Tuesday, November 21, 2006

MADD loses their ever-loving minds.

Well, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers is about to lose support from this Peace Officer.

In a desperate attempt to prove that Nietzsche was correct, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers has issued the outline of their National Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving.

In pursuit of this goal this, they have stated Four Points.

The first of which is increased DWI Checkpoints -- a moot point for me, since Sobriety Checkpoints are currently unConstitutional in the State of Texas. As it should be.

It's the third tick on the MADD wish list that really sets the cat amongst the pigeons. Allow me to quote it here:

"Exploration of advanced vehicle technologies through the establishment of a Blue Ribbon panel of international safety experts to assess the feasibility of a range of technologies that would prevent drunk driving. These technologies must be moderately priced, absolutely reliable, set at the legal BAC limit and unobtrusive to the sober driver;"

Allow me translate that for the Gentle Reader: MADD wants technology developed to be installed in every car that will prevent intoxicated drivers from starting the car.

Right now, MADD is innocently proclaiming that this technology will be "entirely voluntary" and that within ten years they hope "...see voluntary application to general population with insurance premium incentives..."

Again, allow me to translate: "We're going to twist the insurance companies arms -- not that they'll need much twisting -- so that you'll either pay through the sinuses for the privilege of driving an un-equipped car; or the insurance companies will simply refuse to insure an un-equipped car."

Since driving with no insurance will get you ticketed, and a conviction for a no insurance ticket will get your driver license suspended or revoked, I really don't see this as being "voluntary".

I can see MADD's side. I've been a cop since 1993 and I've worked my fair share of drunk-induced fatalities. I've stood on more than one front porch in the dark with a preacher by my side, and news no family ever needs to hear on my lips.

I have crouched in mangled wreckage, spattered in blood, and begged innocents not to die while rescue crews worked frantically to cut them out of what used to be a vehicle -- and they still died on me.

Believe me when I say that I hate drunk drivers at least as much as anyone at MADD -- if not more so.

Nevertheless, you can not -- you CAN NOT -- trample on the rights of everyone else in your crusade to end drunk driving.

I am not a drunk. I am not a drunk driver. I do not want a piece of equipment with the "good enough" reliability of a cell phone or a computer operating system determining whether I should be allowed to start my car or not.

I do not want to install a gadget on my car to decide if I may start it because you're afraid that someone else in this country might be drunk.

Forcing me to put one of these things in my car -- and make no mistake: people will be coerced into installing these things one way or another -- forcing me to put one of these things on my car is a base violation of the core principle of America.

I have supported MADD since 1993.

No more.



Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, because most crusaders are low-lifes in search of undeserved power, I look upon all crusaders in the same fashion. So much for my opinion of MADD.

That said, I still have an other-side-of-the-coin question for you: how do you view seatbelts? I see far too many parallels between the "restraining device" and MADD's "anti-drunk-driving device." What say you?


Anonymous said...

Did MADD not used to have tucked amongst their "mission statements" an admission that they want to bring about a ban on all alcohol?

Huck Phinn said...

Years ago, research divers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography experimented with putting a small catalytic converter in the intermediate pressure hose of a SCUBA regulator and a small percentage of hydrogen in the tank’s breathing mix. The hydrogen hit the catalyst, consumed a negligible percentage of the available oxygen combusting to water vapor, and the diver received moist heated air at the mouth piece instead of the usual bone dry, chilled by expansion, air delivered by standard SCUBA. (The idea works and, from reports, provides a wonderful sensation but the body is fooled into believing it is warm, opens up the capillary beds in the skin for cooling and the gadget cannot be run hot enough to prevent a dangerous net heat loss.)

I wonder if I could build and market a small durable catalyst bearing valve to which one would attach disposable (CO2-style) cylinders of the appropriate gas mixture:

(Not available in stores, call 1-800-SOBER NOW)

Ron Popeil, check your e-mail…

Firehand said...

Gave up on MADD a while back, over the desire to move the line for DUI lower and lower.

This just reinforces the decision

Nathaniel Firethorn said...

Sounds like MADD has fallen victim to the kind of thinking that got the "smart" gun law passed in PRNJ. It's for the children... for the children... for the children...

princewally said...

If these devices ever end up as standard equipment, I will be bypassing it in my car.

Titan Mk6B said...

Uh, what if you don't drink? Will you still have to have one? Will it be an option like chrome wheels? What if I take prescription pain medication and even though I am not supposed to drive I still do? Will there be a blow thingy for that also?

They have now chosen insanity.

Ulises from California said...

Actually, MADD is only trying to help the Democratic War On Terrorism. Yes. By installing all these "safety" features into your car, you'll be forced to drive less. This will save about 100 Billion barrels of oil a year, causing Middle Eastern Terrorist Organizations such as Al Queda, to loose investment profits & collapse.

We'll be out of IRAQ and Afganistan in 6 mos., I reckon.


I suppose that MADD ought to keep to its core message: Don't Drive While Drunk! Anything else is insane.

Anonymous said...

MADD can go f*ck themselves as far as any addition to my car's starting system. However:

I've allways like the idea of summary execution carried out at the roadside by the arresting officer for drunk drivers.

My second choice would be a scandinavian style system: one DWI and you never hold a US driver's license again - ever.

Since there's no appeal or second chance for those killed or injured by DUI drivers, I feel no need to offer the drunks any more second chances than they extend to the res of us.

Oh, can you tell I don't drink?

Xanthippas said...

Well, this doesn't really fire up my outrage meter. I think it's impractical and won't happen, so there you go.

Of course people are getting drunk, driving, and killing people all the time, so it seems somewhat misguided to launch into people who want to prevent that, however impractical their solution would be.

Anonymous said...

Another CHP officer arrested? YIKES!!! At least it wasn't an embarrassing charge, no big deal. He was arrested (allegedly) for what most Cops have committed. But this one was arrested by one of his own, for ‘alleged’ DUI (emphasis on alleged.)

What’s real interesting is the alleged suspect arrested, is an assistant chief of the California Highway Patrol's Inland Division.

And worse, he was said to have been arrested in an official police car. OH NO, it can’t be?

It gets even worser. He was arrested while pulling into his own driveway.

Oh the good old days when we stopped Cops and gave them a ride home, are gone. However in most of my career, I gave almost EVERYONE a break, Cops included. Of coarse making sure they didn’t drive their car from the scene. Maybe one day I tell you how I accomplished that. But I can assure you, the drivers later realized how lucky they were (spirit of the law.)

Maybe this CHP official will agree with me. Despite of what MADD says, I believe the DUI BAC level in Calif should be raised from .08% back to .10% (at least.)

Remember all accused are innocent until proven guilty.

Here's the Article

Here's the Video, it's about 3/4 thru this 5 minute video


Tim Covington said...

MADD has fallen into the trap most "moral" crusaders fall into. They were sucessful in their early work (that was desperately needed), and need to have new goals that will fire up the membership. This means calls for more legislation and restriction. They have noticed that the decline in drunk driving fatalities has stopped. They have used education, harsher punishments and stricter enforcement. So, now they seek mechanical methods to continue their sucess. They care nothing about freedom or rights. They only care about their crusade to destroy what they see as evil.

As to the devices in question, their is a scene in the 40 Year Old Virgin that shows how useless they can be. A drunk young woman has the sober main character blow into the device for her. All you need is one person who is not impaired by alcohol to beat these devices.

Anonymous said...

"I do not want to install a gadget on my car to decide if I may start it because you're afraid that someone else in this country might be drunk."

Doing that is the very definition of the concept of "prior restraint," which is unconstitutional AND SHOULD ALWAYS BE SO.

It is EXACTLY akin to banning guns for all, because of the fear that the owner might be part of the 0.01% who will commit a crime with a gun.

Pgrl said...

This scares me to death. Just another thing that can go wrong in a car -- and what if the car makes a 'mistake' as machines are want to do, and decides you are intoxicated in a bad area in the middle of the night? Nope, don't want it. MADD is definitely INSANE.

Zundfolge said...

You've been a MADD supporter since '93?

What took you so long to leave them?

What started as a well intentioned group of mothers who wanted to educate people as to the dangers of drunk driving QUICKLY turned into a Neo-Prohibitions group.

They have become a defacto front for the Woman's Christian Temperance Union ... Carry Nation would be a proud little troll.

Anonymous said...

This past August I was hit head on by a guy drunk and stoned out of his mind. He had no prior DUI arrests or convictions, and no insurance. Even if MADD got their way, this guy still would have hit me, because he would not have cared about the insurance break.

Seems to me that sobriety devices are yet one more way to irritate law abiding citizens in an effort to stop the small minority of law breakers.

PS Lorkanaga
I've been in two major high speed (60+MPH) auto collisions and both times a seatbelt has saved my life and allowed me to leave the accident with bumps and bruises. I do not understand why people choose not to wear seatbelts in a car. A restraining device keeps you from getting tossed about like a ragdoll when you get smacked. I can appreciate the whole "wearing a seatbelt should not be a law" idea, but when I see an SUV go past me at 80 MPH down the highway with a bunch of kids tearing about the back of it, I know that if the driver of the SUV swearves too hard at that speed (because they got cutoff or something), they will roll and every single unrestrained person will be killed or critically injured. The cost of that will most likely be passed onto me either through my taxes, or higher insurance premiums. A seatbelt is not intrusive or invasive like a sobriety device, nor does its failure prevent you from starting your car (although new cars just nag you to death, and if not using my seatbelt does prevent me from starting my car, you'll hear me bitch and holler all day and night).

So please, someone tell me why a seatbelt is so bad.


Will said...

MADD seem to typify the feel good,if a little is good a lot must be better, it's for the children, it's for your own good, socialist, Democrats, group thinking.

I read some time ago that the founder of MADD was cited for DUI.

On the other hand, I hate drunks. I came close to dying twice because of a drunk, one a driver. I would support the Swedish(?) drunk driver system that takes the drunk directly to a judge who confirms DUI, and then goes directly to prison camp for one year. Aparently, you arrive in prison before you sober up. There is no appeal. They stopped their equivalent of our Vice Prez, off he went. There are no exceptions. Don't know what happens to repeat offenders.

I don't like the idea of adding stuff to every vehicle. It will be like the internal child locks on handguns, they will fail at a critical time. Already read of two instances of internal locks breaking and rendering the gun inoperable. No one died, but only a matter of time 'til it happens.

Anonymous said...

Correct, MADD is a neo-prohibitionist organization. It didn't used to be that way when it was founded by Candy Lighner as an organization to stop drunk driving. But Lightner left when the organization went neo-Prohibitionist.

People who have NEVER been accused or convicted of drunk driving should NOT be subjected to having to breathe in a breathalyzer to start their cars. Why annoy and punish innocent people with this? Put them in the cars of those who've been convicted of drunk driving, where it will actually have an effect. It's kinda like gun control; let's try to stop crime by affecting the law-abiding. Blah!

Kristopher said...

The decision to provide medical care as a welfare benefit by the State does not give them a lien on my body, or anyone else's.

If some dummy wants to endanger only himself ( like, by not wearing a seat belt ), he should have a right to be that stupid.

If you have a problem with seatbelt-less adults causing you unwanted tax expense, then the proper question is "Why is the State paying for indigent healthcare?", and not "How can we force everyone into Nerf Suits to save tax healthcae dollars?".

Anonymous said...

Most organizations are started with the best intentions.They then become politicized and take off in a direction that does no one any good.

Greenpeace is an example.

ACLU is another.

I think people who are habitual drunk drivers need to either have their licenses revoked permanently or jailed.

This is just another case of punishing the many for crimes of the few.

Papa Ray said...

America is on a dangerous downhill highway, moving fast toward a liberal/socialist induced wreck of this Republic.

Those of us who understand that, should prepare ourselves and our families.

It is going to be a three-way toss up, what will be the final swerve in the road; the illegals, the Islamics or our enemies within.

Papa Ray
West Texas

PubliusCicero said...

Crap like the Million Mom March and now this makes me think that, in retrospect, allowing women to vote or for that matter leave the house, was a bad idea.

Apologies in advance for lighting the place on fire, 'Dog.

Oxanna said...

MADD lost my support a long time ago. It's a shame, since the basic purpose is good - keep drunk drivers off the streets. BUT, requiring this technology in cars?!

*sound of head hitting wall very hard*

Cybrludite said...

Can we sue MADD into a smoking crater when the device gives a false positive when you're trying to get someone to the hospital due to a coronary or a stroke? If they're going to push for it, they should be forced to pay when the inevitable unintended consquences happen.

Dr. StrangeGun said...

The answer to seat belts and helmets as to basic rights is simple. Insurance companies get to withhold your portion of basic medical care coverage if you're in an accident without a belt or helmet on. It can be perfectly legal to drive or ride without one, but nobody but you will be paying for your stupidity when you crash.

Honestly, I think DUI's should be the same. Drunk and hit another car? It's out of your pocket for your damages bud... only the other guy gets anything.

*And* we ought to snag their licenses for an extended amount of time, perhaps as long as the requisite labor-prison sentence.

Anonymous said...

Society would not have the stomach for my solution to drunk driving resulting in death. If the drunk driver survives, remove his eyes. Quick, simple and guaranteed.

Jimmy said...

DUI is a political crime and the tyranny of safety will rule, like it or not.

Anonymous said...

OK, Does anyone have an issue with persons under 18 being required to wear seatbelts?

I could care less if a 30 year old wants to commit vehicular suicide by not wearing a seatbelt, but it irritates me when I see little kids crawling over the backseat at 80 MPH. Also, I agree with the idea that if you are an adult and do not want to wear a seatbelt/helmet, then the cost of scrapping your jellied remains off the road should be borne by you and you alone, or at the very least, insurance companies should require persons who do not want to use belts/helmets to carry an expensive safety rider so I don't have to pay for it later on.

I don't mind my taxes paying healthcare for someone down on their luck or mentally unstable (my definition of indigent), I do mind paying for someone being stupid and/or reckless.

It's that whole "Personal Responsibility" thing.


Rick T said...

I second Dr. StrangeGun's proposal, make helmet/seatbelt use a contract issue with your insurance company....

Besides, we need *something* to help clean out the gene pool, and letting the stupids kill themselves off by not using basic safety equipment is a good idea....

Rick O'Shea said...

One of my favorite gun control quotes is that it's "like trying to prevent drunk driving by keeping sober people from buying cars..."

Things like this make me wonder if that analogy is as ridiculous as it's supposed to sound...

Anonymous said...


Please send a letter to MADD. If they get enough such letters, particularly from law officers like yourself, then perhaps they'll start to climb down off their high horse.

1894C said...

Anonymous said...
"...Doing that is the very definition of the concept of "prior restraint," which is unconstitutional AND SHOULD ALWAYS BE SO...."

Hate to break it to you but Prior Restraint happens all the time to people who want to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.

Look up the 1968 Gun Control Act or even worse the Lautenberg Amendment to same, effective 30 September 1996.

Then talk to me about how prior restraint is illegal. The Constitution is just another outdated piece of paper to these people. Freedom is a punch line to them.

phlegmfatale said...

...and while they're at it, why don't they force us to install urine and hair sample testing equipment to make sure we're not hopped up on anything else? Then there's people torqued up on too much coffee. Um, people who've not had enough sleep recently... um, cellphone talkers... Wouldn't that be great? If the car wouldn't start and no one ate McDonald's and we got out of Iraq, no one would ever die again.

Anonymous said...

I think MADD has to learn ways to work WITH human nature rather than against it...

Anonymous said...

Thanks for helping to expose how dangerous MADD is. They must be stopped.

Mark W. Rutherford
Libertarian Party of Indiana

Next to Last Samurai said...

I don't approve of this at all. I don't drink, why I should be forced to pay for this gadget, and, as someone else pointed out, what happens if it malfunctions and won't let me start the car in emergency?

I favor Breathalyzer tests for all suspected drunks. If they flunk, a backup test. If they flunk that, still another backup test (with different machines each time). Third failure, the police officer draws his weapon, permanently removes the drunk driver from the roads, and calls the meat wagon to come get him. Removing the eyes, as someone else suggested, is also a good idea, but just shooting them is much cheaper.

Anonymous said...

If the insurance companies get involved it will come to pass. Just look at the car seat standards over the past 10 years. Because special interest groups pushed the issue, I now have to strap my children in car seats until they are 8 years old. Yes, it might be a safe thing to do but it should be MY decision, no one elses!!

sig94 said...

Same song, different vocals.

We already have laws on the books to handle just about any illegal situation you can imagine. We don't need more gadgets, restraints or analyzers. Just enforce the laws we already have.

Need thing you know the American Colon Cancer Society will be sniffing our assholes to see if we're eating enough fiber...

Anonymous said...

Make no mistake about it MADD is a bunch of Big Government Fascist Neo-Prohibitionist Nanny Statists. The worst part is they've managed to get they're damnable tentacles into the public schools and their proboscis stuck into the public trough. I've made it a personal mission to oppose the bastards at every turn locally. This coming from a non-drinker who has been a victim of a drunk driver at that. Like those “tattle boxes” they've recently put in newer cars some sort of ignition interlock would be the first thing rewire and defeat when I get the car out of the lot. I'll not have some damned “rat box” or some tube to blow in either. I've got a tube to blow for those who want to impose such Big Brother tools. Same goes for seat belt laws. If I wish to wear one I will. The state however, has no business telling me to do so which is what I've told those who have written me tickets and the judges when I've went to court to pay them.

Just say no to the Nanny State and it's busybody enforcers.

CarlS said...

For a look at MADD's proposal from a technical perspective, which exposes the long-term threats to privacy and pocketbook, look at this article:

CarlS said...

Apologies, my previous post has an error in the link. Read the article here - http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2006/112706buzz.html.

If you get an advertisement, click "Proceed directly to article".

Here's part of it: "Will the data collected by these onboard blood-alcohol measurement devices be wirelessly transmitted to your local police department? Why not? It would clearly help law enforcement ...."

Anonymous said...

The current state of these devices is that they're highly unreliable.

For example if you're diabetic and haven't eaten for a few hours you will get a false positive. So basically any diabetic who isn't eating every 2-3 hours can't drive a car with one of these installed.

And that's just one example, there's other false positives, and you can probably bypass or fool them if you're clever anyway.

Anonymous said...

I haven't read all of the comments on this, but I remember that in 1974 the Federal goverment tried to legislate manditory seatbelt usage.


Every 1974 automobile sold in the USofA had an interlock system installed on the automobile. Just in case of mal-function they also had a button under the hood that would allow a one start per button push.

Well, we all know how long this lasted... it was but a few months later that we were receiving information on how to disconnect the system because it was too inconvient for the masses.

No, this will never fly because it will inconvience the masses... read Hillary or Kennedy.


GeorgiaBoy42 said...

It's not just MADD who's lost their minds. If you take a nice long look, you'll see this country started spiraling out of control as soon as women were allowed to vote. Women are by nature, emotional creatures, and our founding fathers knew this well enough to keep their voices hushed when it comes to sound, reasonable decision making. The current DUI laws in Georgia (where I live) are about as draconian as you can get, even for first time offenders. If you're ricj enough, you can beat anything with a lawyer, as lawyers run this country and the rule of lawyer is at their personal disposal. So, it's not about discipline anymore- it's about how much money you have to grease the wheels of justice. Just ask OJ!

Rob Browning said...

MADD IS CORRECT! Many of these unknown poster are wrong or simply lying, including LawDog. Your "rights"? Consider just how often your "rights" are violated. My car was scanned several times today by law officers as I was innocently driving in a perfectly legal fashion. They checked my stickers to see that I obey the police state, they used their devices to monitor my speed, they looked to see my seatbelt fastened, made sure my brake lights, etc, operated, etc, etc, etc. Officers admit they often run a license plate of a driver in front of them WITHOUT ANY PROBABLE CAUSE. And you wimps are baby-crying about sobriety interlocks, Ha! They ARE coming and you can't stop them unless you eliminate drunk driving first. I, Rob Browning, of Mesquite, Texas, am a trained volunteer speaker for MADD who regularly addresses convicted DDs, underage drinkers, driver education classes, etc. As for your unsubstantiated claims that MADD is Prohibitionist, you are absolutely WRONG. Many MADD staffers and volunteers I know are very enthusiastic drinkers. I challenge anyone to produce any evidence that I or MADD are trying to prohibit drinking alcohol!!! Speak up, LawDog and all you other anonymous liars! MADD and me simply want to stop the drunk driving HOLOCAUST. If you think a sobriety interlock is "trampling" your rights, I presume you also oppose laws on seat belts, child seats, inspections, license tags, red light camera, emission control, auto collision construction standard, proof-of-insurance, speed traps, radar guns, traffic signals, speed limits, etc. Right?? Those are all infringements on my constitutional right-to-disregard-personal-safety. WRONG! I may be MADD, but you unknown posters are VIOLENTLY insane for wanting to continue the drunk driver slaughter just because you are frightened by safety technology. MADD WILL PREVAIL.