Madd

[madviking]

MADD was instrumental for pushing the legal drinking age to 21. I'm pretty sure it has only made more people do more stupid things (e.g. binge drink, roofies, etc.).

 

[bhsup]

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.

So what if it is a double standard? Fix it by elevating cell phone usage to the same penalty, not by reducing DUI laws. My nephews and nieces are mostly driving by now, and the couple that aren't are just a few years away. I want drunks off the road and not killing my relatives, thank you very much.

I am still failing to see why you are trying to link MADD and cell phone usage in the first place. MADD of course has no care about cell phone usage on the roads. That isn't their focus. Drunk driving is their focus.

And please, don't give me any tripe about someone with a few drinks being fine. Reaction times are lowered, that's a fact, jack. This thread really just sounds like someone trying to justify getting to drive drunk.

 

[Zelig]

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

Pretty much this:

And please, don't give me any tripe about someone with a few drinks being fine. Reaction times are lowered, that's a fact, jack. This thread really just sounds like someone trying to justify getting to drive drunk.

We can't really perform double-blind trials directly measuring the effect of alcohol on traffic fatalities, but it's easy to show that alcohol impairs reaction times below the level where you'd classify someone as "not functioning fine", and the inference that this leads to more traffic deaths is pretty reasonable.

 

[bhsup]

Hey I'm a drunk driver and I'm okay
I drink all night and I drive all day!

 

[Arwon]

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

Yeah no. It's about slowed reaction times. If you're above the legal limit and you're behind the wheel, you're drunk driving. The fact that you think you're "fine" and will usually make it home means nothing.

I'm curious why you think it's this "MADD" organisation that got BAC instituted as the test, given that basically every country uses it as the standard and the rest of us don't have a "MADD" whatever that is?

 

[NovaKart]

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.

It's just silly and way too extreme. I wouldn't say it's exactly oppressive.

 

[History_Buff]

It's just silly and way too extreme. I wouldn't say it's exactly oppressive.

But I think it neither silly nor extreme. 35 year olds can look like 25 year olds, which means they should be ID'd (and the legal age here is 18, not 21).

Pretty much nobody over the age of 21 has a wallet but no ID.

 

[NovaKart]

So everyone under 40 should have to show ID because a 25 year old could possibly pass for a 40 year old and an 18 year old could possibly pass for a 25 year old. Why not make everyone under 60 show an ID because a 59 year old could pass for 40?

 

[Berzerker]

So what if it is a double standard?

I just told you, Madd and their ilk are being hypocritical - hurting others and hiding behind double standards was the kind of hypocrisy Jesus condemned.

Fix it by elevating cell phone usage to the same penalty, not by reducing DUI laws.

Why tell me? Tell Madd... And there's no way in hell those penalties will be the same.

My nephews and nieces are mostly driving by now, and the couple that aren't are just a few years away. I want drunks off the road and not killing my relatives, thank you very much.

I'll join you out on that limb (my OP beat you to it, and thats a fact, Jack), but this aint about drunk driving, its about driving under the influence and the associated risk being comparable to other distractions. Aint many drunks out driving when I am, but there's plenty of youngsters and moms chatting away on phones. You got the same double standard, your cell phone using nephew is about as dangerous as people driving under the influence of alcohol, even more dangerous than pot smokers.

I am still failing to see why you are trying to link MADD and cell phone usage in the first place. MADD of course has no care about cell phone usage on the roads. That isn't their focus. Drunk driving is their focus.

Their argument applies to cell phones, and Madd does not limit itself to drunk drivers. That was how they started out, but they've since added driving under the influence of booze and pot and cocaine and... not so fast with the phones and drugs mommies like.

And please, don't give me any tripe about someone with a few drinks being fine. Reaction times are lowered, that's a fact, jack. This thread really just sounds like someone trying to justify getting to drive drunk.

I didn't say anything about a few drinks, I said most people can function fine while violating the limit. Thats not true for drunk drivers, they are by definition - drunk. They already got behind the wheel and screwed up so badly a cop pulled them over.

Hey I'm a drunk driver and I'm okay
I drink all night and I drive all day!

And you should be removed from the road, as stated in the OP. You did read that, right? Or will I have to repeat this a 3rd or 4th time? Obnoxious strawmen make the baby Jesus

Yeah no. It's about slowed reaction times. If you're above the legal limit and you're behind the wheel, you're drunk driving. The fact that you think you're "fine" and will usually make it home means nothing.

Here's the OP again:

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...

Do you see the difference between drunk driving and BAC/DUI laws in there? There's one helluva difference between a drunk driver and someone "under the influence". Doesn't just the language tip you off to a change in policy?

I'm curious why you think it's this "MADD" organisation that got BAC instituted as the test, given that basically every country uses it as the standard and the rest of us don't have a "MADD" whatever that is?

Thats our history, and I'm sure you had activists in your country too. I doubt y'all passed a bunch of laws without someone demanding them first.

 

[History_Buff]

So everyone under 40 should have to show ID because a 25 year old could possibly pass for a 40 year old and an 18 year old could possibly pass for a 25 year old. Why not make everyone under 60 show an ID because a 59 year old could pass for 40?

No, I'm saying that anyone who looks like they're 25 or so should be ID'd. Their actual age is somewhat irrelevant. So a 45 year old who somehow looked 20 absolutely should be ID'd, whereas someone who looked 45 probably wouldn't be.

Though to be honest, I don't have anything against ID'ing everyone either.

 

[NovaKart]

The result is that everyone who looks 40 and under ends up getting IDd, because that person might look 25, in which case it would be legal to buy alcohol anyway, so what's the point again? The scenario you mentioned is a justification for Id'ing someone who is 25 or under but not over 25 and certainly not up to 40.

 

[bhsup]

You realize the use of justification here is way out of place. Private business, they can require whatever ID proof they want and don't have to justify it. If you don't like it, you can take your business elsewhere.

 

[NovaKart]

It's not the business that requires this, it's the law. Even if they want to change it they can't.

 

[Arwon]

Do you see the difference between drunk driving and BAC/DUI laws in there? There's one helluva difference between a drunk driver and someone "under the influence". Doesn't just the language tip you off to a change in policy?

Uh, no, not really. It's a distinction without difference. BAC's a way of objectively measuring drunkenness.

 

[Arakhor]

I don't drive, I don't live in a country which requires mandatory ID and I'm not stupid enough to carry around my passport with me. How would I prove my identity to buy alcohol, given that I'm under 40?

 

[JtheJackal]

You shouldn't be driving drunk, period. This is a very strange thread.

Why are you so annoyed with MADD? MADD is against drunk driving and it is unreasonable for you to expect them to expand their organization's focus if they do not wish to.

 

[Arwon]

I don't drive, I don't live in a country which requires mandatory ID and I'm not stupid enough to carry around my passport with me. How would I prove my identity to buy alcohol, given that I'm under 40?

You don't have proof of age / photo cards?

 

[warpus]

Mothers against drunk driving?

Join my organization, Drunks against childbirth.

 

[bhsup]

I don't drive, I don't live in a country which requires mandatory ID and I'm not stupid enough to carry around my passport with me. How would I prove my identity to buy alcohol, given that I'm under 40?

Nothing says you have to carry your ID with you. But if you want to buy some alcohol it's probably a good idea. You're perfectly free to not grab your ID as you walk out the door and not buy alcohol.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think a "Hands-free" phone should be allowed, but not a regular phone. Like it is in NYS....