A few weeks ago, Journal News columnist Noreen O’Donnell wrote about methods that government officials might consider in the fight against drunken driving. The organization Mothers Against Drunk Driving advocates requiring ignition interlocks for those convicted of DWI. These devices prevent a car from starting if a certain amount of alcohol is detected in the driver’s breath. O’Donnell wrote: “Is an ignition interlock too harsh a penalty for a first-time offender? Groups such as MADD argue no. First-time offenders are often getting caught for the first time, but have driven drunk many times before, they say. One study found that those convicted of drunken driving had driven drunk more than 87 times before their first arrest.”

This paragraph drew the following response from Sarah Longwell, managing director of the American Beverage Institute, a self-described “association of restaurants and on-premise retailers committed to the responsible serving of adult beverages”:

“To the Editor:
One of Mothers Against Drunk Driving’s favorite talking points (“those convicted of drunken driving had driven drunk more than 87 times before their first arrest.”) goes so far as to accuse Americans of criminal acts with no proof to back up the claim (“Keeping drunken drivers off the road – what do the experts say?,” March 11).
The truth is that the widely-publicized figure is based on rough estimates from self-reported data—commonly criticized as being unreliable—collected from a small sample 14 years ago. Even the study’s own authors admit the estimates are “crude.” Yet, MADD has dubbed it “fact.”
Before advocating for new laws, we need an accurate, up-to-date measure of drunk driving behavior. It’s reckless to act based on one thing, when the reality is another.”

I did a Google search and discoved that Longwell had the identical letter published in the Indianapolis Star in February (with the lines in parentheses changed to make it a response to a Feb. 19 story the paper ran), and I imagine this same letter gets sent out to any newspaper that repeats MADD’s “more than 87 times” statistic. We don’t publish such “form letters,” or knowingly run letters that have already been published elsewhere, but my curiosity was piqued regarding the study in question. Where, in fact, did this study come from, and had it been debunked? Neither side seemed to be providing specifics on this. The “87 times” figure comes up in a few places on MADD’s Web site, but you have to look to the footnotes for the source of that statistic: Zador, Paul, Sheila Krawchuk, and B. Moore, “Drinking and Driving Trips, Stops by Police, and Arrests: Analysis of the 1995 National Survey of Drinking and Driving Attitudes and Behavior,” Rockville, MD: Estat, Inc, 1997.

I did another Google search, hoping to find the study itself, but was unsuccessful. I did find the study and/or its authors referenced in several other studies and reports, including “Epidemiology and Consequences of Drinking and Driving” by Ralph Hingson, Sc.D., and Michael Winter, M.P.H. at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism of the National Institues of Health, in the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, and at the National Transportation Safety Board Web site.

One thing I didn’t find in my quick search was any study that specifically refuted the “87 times” claim from the Zador study; there may be studies that came to different conclusions on this matter, but it would take some more digging to find them. So, is MADD justified in publicizing this statistic in making the case for ignition interlocks, or does the American Beverage Institute have a point in questioning the data? Hard to say without looking deeper into the available research, which the average reader of articles and letters-to-the-editor on the topic isn’t likely to pursue. However, looking beyond this one statistic, there seems to be plenty of other information out there that the various groups involved can draw upon in making their respective cases to the public, and for policy-makers to consult in their effort to determine the best ways to combat the DWI problem.