Opinion: MADD As Hell And Can't Take It Anymore

By Kristen Walter
October 7, 2008

It's a good thing that activist groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD), coupled with the threat of legal ramifications keep individuals out of their cars after consuming alcohol, right? Wrong.

Every 39 minutes someone is killed by a drunk driver.

The MADD website indicated that in 2007 alone nearly 13,000 people died in car accidents involving a driver with a blood alcohol content (BAC) above the .08 limit. That's more than 30 percent of all traffic related deaths.

Yes, fatality rates have been cut in half since the 1980s, but they have hung around that same 35-42 percent for the past 10 years. What else can possibly be done short of taking away driving privileges and issuing everyone a bicycle?

MADD and SADD raise awareness of a problem that has plagued our streets for decades; and their voices have undoubtedly contributed to increased regulation and punishment of the offence. Why then are measures only taken after the first occurrence of a DUI?

In the state of Virginia, DUI laws alone should be enough to make drivers hang up their keys after happy hour. As a class one misdemeanor, a convicted DUI offender can face up to $2,500 in fines, a year in jail, a suspended license for a year, enrollment in the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program (VASAP) and the installment of an ignition interlock system on their vehicle, but only if BAC levels exceed .15.

So why are people still driving drunk? Perhaps attention should be shifted from treating the issue to preventing it from occurring in the first place.

An ignition interlock system is essentially a breathalyzer attached to an offender's car that must be passed before the engine will start. If the driver's BAC is over the preset level, usually .02 - .04, they physically can not drive their vehicle.

This sounds like it could be the answer to our nation's DUI problem by preventing the issue altogether.

Why should these breathalyzers be utilized only for people who have already committed the offense when it takes only one time driving drunk to cause an accident? If every car had some sort of device to test BAC before starting, would instances of drunk driving plummet?

It is a thought worth entertaining; especially with the recent buzz about lowering the drinking age back to 18. This means teens would be granted the privilege to operate a vehicle and legally drink all within a two year time span.

Is it certain that this adjustment will decrease the DUI rate? No; but it's something to consider.

Until action is taken to prevent DUIs from occurring in the first place, activist groups will continue to have something to be mad and sad about.

Comments (4)

Please let me make clear from the get-go, I do not support DRUNK driving. My mother was killed by a DRUNK driver,not a person who was drinking and driving, but a DRUNK driver. Do you see the difference? An alcohol related accident is not the same as an accident caused by a DRUNK driver.These are examples of phrases that MADD uses to inflate their stats. Stop and think about that for a minute. MADD started out with a noble cause. Their battlecry was "Friends don't let friends drive drunk" (A good idea). How did that morph into don't DRINK and drive? Thanks to MADD, the legal BAC has dropped from .15 to .12 to .10 to.08 and .04 is being pushed. Has the human body changed SO much in the last 20 years that we needed this? This makes it easier for anyone to get arrested for DUI. Remember, a DUI arrest = $$ for MADD. You see, MADD's goal is Prohibition,plain and simple. They are merely using the battle against DUI as a "Front" if you will. They can say they're not anti-alcohol,and I can say "Your check is in the mail".So what,they're a bunch of liars anyway. I remember when MADD's idea of those Nazi-style Czechpoints was supposed to end drunk driving. Right, good bye Bill of Rights.
MADD is pooping their pants over the Amethyst Initiative.
There's a debate that will expose those maggots. They claim the vast majority support a 21 year old drinking age. Right,
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/76848
What, MADD lied to us ? WOW !!!!!
Visit www.ridl.us and start waking up America,before it's too late !

YourPapersPlease | October 8, 2008 10:13 AM

Gentlemen and ladies

Wrong solution to a perplexing problem. I have been in the Ignition Interlock Device (IID) business for over 15 years and obviously followed its evolution and application during those years. The IID is designed, not only as a intervention device but also has data storage capability thereby providing monitoring of the user that can be given to the appropriate agencies. What you are looking for is a system that is transparent to the user. That when the user enters the vehicle, some form of alcohol detection is used that requires no interaction of the driver other than normal vehicle usage.
Then you enter into the social/moral questions, personal rights, public safety, at what level of alcohol detection is the vehicle immobilized. You should have fun with this question

Chick Richardson | October 8, 2008 10:31 AM

Gentlemen and ladies

Chick Richardson | October 8, 2008 10:32 AM

I think DAMM is a bit overzealous and very agressive in pushing these laws and regulations. The breathalyzer device would help for multiple offenders. I think the initial fines and sentencing is too light and more like a slap on the wrist.

Drunk Driving (chi) | October 8, 2008 11:26 AM

Name
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments:
	(Please only click once)

Opinion: MADD As Hell And Can't Take It Anymore

Comments (4)

Post a comment