Put another way:

Good ideas don't necessarily make good laws.

The original mad mom wound up getting a DUI a few years after starting the whole thing. Like any self-rightous group on a crusade (and hoping to never have to get real jobs) they have, however, proven themselves to be bigger than just her.

Changing the subject just a wee bit, I have always wondered why no one feels compelled to dig down to the basic premise behind enforcing DUI laws. That premise is that alcohol impairs one's ability to operate a motor vehicle. Going one layer deeper, it impairs that ability because it affects judgement, reaction time, and coordination. The underlying implication is that it takes a certain measure of each of these to drive safely. So that is the premise.

Now what if I can demonstrate that although I'm blowing a .10 or greater, I am still well ahead of average in all of these areas (I'm not; just hypothetically)? What if, conversely, I can demonstrate I'm well below average in all of these areas even when stone cold sober? This is a whole new can of worms. Maybe the MADD mothers would be kept off the road, and competent, experienced drunks would be good to go.

Re: MADD Wins
 

Unbelievable.

Just one more reason to stick with my classic P-car as opposed to the modern plastic junk on the road today.

Jeff, Carey Nation would have your head for even thinking that! MADD = New WCTU

What about G-meters in a black box that will only unlock the last 30 minutes only after a special code from a police search warrent?
Driving like an idiot and crash?

What about requiring establishments that serve alcohol to hold onto you licence. You get it back after a breathalizer next to the bar.
Licences will be printed without home addresses or something suitable..

There are a lot of ways to reduce drunk-driving without infringing on privacy and functionality. This would be a bad move Toyota.

Except that sterner punishment doesn't necessarily reduce the likelihood of the crime.

Quote:

What about requiring establishments that serve alcohol to hold onto you licence. You get it back after a breathalizer next to the bar. Licences will be printed without home addresses or something suitable..

And we all know you can't drive the car without that piece of paper and plastic.

How about the drunk driver who wipes out the family and gets probation, making it his fourth conviction.

Right before new years eve, I was driving back on the highway in the hardest rainstorm I've ever seen. Safe speeds were 55mph but everyone was doing 70. Three teens in a truck were parked across both lanes after spinning out, then took off at 80mph+.
I think the problem with their driving behavior started long before that night, alcohol-related or not.

I used to like and supprot MADD

But not anymore. All of the new laws they push for just are not well thought out.

How can I support someone who gets the legal limit down to .08 which is like a sip of wine.

IMO they hurt more then they help.

Join my club, DAMM, Drunks Against Mad Mothers. Send me 100$ n I'll send you a membership card, oh ya I'll try n get around to a news letter or somthin too.

We focus too much on the "drunk" part of the equation. How about any driver, for whatever reason, that does these things? It's no better or worse because they are drunk or sober. Whatever it is that contributes to an accident, be it innattention, sheer stupidity, or whatever does not change the responsibility. Nor should it change the nature and the level of the punishment.

My older brother was rear ended while sitting at a stop light, in broad daylight, on a sunny summer afternoon. Speed limit was 35; he got hit at 35. The guy never even touched his brakes, according to several witnesses following him. Turns out this guy had done something similar twice over the last few years. He was stone cold sober. He was approaching 80 years old. His family had fought succesfully to allow him to retain his license (as far as we know, he still has it even after this, his third collision). AARP is in his corner. No one wants to "restrict his freedom".

Jeff -- I bet that geezer STILL pays less for insurance than I do! :mad:

Are you defending this "Anti-DUI" vehicle technology?

The problem there is the JUDGE. Those are the cases i do sympathize with the cops. They go and place themselves at risk to snatch these drunks up, and BANG, some dumb-assed liberal judge lets them out before the ink on the criminal complaint form is even dry.

It's a joke.

duplicate post.

Did you see my first post in this thread?

Apparently not, or i wouldn't have asked. ;)

Actually i read it, just didn't connect the "Wludavid" dots properly between the two posts. You have my humblest apologies. :)