DUI - The MADD Hype

DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) a.k.a DUI (Driving Under the Influence) laws have been an irritation of mine for many years. Stiffer penalties and decreasing BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) limits are very popular, and difficult for any politician to oppose. Republicans set the modern trend of federal interference in state alcohol laws. George W. Bush forced all states to adopt the .08 BAC limit by holding highway funds hostage. This trick he learned from Ronald Reagan, who used the same tactic to force all states into the 21-year-old drinking age. So much for states rights conservatism. Yet the religious right finds strange company in the war against alcohol, as the ‘government knows best' safety patrol liberals are big supporters as well. In the end, other than a few groups that I have linked to on this page, there is little opposition to freedom stomping DUI laws.

Before going on, I must offer the standard disclaimer acknowledging the dangers of drunk driving. None of the points I make or statistics I highlight dispute that danger. Driving at high BAC, drunk, puts yourself and everyone else on the road at great risk. Such offenders need to be punished. What I disagree with is the tactic of punishing lower BAC drivers who are no statistical risk. With close analysis it seems such laws are more about revenue collection than actually making our highways in any way safer. My solution would be for law inforcement to key on the repeat offenders and high BAC drivers which cause the real risk to America's highways, and quit criminalizing the social drinker who stopped off for two beers after work.

A dangerous phenomenon has destroyed the US media in recent decades. Anything goes for a good cause. When reporting a story to make people aware of some great danger, to hell with fact checking. Who cares if the numbers are exaggerated, in fact, today's media will even further embellish in hopes that they, at NBC/CBS/ABC news, will be nominated for an award after bravely bringing this terrible problem to public attention despite all the corporate threats to silence it.

Added to the media tendency to sensationalize is great financial incentive for private insurance companies, state and local revenues, and non-profit organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD). Heavy fines, court ordered drug dependency classes, skyrocketing insurance rates, and increasingly popular property confiscation throw many hands into the DUI purse. Driving Under the Influence is far from the greatest crime taking place, but may very well be the most lucrative.

I am sure some readers are thinking, “Wait a minute, I hear all the time that drunk drivers cause 40% of all traffic deaths.” Yes, that is a documented, well-accepted fact used by all in the media. However, just like a story passed on a dozen times, the original facts become distorted beyond all recognition. The origination of this myth lies with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the well published statistic ‘40% of all traffic deaths are alcohol related'. True as it is, few media outlets bother looking up the NHTSA definition of ‘alcohol related' before rewording and repeating this statistic in ways that are completely false.

NHTSA defines a fatal crash as alcohol-related or alcohol-involved if either a driver or a non-motorist (usually a pedestrian) had a measurable or estimated blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) of .01 gram per deciliter (g/dL) or above. NHTSA defines a nonfatal crash as alcohol-related or alcohol-involved if police indicate on the police accident report that there is evidence of alcohol present. The code does not necessarily mean that a driver or nonoccupant was tested for alcohol.

By including all fatal accidents with either driver having any traceable BAC, the numbers obviously become inflated. According to a 1997 Gallop poll, 33% of Americans claim to have drank some amount of alcohol in the last 24 hours. Considering these odds 1 out of every three fatal accidents should involve traceable BAC just to keep average with the no BAC drivers. On top of that, pedestrians and cyclists are also thrown into the mix, even further boosting the numbers. We are left with an entourage of self-interest groups that would like people to believe they are fighting the slaughter of innocent adults and children by an ever-increasing flock of swerving drunks infiltrating our highways. What is the real truth?

The most recent numbers available are from 2002, when 43,005 people were killed in traffic crashes. 2,932 of those people were victims of a drunk driver (over their states BAC limit). Therefore, 6.8% of all traffic fatalities are victims of a drunk driver. (2934/43005 = 0.068) Not quite as alarming, is it? Once factoring out the ‘low alcohol', ‘assumed alcohol', and cases where only the pedestrian or non-driver was drinking – cases which were covered under the ‘alcohol related' umbrella. Also, drunk drivers who kill only themselves have been subtracted from the total. The truth is, drunk drivers kill only 3,000 people per year. No wonder advocates of strengthening DUI laws do not report the real numbers, as 40% works much better for frightening motorists. (MORE)

NHTSA Statistics 2002

Victims Summary 2002