Senators Ask Apple To Ban DUI Checkpoint Alert Apps

Four U.S. Senators are calling for Apple and other purveyors of smartphone software to ban apps that would help motorists identify and avoid drunk driving checkpoints.

Democrats Chuck Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, Tom Udall and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Tuesday issued a letter to Scott Forstall, Apple's senior vice president of iPhone Software, urging the company to reassess the potential danger that these apps pose. "We appreciate the technology that has allowed millions of Americans to have information at their fingertips, but giving drunk drivers a free tool to evade checkpoints, putting innocent families and children at risk, is a matter of public concern," the letter said, according to the AFP.

The Democratic Senators also addressed identical letters to Google and RIM executives.

Though their request could apply to several apps, the Senators fingered only PhantomAlert in particular, writes ComputerWorld.

Using GPS data from the driver's smartphone, the PhantomAlert app points out upcoming speed traps and DUI checkpoints, but also informs the driver of traffic cameras, school zones, accidents, railroad tracks, speed bumps, and dangerous curves and intersections. The app is available for Apple's iOS, Google's Andorid and RIM's BlackBerry smartphone platforms.

"I think this is a knee-jerk reaction," PhantomAlert CEO Joe Scott told ComputerWorld. "PhantomALERT is a 100% legal service. If they really understood what we are doing and aim to achieve they would actually support us."

Apple came under fire recently for approving a controversial iPhone app, developed for religious organization Exodus International, which offers "redemption for the homosexual person" and "the freedom to grow into heterosexuality." On Tuesday, over 140,000 people had signed Change.org's petition demanding that Apple stop selling the app.

Apple's App Store is known for its stringent (if somewhat inconsistent) approval policies, and controversies about banned apps often make headlines. Take a look at our slideshow of infamous apps banned by Apple.

How do you think Apple will address this request by Senators to ban apps like PhantomAlert?

Quick Poll

Should DUI checkpoint alert apps be banned from the App Store?

Yes.

No.

Not sure.

Share your vote on Facebook so your friends can take this poll

UPDATE: USA Today reports that RIM has removed from its BlackBerry App World applications that identify DUI checkpoints. According to the International Business Times, Google has said the apps will remain for sale in the Android Marketplace because they do not violate the company's content policies.

Comments

[jacobisrael]

07:24 PM on 04/15/2011

Table 3 Mean percent of drinkers over five time periods who had experienced each of the problems related to drinking at least once during the previous 12 months.
82-83 84-85 87-88

Drinking/Driving
Driven a car after having
had several drinks 59.6 54.5 48.8

Driven a car when they knew
they had drunk too much 40.6 37.0 33.9

Driven a car while drinking 48.0 40.9 36.7

Been arrested for driving
while intoxicated 1.3 1.1 1.4

Health/Personal
Had a hangover 72.3 73.0 75.3

Vomited as a result of
drinking 45.3 46.8 51.3

Criticized by someone they
were dating because of
their drinking 11.4 10.8 13.5

Thought they might have a
problem with their drinking 9.3 8.2 10.3

Social/Academic
Came to class after having
several drinks 8.5 8.5 8.5

"Cut a class" after having
several drinks 9.1 10.8 9.3

Missed a class because of a
hangover 23.3 26.8 26.6

Got a lower grade because of
drinking too much 4.7 6.0 5.8

The above is from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCR/is_3_33/ai_62839440/pg_5/?tag=content;col1

[jacobisrael]

02:26 PM on 04/08/2011

It's notable that only 16% of the people on this forum (or at least the ones who took the poll) agree with these senators. So they are out-numbered by more than five times by those who do not agree with them, which is consistent with most people I know.

It's also probable that more than five times as many Americans in general also disagree with these DUI laws, as they know that they are a failure, very costly, and patently unconstitutional.

[jacobisrael]

12:38 AM on 04/06/2011

A nationwide study of thousands of college student across the country over a period of 11 years shows that 48 to 59 percent of college students drive after having "two or more drinks":

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCR/is_3_33/ai_62839440/pg_5/?tag=content;col1

[jacobisrael]

02:05 PM on 04/05/2011

One Half of College Fraternity Members are Drunk Drivers
Numbers were high for Greeks who drink and drive. Fifty-four percent of Greeks [fraternity members] admitted to drinking and driving, compared with 34 percent of all other students. And more Greeks have been arrested for driving under the influence - 13 percent - compared with just 4 percent of student athletes and 2 percent of freshmen, the study found.

Fraternity and sorority members are likelier than non-members to drink (88 vs. 67 percent), binge drink (64 vs. 37 percent), drink and drive (33 vs. 21 percent), use marijuana (21 vs. 16 percent) or cocaine (3 vs. 1.5 percent), smoke (26 vs. 21).

Only 15% of Oregon's 11th Grade Boys were Drunk Drivers in 1997
The rate of 11th-graders reporting they drink and drive fell to 8.2 percent this year from 13.6 percent in 1997. The decline was greatest for boys, falling to 8.7 percent from 15.7 percent.

Drunk Driving 25-29 Year Olds Plunged from 53% to "Only" 39%
The number of people from 18 to 24 who drink and drive dropped to 31 percent this year from 48 percent in 1985, the poll showed. Among those 25 to 29, the number dropped to 39 percent this year from 53 percent in 1985. The poll showed that 37 percent of men and 20 percent of women said they drove after drinking. In 1985, the figures were 45 percent for men and 29 percent for women.

[jacobisrael]

02:01 PM on 04/05/2011

One Quarter of Our Youth are Drunk Drivers
Thursday, 30 December 2004, 02:00 CST, WASHINGTON -- More than four million people younger under age 21 drove under the influence of drugs or alcohol last year, according to a government report released Wednesday. That's one in five of all Americans aged 16 to 20. ... Young people were most likely to drink alcohol and then drive, with 17 percent admitting this. Fourteen percent said they had driven under the influence of illicit drugs, and eight percent reported driving after consuming a combination of alcohol and drugs.

About one in five drivers under age 21 reported driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, according to research from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Examining data from the 2002 and 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, SAMHSA concluded that 21 percent of 16- to 20-year-olds drove under the influence, or 4 million drivers. Fourteen percent reported driving under the influence of illicit drugs, 17 percent reported driving under the influence of alcohol, and eight percent said they drove under the influence of a combination of alcohol and other drugs. Just four percent of the young drivers surveyed said they had been arrested and booked for driving under the influence.

[dbrett480]

05:43 PM on 04/03/2011

If the Senators bothered to investigate the issue they would discover that the information about the checkpoints is released to the media by law enforcement authorities.

[jacobisrael]

07:13 PM on 04/07/2011

These four senators have GOT to be the dumbest people in the entire country.  Between all four (including their bloated and ponderous staffs) they couldn't pass a third grade quiz on government in most countries!  Their treason against the U.S. Constitution would have never been accepted by our Founding Fathers.

This is a naked call for censorship of precisely the free political speech our Founding Fathers spilt blood to protect!

[jacobisrael]

01:56 PM on 04/01/2011

OK, so nobody wanted to take the time to check out the FARS database to prove or disprove what was posted here? Then let me tell you specifically what it says. For starters, they ADMIT that this database has been massaged, AND that the original police reports claim that only 4% of all accidents *involve* drinking drivers. Then what percent of all drivers are driving after drinking, at all times? For *simplicity* let's say 8%.

Do you know what this means? It means that the 8% of the drivers who drink and drive are involved in only 4% of the accidents and that 96% of the accidents are caused by the OTHER 92% who do NOT drink and drive:

Accidents Drivers Odds ratio
drunk 4% 8% 0.5
sober 96% 92% 1.04

What THIS means is that the probability of a SOBER driver having an accident is 2.1 TIMES as great as a DRUNK driver having one.

The problem of course is that no study even hints that only 8% of AMerican drivers drink and drive, and most show that at least two thirds do!!@

[dbrett480]

05:47 PM on 04/03/2011

Your logic is based on an assumption that 4% of drivers on the road are drunk. The number is much less, but their impact on public safety is much higher. I work in law enforcement and would estimate that less than 1% of the drivers on the road are driving under the influence. Since they cause between 4% and 8% of all fatal accidents (the percentage is higher for injury/property damage only), then they are 4-8 times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than a sober driver. That's pretty high.

[Cory111]

06:31 PM on 04/03/2011

Very high in deed in more ways then one.

• One person is killed every half-hour due to drunk driving
• Each year approximately 16,000 are killed in alcohol related crashes
• Alcohol is a factor in almost half of all traffic fatalities
• Every other minute a person is seriously injured in an alcohol related crash.

Having lost a son in a drug related auto accident I know driving under the influence of any mind altering substance is a an accident just waiting to happen.

Have a nice day.

Cory

[jacobisrael]

07:57 AM on 04/05/2011

No, the assumption was that 8% of all drivers drink and drive, or are under the influence of alcohol. But this is a very conservative estimate, as even the Borkenstein study, upon which all of these DUI laws are based (a VERY flawed "study") claims that 6.7% to 12% of all drivers at any time of day drive under the influence of alcohol. But this contradicts NUMEROUS far more scientific studies which put the figure as high as 66%. A casual internet study in Stanford put the figure at 70%.

Another study in Germany dulpicated the Borkenstein findings, except that a full 6% of the drivers were not included, because they opted out of taking this voluntary BAC test. Considering what happens to drinking drivers in Germany, it would not be at all surprising if 100% of those who opted out did so because they HAD been drinking and did not want to admit it to police who stopped them in the middle of the night.

This would raise the percent of drivers who drink and drive to as high as 18%, even in this government sponsored study.

Do you have a source which puts this figure lower than 8% (a credible one, that is)?

[Cory111]

08:16 AM on 04/05/2011

Thanks for turning me onto FARS it would appear their latest stats (2009) show 33,808 alcohol related deaths.

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/States/StatesAlcohol.aspx

Are you familiar with the expression, “Nit Picking” you have won that award this month.

[jacobisrael]

12:42 PM on 04/05/2011

So you think it's nit picking to quote the actual figures from the database, rather than trusting at face value the very misleading NHTSA headlines?

Just like USA Today, what the headlines say are very different from the body of their own article, which is also very different from the *original* source, which is very different from a *search" of their OWN database, which by itself contradicts police reports as compiled by FARS itself (which put "alcohol involved" accidents at only 4%):

Take a peek at Table No. 1016 at the following url and tell us what you see:

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/1992-01.pdf

[Demgirls]

12:24 AM on 03/28/2011

Would someone really drunk be able to see their app? Or kill someone driving while using their app? The program can probably get scrambled or done out somehow by law enforcers.

[Cory111]

06:32 PM on 04/03/2011

Ever hear of "Blackout" drinkers?

[Hal McCombs]

07:54 AM on 03/27/2011

Could you not use this app to 'find' the checkpoints? If you don't want to get hit by a drunk, then go to where they're not - DUI checkpoints.

[jacobisrael]

03:08 PM on 03/27/2011

Following is a direct quote from the NHTSA web site, something you will never see in the mainstream news:

"The analysis by Connolly, Kimball, and Moulton (1989) mentioned above suggests that female drivers have both a higher overall crash risk and a higher alcohol-related fatal-crash risk. Combined data from FARS and the 1986 National Roadside Breathtesting Survey suggest that the relative fatal-crash risk of a female driver with a BAC of 0.10% or more could be of the order of 50% higher than it is for a male driver at the same BAC. Of course, estimates based on these two unmatched data sets are, as indicated above, are only very rough, but they are consistent with prior case-control studies (see Jones and Joscelyn 1978)."

[jacobisrael]

06:57 PM on 03/24/2011

USA Today headlines roar "42% of all fatal accidents are CAUSED by drunk drivers".

This would mean that at least 58% of all fatal accidents are CAUSED by sober drivers.

BUT the body of their newspaper has a DIFFERENT figure: they say 24%.

This would mean that at least 76% of these accidents are caused by SOBER drivers.

However, they claim to get their data from the FARS database at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration which has a DIFFERENT figure: they say that 8% of all fatal accidents INVOLVE "drinking drivers".

This would mean that at LEAST 92% of all fatal accidents are caused by SOBER drivers.

However, police reports themselves claim that only 4% of all accidents are "alcohol involved".

THIS would mean that at LEAST 96% of all accidents are CAUSED by SOBER drivers.

Why not crack down on SOBER drivers?

[dbrett480]

06:13 PM on 04/03/2011

There are varying statistics depending on the agency and what "alcohol-involved" means. However the one that remains constant is that drivers with a BAC above the legal limit are 6-12 times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than drivers that have no alcohol in their system.

[Cory111]

06:19 PM on 04/03/2011

I agree. Also, people that get on the freeway and run at speeds less then the speed limit are more apt to get run over or at least have a high speed blowout in one tennis shoe.
When you post the word “alcohol” out here, out they come.
I hope you had a great weekend.
Cory

[jacobisrael]

01:40 PM on 04/05/2011

Search the internet for the "Grand Rapids Effect", and you will see that drivers with a BAC between 0.02 and 0.08 are 35% LESS likely to have an accident than drivers with a BAC of zero. Those with a BAC of 0.10 are EQUALLY as likely to.

The FARS database itself proves that what you believe about it is an exaggeration, at least. Researching a number of different years in this database indicates that the general trend of drinking and driving is that about ten percent of the more than 100,000 people involved in fatal accidents each year are reported by the police as alcohol involved.

However:

37% are determined by blood alcohol testing to not have had a bac > .10%, relegating ONE THIRD of these to false arrests

33% are "Not a Fatality"

32% are not drivers of motor vehicles: they are passengers, pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, etc.

27% are young drivers who NHTSA reports have such a high fatality rate that drinking and driving has negligible [read: zero] impact on their already high accident rate
17% SHOULD be attributed to drowsy driving even though NHTSA estimates only 4% are

1% are attributed to drug involvement

[Acert]

06:29 PM on 03/24/2011

The apps are aiding and abetting lawbreaking. That means they are NOT covered by free speech.

[jacobisrael]

06:34 PM on 03/24/2011

The problem is that the vast majority of accidents, both fatal and otherwise, do NOT involve drunk drivers.

Why not ban sober drivers?

[Acert]

06:52 PM on 03/24/2011

That is because most drivers are not drunk. Proportionally, drunk drivers kill more people every year.

[think-it-over]

04:47 AM on 03/25/2011

Reasoning isn't part of your skill set, is it?

[think-it-over]

04:54 AM on 03/25/2011

Of course they're covered by free speech. All they do is allow people to pass along information. That some people may use that information to avoid being caught while breaking the law has absolutely no bearing on the free speech protections offered to the exchange of the information itself.

I don't approve of telling a drunk driver where a DUI checkpoint is, but it is legal to supply that information to anybody, regardless of their blood alcohol level.

[jacobisrael]

02:32 PM on 03/26/2011

Not to mention the following irritating detail:

"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."

[ChicanoBear]

12:39 PM on 03/24/2011

Create a job instead of trying to fire programers. GOP joke!

[hkochii]

09:49 AM on 03/24/2011

Although the article states that the Senators are calling them drunk driving checkpoints no law enforcement agency will ever admit to that being the purpose of those road blocks. They are license check stops and if they happen to suspect a stopped driver of being under the influence they get tested. There are legal ramifications to labeling them as drunk driving stops, even though that's exactly what they are. Having an app for that is simple a shortcut to learn where the stops are located every day. The information about the stops in each law enforcements jurisdiction is published prior to it's placement. You can call the agency or look on the websites most of them have. So having an app for that is simply making public information that's already out there more convenient to the taxpayers who make it possible for the information to exist in the first place.

[drp103]

09:20 AM on 03/24/2011

Technology prevailing again in the face of government control. Just ask any Egyptian how important technology is!

Technology and people will always find a way.

We have the technology now to control our cars so that they don't go over the speed limit; or that we don't drive them when intoxicated. GPS and Breathalyzer and OnStar. If you use these techcnologies then you should get a deduction from your taxes and your insurance.

Why haven't governments in this country instituted these policies? Because they would cut into their profits from speeding tickets and DUIs

[PathofTotality]

08:48 AM on 03/24/2011

I'm torn on this one. Not so much the app itself which (like was mentioned in another post) akin to flashing your high beams or a radar detector.

Where I have a problem is someone that is p!ss drunk that has the ability to dodge said check points then 2 miuntes later kill someone....maybe kill me. Where there's a will there's a way so this app is just another way. Like I said.....torn.