Matt Welch | April 19, 2005
That's what MADD's own statistics suggest, according to the new (to me) DUI Blog, a website that chronicles "Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution."
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Wow, Mr. Welch, you find some good stuff. I love it when the conventional wisdom gets slammed.
That's IT! I joining D.A.M.M.
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
Hey Joe,
get me one for my baby,
And one more for the road.
That should have said
So Set em up Joe.
I must have been thinking about
Hey Joe, where you going with that
Highball in your hand?
I think I said this before. All checkpoints do is make
sidestreets less safe at night.
There were DUI checkpoints right outside my college campus almost
monthly. Driving through the middle of your dorm courtyard to get
home is no picnic, let me tell you. But it beats jailtime.
First off, the state comparison is meaningless, as the drunk
driving rate is much more dependent on other factors, such as
drinking rates, etc.
But clearly this is just a way to get more money from the
government, since the problem with all failing programs is just
that we do not provide enough support to it. Right?
CHECKPOINTS!!! Oh geezus fucking eh kryste. More proof that all
the justices on the SCOTUS are illiterate.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized.
HELLLLL-OOOOOHHH!
Effectiveness aint even the fricken point. God, I need a drink.
This so-called 'analysis' is anything but. One would need to run
a regressiona to control for vehicles per capita, state population,
bar closing times, number of registered cars etc etc
The DUI Blog neither proves nor disproves anything.
Earlier commenters are correct that while
provactive, this analysis would not last
long in an economics seminar. In addition
to the omitted variable problems already
mentioned, there is the issue of reverse
causality - states may adopt checkpoints
because they have high levels of drunk
driving.
A similar analysis using cross-sectional
variation at the state level can be used
to show that higher state levels of TANF
payments to single mothers "cause" low
rates of single parenthood, because low
benefit states like Alabama have much
higher rates of single parenthood than
high benefit states like Wisconsin.
Jeff Smith
Sociologist Joseph R Gusfield has long had the scoop on the
drinking-driving meme
_The Culture of Public Problems : Drinking-Driving and the Symbolic
Order_ (1981 U Chicago)
_Contested Meanings : The Construction of Alcohol Problems_ (1996 U
Wisc)
on how a ``public problem'' is created and ownership of it is
taken.
My late friend F.T.Grampp was onto MADD early on : ``If it weren't
for the drunks, most of them wouldn't be mothers.''
If the statistics are insufficient to "prove" that checkpoints
are ineffective, then I suppose they are equally insufficient to
"prove" that they work.
So we have a highly intrusive police measure that can't be shown to
make anyone safer. This helps the MADDers how, exactly?
Didn't see an "R-squared" mentioned anywhere --- so no
'correlation' to effectively speak about. Not to mention that old
statistics adage: correlation is not causation
(it might/can be but should not be taked as such naively)
"R-squared": good to check for spurious correlation, too!
"then I suppose they are equally insufficient to "prove" that they
work."
not necessarily. try stacking some panel data and switch the
"individual" with "period" and run - you'll see that it doesn't
really work like that.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245