Madd

[Berzerker]

Mothers Against Drunk Driving, once a noble cause - people who cant handle a car due to booze shouldn't be driving around. But then MADD pushed for DUI laws, these weren't so nasty when cops exercised discretion, but gradually the prohibition on drunk driving came to include a standard less indicative of competence, ie blood alcohol level (strange as that may sound). Most people would function fine while violating the legal limit...

But now we got moms all over the country driving around talking on cell phones etc and the studies appear to show that such behavior significantly increases the chance of accidents, comparable to drunk drivers and more dangerous than pot smokers. The public owns the roads, what should the standard be for driving a car around town? I'm inclined to do away with all the laws wrt chemicals and let cops decide when someone is out of control. Reckless driving...

 

[bhsup]

Eh, no. Just because cell phones are dangerous but not outlawed everywhere while driving doesn't mean you take a step backwards and strip away DUI laws.

 

[Arwon]

...wait, you're against BAC-based prohibitions on drunk driving?

This is a thing that people think?

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Mothers Against Drunk Driving, once a noble cause - people who cant handle a car due to booze shouldn't be driving around. But then MADD pushed for DUI laws, these weren't so nasty when cops exercised discretion, but gradually the prohibition on drunk driving came to include a standard less indicative of competence, ie blood alcohol level (strange as that may sound). Most people would function fine while violating the legal limit...

That isn't an argument against DUI laws. You could use it as an argument against checkpoints, ie if someone is over the limit and driving just fine they won't make a mistake and won't catch po-po's attention. But we shouldn't make it legal to drive drunk.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Bad driving , whether it be drunk , high , on the phone etc is just flat out extremely anti social behaviour . I think you enter into into some of contract with society the minute you get behind the wheel . Unfortunately , we drivers have illustrated , tragically ,on too many occasions that we are not mature enough to honor this contract , thus it's not unreasonable that laws treating us like kids are the rightful standard.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Cell phones should be banned from driving along with drinking.

Don't see how that's an issue.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

As long as there is no blood tests for cell phone usage, I am fine with. It already is so in Germany.

 

[Mise]

Yeah, you can't use a mobile phone and drive in the UK, unless it's hands-free (e.g. headset or speakerphone). And police are allowed to stop you if you're using your phone or satnav or whatever hands-free, but still driving dangerously.

 

[shadowplay]

A case in point. Research suggests that using a cell phone while driving may cause more traffic fatalities than driving drunk. But when a MADD official was asked how traffic fatality statistics involving cell phone use compared to those involving drunk drivers, he tellingly replied "I have absolutely no idea, nor do I care."

http://alcoholfacts.org/CrashCourseOnMADD.html

I suggest taking a look at that link if you want to learn more about this very deceptive organization.

The founding president of MADD, Candy Lightner, left in disgust from the organization that she herself created because of its change in goals. "It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I ever wanted or envisioned," she says. "I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving." Ms. Lightner has emphasized the importance of distinguishing between alcohol and drinking on one hand and drunk driving on the other.

Ms. Lightner has apparently put her finger on the problem when she says that if MADD really wants to save lives, it will go after the real problem drivers. Instead, it has become temperance-oriented.

 

[Tee Kay]

Evil organisations have good ideas too. We shouldn't be afraid to use good ideas wherever it comes from.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Yeah . That MADD article is quite full on and I can see why a group like that would put a lot of people off any tightening of drink driving laws . But I really don't see much choice for legislators beyond picking a number and busting drivers who go beyond it . I'm open to any non pie in the sky suggestions , but until a better method than arming cops with breathalyzers and fining / disqualifying drivers who exceed the limit comes along , then that's what we're stuck with . It's the price reasonable people need to pay for the minority of dick heads .

 

[GoodSarmatian]

That's not a reason to relax DUI laws, that's a reason to crack down on people who are on the phone while driving.

 

[Disgustipated]

Mothers Against Drunk Driving, once a noble cause - people who cant handle a car due to booze shouldn't be driving around. But then MADD pushed for DUI laws, these weren't so nasty when cops exercised discretion, but gradually the prohibition on drunk driving came to include a standard less indicative of competence, ie blood alcohol level (strange as that may sound). Most people would function fine while violating the legal limit...

But now we got moms all over the country driving around talking on cell phones etc and the studies appear to show that such behavior significantly increases the chance of accidents, comparable to drunk drivers and more dangerous than pot smokers. The public owns the roads, what should the standard be for driving a car around town? I'm inclined to do away with all the laws wrt chemicals and let cops decide when someone is out of control. Reckless driving...

MADD was really about getting their husbands out of bars (and possibly meeting someone they could cheat with) and back into their homes. It had nothing to do with saving lives. Why do you think women are against prostitution? (there is no good reason is should be illegal). Women don't want their men out with other women. And they don't want their men out getting drunk where they might do something stupid with another woman. It's all about controlling men.

Note, that's just a possible conspiracy theory, I don't necessarily believe that. But I do believe wives and mothers do like to control things.

edit: BTW it is illegal to drive while texting or talking on a cell phone in my state unless it is hands free. Although interesting to note, it is legal to use a cell phone if you are operating an automated car (like the google car that drives itself), its something recently passed in our state government.

 

[Disgustipated]

A case in point. Research suggests that using a cell phone while driving may cause more traffic fatalities than driving drunk. But when a MADD official was asked how traffic fatality statistics involving cell phone use compared to those involving drunk drivers, he tellingly replied "I have absolutely no idea, nor do I care."

errr wait, how can a man be part of MADD? I don't think he's qualified to be in that organization.

I've known guys that were extremely good drivers while above the BAC limit. They were such alcoholics that they had high tolerance for alcohol. Even above the .08 limit, they had limited impact on their motor skills (they could still beat my ass in pool or darts). I'm willing to bet they could drive better than most women while they are above .08. Not that I'm saying women are bad drivers or anything...

 

[NovaKart]

Now in lots of states you have to show ID to buy alcohol if you're under 40, pretty ridiculous. I wonder if MADD was behind that.

 

[bhsup]

MADD was really about getting their husbands out of bars (and possibly meeting someone they could cheat with) and back into their homes. It had nothing to do with saving lives. Why do you think women are against prostitution? (there is no good reason is should be illegal). Women don't want their men out with other women. And they don't want their men out getting drunk where they might do something stupid with another woman. It's all about controlling men.

Do you have anything at all to back up that insanely ridiculous claim?

 

[History_Buff]

Now in lots of states you have to show ID to buy alcohol if you're under 40, pretty ridiculous. I wonder if MADD was behind that.

Why is this ridiculous? Being asked to verify your age is not all that oppressive. When I was selling tobacco products at a grocery store, I ID'd anyone who looked even remotely near 25 (that being the guideline at the time). Given that I have 26 year old friends who look 17, I don't think a 40 year old getting mistaken for 25 is out of the picture.



More on topic, I don't really care for MADD (they seem too pushy), but lowering the BAC levels for driving seems pretty on the money. I'm also heavily in favor of distracted driving laws; cell-phones, handheld devices, GPS's, and smoking are all activities that shouldn't be allowed whilst driving. I'm opposed to hands free phones as well, but I realize that's impossible for the police to really enforce.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

A couple of weeks ago I was taking change to the bank and very nearly got hit by a driver who was texting she would not stop and I had to jump. I scared her though when I used my hand to slam on the car hood. (I didn't damage anything though). She wasnt going that fast which is why I was able to do this.

 

[Zelig]

Most people would function fine while violating the legal limit...

"Function fine most of the time" isn't the benchmark, "does not increase the odds of crashing in a statistically significant manner" is.

 

[Berzerker]

Eh, no. Just because cell phones are dangerous but not outlawed everywhere while driving doesn't mean you take a step backwards and strip away DUI laws.

Thats a double standard, and that was my point... Madd is guilty of hypocrisy, the kind of hypocrisy Jesus condemned most - the kind where one group of people (Madd) hurts another group of people (drivers DUI) based on a standard they dont want applied to themselves. And I dont consider DUI laws progress, I prefer cops deciding when the situation warrants removing a driver from the road. If somebody is drunk, the cop will figure that out if the probable cause wasn't enough.

...wait, you're against BAC-based prohibitions on drunk driving?

This is a thing that people think?

People do think, and yes, BAC is not drunk driving. The latter is probable cause, the former is not.

That isn't an argument against DUI laws. You could use it as an argument against checkpoints, ie if someone is over the limit and driving just fine they won't make a mistake and won't catch po-po's attention. But we shouldn't make it legal to drive drunk.

DUI /= drunk driving, albeit a drunk driver will most likely test positive...

Bad driving , whether it be drunk , high , on the phone etc is just flat out extremely anti social behaviour . I think you enter into into some of contract with society the minute you get behind the wheel . Unfortunately , we drivers have illustrated , tragically ,on too many occasions that we are not mature enough to honor this contract , thus it's not unreasonable that laws treating us like kids are the rightful standard.

Agreed, permission to drive a car on a public road should be based on some tangible standard - like competence. But when competence is replaced by more arbitrary standards like the level of alcohol in your blood (or breath) and attach extremely punitive penalties to an .085 level when .075 is "legal" we've missed the point.

For the record, while I've certainly driven under the influence I've never suffered the indignity of a DUI charge so this isn't personal so to speak, just an observation about Madd and how they react when their ox is being gored.

Zelig

"Function fine most of the time" isn't the benchmark, "does not increase the odds of crashing in a statistically significant manner" is.

Thats not what said, but how do you translate "functioning fine" into significantly increasing the odds of causing a crash?