Advocacy & Safety - Does MADD make a difference?

I certainly don't dissagree with the concept of MADD, and I can only imagine the pain and suffering of surviving families, but I wonder how an orgainization like this can make a significant difference in reducing a serious problem like drunk driving.

I'm asking politely so as not to insult anyone. My purpose in asking this question is so I can understand. Please lets discuss MADD and what they do.

Being in Australia, I'm not familiar with MADD specifically, however, the power of lobby groups generally should not be underestimated. The issue here is that in a political system that basically relies on mob rule, numbers are going to make a difference. Let's face it, politicians are only concerned about votes, and hence anyone with a cause is better off showing them a few thousand votes than just one.

The issue of drunk driving is not one that really should be overly difficult to solve in theory. After all, there are already laws in place (out here at least) that prohibit it. All that's really needed is the political will enforce it properly. I, for one, believe that political will is going to be more forthcoming if there are a larger number of votes at stake.

I am sure they have made a difference in changing the attitudes of the more responsible drinkers and their media presence helps to remind those who may drink and drive not to do so. They are active in my province in questioning lenient sentencing in cases where a drunk driver gets away with murder. My family supports Madd by providing them with an annual donation, but I have to admit, I do not agree with some of their efforts, such as their stance on continuing the prohibition on marihuana and lowering the blood alcohol rate to unreasonably low levels.

:beer:

You should visit www.madd.org and see for yourself.

MADD is far and away the most active and effective organization in the US pursuing educational initiatives, public relations campaigns, and political action aimed at reducing the incidence of drunk driving.

Yes, in a culture like ours it's a huge, tough nut to crack. Americans believe they have a God-given right, handed down through the Founding Fathers, to drive, to drink, and to pretty much do any stupid thing they want to. Sadly, this attitude, being cultural, is reflected in the way laws are interpreted and enforced, if not the way they're written.

So when an organization like MADD takes on a mission like this, they are confronted with the necessity to influence -- and change -- behaviors that are part of the cultural fabric, even the "American Way of Life."

There's no pre-existing template for this. More data is being compiled all the time about what works and what doesn't. So they fight underage drinking through programs on college campuses. They lobby to get the permissible blood-alcohol levels reduced, and to toughen penalties for driving drunk with suspended licenses. They monitor the court system to see how conviction rates can be increased. A bunch of stuff, and you can read about it all on their site.

They also provide support and assistance to victims of drunk drivers. Family members and survivors can find counseling and support groups through their local MADD chapters.

The real point is that before MADD there was no other grassroots-level effort to get a handle on this terrible plague. And MADD is still by far the best known and most effective such organization.

RichC

The industry(brewers, bars and any place serves alcohol) has a big lobbying power. They make money by selling it, so they have the money. There is nothing wrong with greed for the money but the expense of other people's lives is. Compare to this, opposite side has no money coming in by speaking out for their rights. The voices of victim's families as an individual reach far short of the distance the opponents lobbying power can reach.

Even when the organization like MADD exists, the amount of influence gives to the congress between two sides are not even close. It is ridiculous to hear a driver whose license was suspended by the judge for drunk driving can walk out the court building, going home by driving his car, and nobody seems to think it's wrong and the law needs to be changed.

I think what we can do is to follow the same way it worked for tobacco industry. Every time somebody get hit by a drunk driver, sue the beer makers and whiskey makers instead of the driver. That's where the money is and where it hurts, it's the best way to send the message.

Originally posted by allgoo19
It is ridiculous to hear a driver whose license was suspended by the judge for drunk driving can walk out the court building, going home by driving his car, and nobody seems to think it's wrong and the law needs to be changed.

Thats not a problem with the law that is a problem with attitude. They guy is already breaking a law by driving on a suspended license which in this state means for vehicle will get impounded and you are off to jail.

MADD has done a world of good on how society views the drunken driver. As a young adult I had a roommate that got numerous DUI's with nothing more than a slap on the hand, and even a couple of times let off with a warning from the police. The efforts that MADD has made has changed all that. Most states have lowered amount of alcohol that you can have in your system, raised the drinking age and have mandatory jail sentences and heavy fines. They have come up in this state with a victims panels that as a DUI offender you must attend. That is where you spend an evening with people affected by drinking and driving and how they cope with it. It is not a very comfortable thing to sit through. I know I went through a DUI 10 years ago and it changed my outlook on drinking and driving. Yes with a lot of money and a good attorney you can walk away unscathed but that is a call for legal reform not new laws.

We need the Scandanavian attitude and laws here. In Norway, it is basically two strikes and you're out. First time, mandatory alcohol rehabilitation, driving privileges suspended for a year, I believe, and a pretty hefty fine. Second time, a year in jail, a huge fine, and loss of driving priveleges forever. No appeal.

Norwegians adapted to this quite easily. If they drink, they don't drive. All the Norwegians I have met wouldn't even think about drinking and driving.

Years ago, back in the 1950's, a family friend was nabbed well over a dozen times for DWI. But, since he was a traveling salesman, and he "needed his lisence" to pursue his job, the judges always just issued a warning. Even when his priveleges were finally suspended, he was still allowed to drive during working hours!

The influence of MADD finally put an end to such goings on, but it took a lot of time and effort.

Your right about the Norwegians they have a zero tollerance policy over there my folks were visiting family over there a few years ago anyone who was driving did not drink for thewm it was iresponsible as well as the risk of losing your driving privlages permanatly. We do need to do that over here and lose the work drivers liscence as well you screw up figure out some other way to get to work. (Trekrider this may send chills up tyour spine but I think we just agreed on something :D)

Originally posted by TrekRider
Years ago, back in the 1950's, a family friend was nabbed well over a dozen times for DWI. But, since he was a traveling salesman, and he "needed his lisence" to pursue his job, the judges always just issued a warning. Even when his priveleges were finally suspended, he was still allowed to drive during working hours!

Unfortunately, that still goes on in this country. :(

Keeping a drivers licence from being suspended due to work obligations no longer works here any more. It doesn't matter if you need a licence for work, it will be revoked. Also an first offence will get your licence revoked for 6 months and a +$500 fine, second offence 1 year suspension and $2000 fine, third offence is off to jail.
Also when a licence is finally re-instated the driver is only 1 point from losing it for the first 12 months. A single offence results in another fine and more time without a licence. All seems fair to me.

The real problem is with habitual drunks that have NEVER had a licence or insurance and drive regardless of any possible consequences.

CHEERS.

Mark

Originally posted by Dutchy
Keeping a drivers licence from being suspended due to work obligations no longer works here any more. It doesn't matter if you need a licence for work, it will be revoked.

Must be a state by state thing, because I know of someone up here who recently got one of those "you can use your car for work" clauses to work for them. Of course, this is in Queensland, where we are about 35 years behind the rest of Australia.

Originally posted by Dutchy
The real problem is with habitual drunks that have NEVER had a licence or insurance and drive regardless of any possible consequences.

A few car confiscations (and some serious time in prison for those who steal the cars to drive unlicenced and drunk) would fix that pretty quickly.

Originally posted by Gordon P
... I do not agree with some of their efforts, such as their stance on continuing the prohibition on marihuana and lowering the blood alcohol rate to unreasonably low levels.

1) 0.08 percent is NOT unreasonable, but is quite lenient by European standards.
2) If marihuana is to be legalized, the rights of nonsmokers must be vigorously protected, and driving under this influence must continue to be vigorously prosecuted.

I do agree with you, in the sense that I find American society's unequal treatment of potheads vs. imbibers hypocritical.

Hi John E, MADD recently gave my province the highest rating in the Canada for passing legislation to prevent drunk driving which is great, as I remember that it was such a common thing to do just twenty years ago. But as I stated earlier in this thread, MADD may be going a bit far if they think lowering the blood alcohol limit (BAC) to .05% will reduce the actual accident rate. I am not sure that will make much difference to the average drunk driver who will drive regardless of the amount they drink. .08 = 6 drinks for a 90 kg. male consumed in a two-hour period. Or .05 = 4 drinks in a two-hour period in the same 90 kg. male. I don’t own a car, nor do I drive if I have had even a single drink, so I am not trying to defend myself. In regards to Marihuana or any mind-altering pharmaceuticals for that matter, the drunk driving laws should also apply. Marihuana is now used as a medicine in Canada and there is no enforceable marihuana law in some provinces. If someone operates a motor vehicle while under the influence than they should loose their privilege to drive and if they do it twice take away their vehicle and put them in prison. However, if my government wants to end prohibition then MADD should advocate for legislation to prevent people from using intoxicants and operating a motor vehicle and not on furthering prohibition. In Europe, I believe Portugal passed legislation setting the BAC at .06% and Spain started a campaign to lower their appalling drunk driving recorded.

:beer:

BAC .08 driver is 11 times more likely to cause an accident than a driver without alcohol in the system. If you have other report, research says otherwise, I'll look into it.

If you can't drive a car just as safe as sober driver, not 2 times more likely, not even 10% more likely to cause accident, you shouldn't be drinking and driving.

In regards to Marihuana or any mind-altering pharmaceuticals for that matter, the drunk driving laws should also apply.
First, let me say that I am totaly opposed to driving under any kind of impairment, but I do think marihuana should be leagalized!
One of the problems of proving impairment is the lack of good testing to show "intoxication" levels in the blood. Almost all the test performed for marihuana use only shows that you have been using, not that you are under any kind of influance, nor are there established ranges for levels of intoxication. I think there should be more weight given to field performance test than the levels of a drug in the blood. Give me one glass of wine and you would never know I have had one, one glass of wine + 25mg Benidrill and I am out like a light! I may be under the legal limits but still impaired! Likewise someone may pee test Pos. for THC and not have been under the influance for days!

I performed urine drug testing for years. I can tell you that from the number of posative specimens that we would get in one day, that if marihuana usage was causing all the problems it is blamed for, we would be in a mess! The main drug that is destroying lives in this area is Meth! It has such a strong hold over it's users that it is almost impossible to break free of without professional help. I see it destroy families, and futures on a daily basis! I HATE this stuff!:mad:

My view is that the only reasonable level is nil. What's so difficult about deciding not to drink if you are driving?

As for Mary jane, similar rules should apply, also for any sort of medication which could affect your performance.

My view is that the only reasonable level is nil. What's so difficult about deciding not to drink if you are driving?

Chewa, as a cyclist and a pedestrian I agree that 0% would be ideal, but a big waste of enforcement money. Why punish someone who is going out, having wine or beer with a meal, and then driving home? I believe the focus should be on prevention and harshly punishing repeat offenders.
I was just re-reading my previous post and I just realised that .08 or six drinks in two hours for a 90 kg. male would leave me feeling drunk! That is two litres of beer! I kind of figured that .08 would be the equivalent of about two glasses of wine of three 35cl. Beers!

Regards
Gordon p

DUI= Driving under the influence so you can and are charged wityhit if they catch you with marijuana (note correct spelling :) ) .08 or .05 are more than fair. I have a Washington Srate Class B liscence (Truck) and I have 0 tollerence or I lose it more than fair I say.

Originally posted by ngateguy
DUI= Driving under the influence so you can and are charged wityhit if they catch you with marijuana (note correct spelling :) ) .08 or .05 are more than fair. I have a Washington Srate Class B liscence (Truck) and I have 0 tollerence or I lose it more than fair I say. I wonder if they can cite you for typing under the influence?
:D:D:D:D:


marijuana (note correct spelling :) One of the few you got buddy.

Originally posted by Dutchy
Keeping a drivers licence from being suspended due to work obligations no longer works here any more. It doesn't matter if you need a licence for work, it will be revoked. ...


Here, one can keep a driver's license for work, but in very few circumstances (ex.: first offence, just above the limit, no other infraction done...) But there is a catch: the person may use a car -- not a truck -- for work, but not to go to work.

But I think judges should look beyond a simple revocation of driving privileges. With the non-existent state of public transportation in rural areas, I don't think it is wise to revoke the driving license of someone who lives on a farm and works in the next village, and expect the person to stop driving at once. The judge should be able to order the person to switch jobs or to move closer to work, for instance, so that the car becomes unnecessary.

It might look drastic, but that might force the offender to look at a total lifestyle change.

Regards,

Originally posted by Gordon P
Chewa, as a cyclist and a pedestrian I agree that 0% would be ideal, but a big waste of enforcement money.


There have been laws with 0% level. In Québec, we presently have that requirement for drivers in their first two years.

However, while a 0% level looks good in the press, I think it would be wise and more exact to accept a very low level, like 0,02%, instead of 0%. Why?

1. Alcohol level decreases exponentially once it reaches a certain level. If you drink a whole bottle of vodka, your alcohol level decreases from, say 0,15 or 0,20% to 0,03% at a fixed rate of 0,03% per hour (if I remember the number correctly). However, from that low level, it's a more gradual decrease, so it takes very long to go from 0,01 to 0,005%, for example.

2. There are quite a few medications (including cough syrup) that have either alcohol or alcohol-like contents. There is no legal problem uless one drinks an entire bottle, but still 1 or 2 teaspoons may rise your alcohol level to 0,002 to 0,005%

3. At some point, a 0% limit becomes more a question regarding how precise are the breathalizers.


Regards,

hey guys check out this article...


http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/09/30/drowsy.drivers.ap/index.html (http://)

No tired driving, there's a fun one to enforce.


The first thing I think when I see a bike rider with a cigarette in his mouth is 'drunk driver-no license" heh heh

Another thing...if drinking and driving is discouraged...why have BARS that you have to DRIVE to??
That makes no sense at all, designated driver or not, it's just tempting people.

FXjohn

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/09/30/drowsy.drivers.ap/index.html (http://)

Originally posted by Gordon P
Why punish someone who is going out, having wine or beer with a meal, and then driving home?

Well,

I think the reason for people wanting the lower limits, as I do, isn't to punish your average person for drinking with a meal and driving home, it is to dissuade them from ever pushing the limit from that standard. In other words, dont drink and drive if there is ANY TINY chance you are impaired.

In other words, if people knew the consequences were more severe and more certain, then fewer of them would take the risk and drive drunk. Those that were dumb and still did, would end up on the recieving end of these severe and harsh penalties and would no longer be a thread to pedestrians and bike riders everywhere :)

FWIW, the standard of .08 currently allows a 180lb man to drink 3 drinks in 1 hour without being over that limit. Even if it were lowered to .05 that is still 2 drinks PER HOUR!. Here is a chart (http://www.iowaabd.com/alcohol/bac_chart/pr_bac_chart.asp) comparing .05 to .08.

I dont think asking a man to limit himself to 1-2 drinks an hour when he is planning to operate a vehicle to prevent risk to others is that much to ask.

take care,

Jester

Originally posted by ngateguy
Your right about the Norwegians they have a zero tollerance policy over there my folks were visiting family over there a few years ago anyone who was driving did not drink for thewm it was iresponsible as well as the risk of losing your driving privlages permanatly. We do need to do that over here and lose the work drivers liscence as well you screw up figure out some other way to get to work. (Trekrider this may send chills up tyour spine but I think we just agreed on something :D)

Naw, no chills, ngate, but I did mark my calendar!

Just because we disagree on politics doesn't mean we have to be disagreeable! In fact, we probably agree more than we disagree, and, if we ever met, I bet we would become pretty good friends. Of course, I would have to try to convert you to "fascism."

;)

Originally posted by mgagnonlv
But I think judges should look beyond a simple revocation of driving privileges.

I think people should be responsible for their own actions. If you have a job that requires you to drive or you have a long distance to get to work, and there is no public transportation in your area, why would you put your priveleges at risk by drinking and driving?

If you make the mistake when the consequences are known or would be known by a reasonable person, then you pays your money and you takes your chances.

Originally posted by Gordon P
Why punish someone who is going out, having wine or beer with a meal, and then driving home?
Regards
Gordon p

It's not about punishment. You have a choice of taking a taxi, bus, limo, all kinds. What you are saying is you don't want to give up the convenience and don't care about the danger to others.

Originally posted by allgoo19
It's not about punishment. You have a choice of taking a taxi, bus, limo, all kinds. What you are saying is you don't want to give up the convenience and don't care about the danger to others.

True! Driving is a privilege, not a right, and the privilege must be earned anew every time one drives a motor vehicle.

"When you choose an action, you choose the consequences of that action." -- Cordelia Vorkosigan

Originally posted by TrekRider
I think people should be responsible for their own actions. If you have a job that requires you to drive or you have a long distance to get to work, and there is no public transportation in your area, why would you put your priveleges at risk by drinking and driving?


Fully agreed.

On the other hand, once a person has proven himself not responsible by drinking and driving, then the sentencing should be such that it is realistic. My comment was basically that "simply" revoking the license doesn't seem to work -- especially in rural areas -- because people consider driving and their car essential, therefore, when we need to revoke their license, we should also require them to settle in an environment where they don't need it.

Or, another way to put it, if they want to keep their house 50 km away from work in a place where there is no public transportation, they should submit a plan to the judge telling him how they will manage.

I'm not having pity on the "poor lad" who drank way too much, I'm just trying to find a way to make sure the sentence is actually applied.

(Formerly Ebro38)

I don't think that "greed for the money is alright", because it usually does end up being at the "expense of someone else's life", whether it involves alcohol, cocaine, or oil.

If you call democracy "mob rule", Chris, what's your alternative? The problem is that the system tends to be dominated more by big money than the common good. However, it is still possible to mobilize people to combat the big money interests.

I've never been clear why a motor vehicle is able to travel at 150 mph or more when that's far above the posted limit in most places.

Bringing down maximum top speeds that vehicles are capable of would do a lot to reduce the annual slaughter on the roads (about 50,000 dead annually in the US, many more maimed, major war proportions) including that (large) part for which alcohol is responsible.

More effective enforcement of traffic laws would also help. Out here the roads are essentially in anarchy, with only a very small percentage of violators ever stopped.

That would require more money, but if, for example, oil-rich Iraq bankrolled its own reconstruction instead of the US taxpayer financing Cheney's Halliburton Co. to do it, we'd have money for all sorts of things. Like traffic law enforcement, national health care, & pollution cleanup, among other things.

Yesterday, Governor Rendell signed into Pennsylvania law a reduction in the permissible BAC to .08, along with stiffer penalties for repeat offenders and very intoxicated drivers.

There are Federal highway funds that require the lower BAC level, so PA had to scramble not to lose them.

Anybody who doesn't realize that MADD has been a prime mover in this trend towards stricter laws hasn't been paying attention.

RichC

Originally posted by Cyclepath
If you call democracy "mob rule", Chris, what's your alternative? The problem is that the system tends to be dominated more by big money than the common good. However, it is still possible to mobilize people to combat the big money interests.

My biggest problem with democracy is that short-sighted people with little intelligence who are unable to see the effects of drink driving (for just one example) have as much vote as anybody else. Just remember next time you see a stupid driver, cyclist or pedestrian when you're out riding, that this person has as much right to vote as you do. To be honest, I'm not sure which is more scary, that or the Nazis.

Ideally I'd like a system where someone's IQ dictated how much their vote was worth, but that isn't going to happen, so we're stuck with mob rule.

Originally posted by Cyclepath
I've never been clear why a motor vehicle is able to travel at 150 mph or more when that's far above the posted limit in most places.

Because it's what people want. What did I say above about mob rule? Common sense dicates that we should only have motor vehicles capable of driving at the speed limit and no faster. Sales, marketing and votes (don't underestimate the effect of advertising on election outcomes) dictates that people want cars that travel much faster, ergo, that's what we're stuck with.

Originally posted by Cyclepath

More effective enforcement of traffic laws would also help. Out here the roads are essentially in anarchy, with only a very small percentage of violators ever stopped.

That would require more money, but if, for example, oil-rich Iraq bankrolled its own reconstruction instead of the US taxpayer financing Cheney's Halliburton Co. to do it, we'd have money for all sorts of things. Like traffic law enforcement, national health care, & pollution cleanup, among other things.

Actually, steeper fines would act as a deterrent without necessarily driving up the cost. Start fining people $1,000 for speeding (if they can fine us $15,000 for using a hose in water-starved Queensland, what would be the problem?) and see how many repeat offenders you get.

And although it's off-topic, why should Iraq pay for it's reconstruction? They didn't ask to be invaded.

(Formerly Ebro38)
... I've never been clear why a motor vehicle is able to travel at 150 mph or more when that's far above the posted limit in most places. ...

Almost any car designed to accelerate safely to 120kph and to cruise efficiently at that speed will be able to break the speed limits on most roads (Autobahn excepted). I am much more concerned about inattentive or inebriated motorists driving at the speed limit, or drivers cruising through residential neighborhoods at 90kph, than about speeders on the Interstate.

And although it's off-topic, why should Iraq pay for it's reconstruction? They didn't ask to be invaded.


First: Kuwait didn't ask to be invaded either, and if i recall (warning! warning! sarcasm alert! sarcasm alert!) Saddam ponied up all the money needed to rebuild that country, right?

Second: Iraq violated the terms of its' unconditional ceasefire, which was to cooperate with UN inspectors without hesitation, deceit, and allow unfettered access. Ergo, the war could resume at a time, place, and style of the combatants choosing, just as any other war.

I might add the same thing is true in Korea, where both sides have violated truce terms over the past few decades.

roughstuff

First: Kuwait didn't ask to be invaded either, and if i recall (warning! warning! sarcasm alert! sarcasm alert!) ..........

roughstuff

You are incorrigible! :D

(Formerly Ebro38)


I've never been clear why a motor vehicle is able to travel at 150 mph or more when that's far above the posted limit in most places.



Not just that, but technology sure can play a far better role. With GPS satellites and a small monitor on a car's roof, wouldn't it be possible to monitor thousands of individual cars and assess fines for speeding that way?

Years ago on the Mass turnpike there was a proposal to calculate your (average) speed by looking at the time it took you to go between an entrance and an exit, since your toll ticket is time stamped. You could evade this by stopping at restaurants and such so the proposal never got far.

roughstuff

I've never been clear why a motor vehicle is able to travel at 150 mph or more when that's far above the posted limit in most places.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not just that, but technology sure can play a far better role. With GPS satellites and a small monitor on a car's roof, wouldn't it be possible to monitor thousands of individual cars and assess fines for speeding that way?



Is that what you want? I don't.



FXjohn

Not just that, but technology sure can play a far better role. With GPS satellites and a small monitor on a car's roof, wouldn't it be possible to monitor thousands of individual cars and assess fines for speeding that way?

Years ago on the Mass turnpike there was a proposal to calculate your (average) speed by looking at the time it took you to go between an entrance and an exit, since your toll ticket is time stamped. You could evade this by stopping at restaurants and such so the proposal never got far.

roughstuff

And Of course just who's tax dollars should pay for all of this?

Roughsuff are you suggesting yet another way our government can spend our hard earned money?

And Of course just who's tax dollars should pay for all of this?

Roughstuff are you suggesting yet another way our government can spend our hard earned money?


Oops. Is it Who's or whose? Who's gonna tell us?

Could be. I am not sure how much "bandwidth" (is that the right term?) monitoring all these cars would take up and cost, and if, in turn, the revenues generated from fines would be sufficient to offset those incremental expenses. Thats why I put it in the form of a question. Would savings in police surveillance offset some of the costs?

Of course there is also the other question about whether we WOULD want the government monitoring us in this way.

roughstuff

Of course there is also the other question about whether we WOULD want the government monitoring us in this way.

roughstuffPerhaps this technology could be applied to anyone already convicted of speeding. If drivers knew they would be tracked if caught speeding maybe they would think twice about it the first time. You could use the fine to pay for, or at least offset, the cost of the tracking equipment. And as long as you haven't been caught you wouldn't have big brother watching you.

SteveE

"My view is that the only reasonable level is nil"

I'm gonna have to disagree and say that a beer is OK in my book if it's with a meal. I do it all the time with no adverse effects. If I drink two, I get a driver...