real study or research was done he had already determined that the study when completed "WILL provide valuable information about the effectiveness of IIDs in California".

Notice he doesn't say hopefully provide, maybe, or might, but WILL, with out a doubt, "provide valuable information about the effectiveness of IIDs in California".

This was not just wishful thinking on his part but down right bias. It's quite obvious that the outcome of the study was a forgone conclusion to him before it even got underway.

You know that's the problem with people who are zealots or crusaders conducting "research" with out any oversight. Even when they purposefully set out with the intention to deceive, they will often find that unless they keep their guard up, and despite their preconceived biases, a bit of the truth will still manage to find its way in to their contrivance. That's exactly what I think happened here.

In several news bits Delong has attempted to offer lame rebuttals.

Delong: "In quoting our finding that DUI second offenders using the device have a 130% higher risk of a subsequent crash, ABI seems to imply that the device itself somehow increases the likelihood of a crash. That is not what we said.

No Mr. DeYoung . The ABI does not imply that. You REPORT IMPLIES THAT. All they are doing is pointing it out!

In a asinine attempt to discount his own repots findings DeYoung says the following. Notice he never denies the fact that there is in fact an 130% higher risk of a subsequent crash. No he just tries to make up excuses.

It is not that installation and use of interlocks causes crashes or that the devices themselves are unsafe," said DeYoung. "Obviously if someone who has previously been forbidden to drive is allowed to return legally to the roadways with an ignition interlock and a restricted driver license, their exposure to accidents increases, no matter how sober they are."

Obviously?? To who Mr. DeYoung? That's like saying obviously someone who is (pick your race, skin color, or religious affiliation) is a bad driver to begin with so it should be no surprise they get into more accidents no matter what.

But even if these people are bad drivers as you imply how come they are getting into MORE CRASHES ONLY AFTER having installed the interlocks. If the increase risk of a crash were solely due to the drivers bad driving skills then wouldn’t they be having about the same number of crashes after the installation of the interlock as they did before its installation?

In other words if what you said was true Mr. DeYoung then there would be NO appreciable higher risk of an crash. But that’s is not what your report says is it Mr. DeYoung? No, it tell us there is 130 % increase risk of a crash!

Lets see according to MR. DeYoung you could go Get a 100 people who had never been involved in a accident and install the interlock into their vehicles. After the installation of the interlock you find that out of the 100 there has been 130 crashes.

According to this idiots rational the interlock has nothing to do with them getting into crashes. No they are just bad drivers who became bad drivers only after having the interlock installed in their vehicles.
Sure Mr. DeYoung, I believe you.

DeYoung added: "It's true that our study showed that court orders to first offenders to install an ignition interlock device are not effective in reducing recidivism among that group -- perhaps because many first offenders tend to be in denial, resent the devices and refuse to install them.

Just a round about way of him saying they have absolutely no effect with out having to come right out and admit that fact.

Perhaps ??? Perhaps you are just full of it Mr. DeYoung.

Is this what the California Legislature meant when they called for "a rigorous, scientific evaluation of California's interlock program"???????????


...

[jeanne_pruett]

Now what does a "restricted driver license" have to do with added danger on the road?

Absolutely nothing of course. Makes about as much sense as saying that a person with a suspended license is more dangerous. Fact of the matter is that most people who go ahead and drive with a suspended license are actually much SAFER. They don't take chances because they're scared hell that they'll get pulled over. So they tend to drive perfectly to avoid a confrontation with the police.

[jeanne_pruett]

I've been conversing with Richard Roth (who has been quite nice actually and even complimented our reports). He has informed me that the interlock devices do not shut down a vehicle when it is in motion. That it only makes the horn beep and the lights flash until the operator pulls the car over and turns off the engine.

I looked around at a few websites and so far, he appears to be correct. Does someone remember a company whose devices DOES shut down the vehicle? I'd like to know if there is one.

I still think they are a dangerous distraction even if they don't shut down the vehicle. But I'd like to know if I've been misinformed or if I just misread something.