You can Beat the Ignition Interlock... Meet the Rental Car Booze-Bandit

According to this article, what seemed like a way around the interlock system proved to be a way into a telephone pole. A man from Long Island with a history of intoxicated driving attempted to beat the system, only to wind up in more trouble than before. Marvin Rice, Jr. had rented a brand new Volkswagen Jetta, allegedly to avoid driving his own vehicle, which is equipped with a court-mandated Interlock breathalyzer system.

It seems as if the gentleman had a few cocktails and decided to take the wheel. Some have suggested that Mr Rice, realizing his own vehicle would not offer such opportunities, decided to use an alternative mode of transportation. Upon acquiring the Jetta, the 27 year-old embarked upon a journey that landed him first in the hospital, then in jail. To be totally fair, Mr. Rice's brother went on record in a subsequent article and said that Marvin had been forced to rent the car because his own vehicle had been wrecked in a snow related crash - not just to avoid his car's ignition interlock.

At around 6 a.m. on February 15, the allegedly intoxicated driver smashed the rented vehicle into a telephone pole, breaking both of his legs as well as his pelvis, and totaling the brand-new car. Upon being cut out of the mangled car, police issued a DWI, and the gentleman was airlifted to the hospital. Giving Marvin the benefit of the doubt, he might have been innocent of the charges, and has not yet been tried. I'd like to know exactly what evidence they have on the DUI charge. Did they draw blood at the hospital? Or are they relying on a cheap handheld breathalyzer?

Will we start seeing some changes in the application/approval process for renting vehicles? Certainly the rental car companies would fight this - they want to rent as many cars as possible. Insurance will cover the damages when a drunk totals the car. How about putting ignition interlocks in all cars? Wouldn't we all be better off if nobody could drive drunk?

MADD would fight that tooth and nail. Their model of dealing with the problem is guaranteed to fail - and it is intended to fail. MADD takes a fascist approach - they want to punish people who drive drunk to teach them a lesson and to provide an example to the rest of society: see what happens when you drive drunk?!

If their approach worked, people would "learn their lesson". DUI defendants would feel the pain of their penalties and never drive drunk again. The rest of society would see them get punished and realize that they will get caught if they drive drunk and the penalties will be steep. Of course, this is circular logic: people won't drive drunk because they will know penalties are steep because they will see the punishment of the people who drive drunk. MADD's model of stopping drunk driving depends on continued drunk driving. It doesn't work because it is not meant to work. It makes the laughable assumption that people under the influence of alcohol are going to make a good decision about taking the wheel!

Whenever you see a model of government action that does not work, you can always figure out why by following the money. MADD is the only organization in America that tries to set policy on DUI laws. They have a practical monopoly. In order to keep getting contributions and paying themselves massive salaries, they have to have people continue to get caught driving drunk. They have to have people getting injured or killed so that the sympathy is generated that brings in continued donations.

But don't take my word for it. Call MADD yourself and explain that you like to take advantage of your legal right to enjoy alcohol and ask them to provide you with an ignition interlock for your car so that you can make the right decision every time. They have millions of dollars, and they supposedly want to stop drunk driving, so it should be no problem, right? Wrong. They will say no. They would rather spend their money ratcheting up the penalties for those who involuntarily keep them in business (people who have been caught driving drunk) after the damage has already been done.