Has MADD gone mad? Is MADD demanding that alcohol detection devices be installed in every vehicle?!

Published on November 20th, 2006

Posted by SN in General

The way this story is being reported is that MADD wants alcohol detection devices to be mandatory on any car used by any person convicted of any drunk driving offense. But sprinkled throughout these reports is something a little more sinister…

Boston Channel – November 20, 2006:

As the holiday season gets under way, there is a major effort to wipe out drunken driving in this country.

A new campaign calls for alcohol detection devices in every vehicle.

CBS News – 11/20/06:

You have a few drinks, climb behind the wheel of your car, turn the key and — nothing. The engine doesn’t turn over, the car doesn’t move.

If Mothers Against Drunk Driving has its way, a device that checks a driver’s alcohol levels will be mandatory in cars owned by anyone ever convicted of drunk driving, and, eventually, every automobile.

The Age – 11/21/06:

ALCOHOL detectors may be fitted to all vehicles in the US after private and government experts agreed that the deterrence tactic used against drink-drivers for the past 20 years was no longer working.

56 users responded in " Has MADD gone mad? Is MADD demanding that alcohol detection devices be installed in every vehicle?! "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 xfir1 said, on November 20th, 2006 at 1:42 pm

Assuming the snowball lives, how long will it be before someone finds a way to crack the device so as to never give a positive reading?

# 2 Raff said, on November 20th, 2006 at 1:52 pm

I say we start a counter-organization now.

D.A.M.M.

Drunks against Mad Mothers…

Whos with Me…

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

# 3 Mike said, on November 20th, 2006 at 1:52 pm

Lot’s of sensationalist (and poor) reporting. This is the real story:
“The organization’s plan includes working with state officials to require breath-test interlock devices in vehicles for all those who have been convicted of drunken driving – even first offenders.”

Still pretty strict, but not “every vehicle”!

I’d be happy if (in MA, at least) the courts got serious. I am tired of hearing about drunk driving accidents caused by multiple offenders (4, 5, 6 convictions…!)

# 4 John C Dvorak said, on November 20th, 2006 at 1:56 pm

Like this will work. “Hey pal (hic) can you blow into my tube for me, so I can go hooome.?”

# 5 SN said, on November 20th, 2006 at 1:58 pm

#3. “Lot’s of sensationalist (and poor) reporting. This is the real story…”

Did you even read what I wrote?

The way this story is being reported is that MADD wants alcohol detection devices to be mandatory on any car used by any person convicted of any drunk driving offense. But sprinkled throughout these reports is something a little more sinister…

I then included three quotes from three different articles that are calling for devices in every/all vehicles!

The least you could do is read the posting before commenting and making an idiot of yourself.

# 6 DeeCee said, on November 20th, 2006 at 2:02 pm

When the bar closes, giving a bj will have another meaning.

# 7 Mike said, on November 20th, 2006 at 2:11 pm

#5
My, aren’t we sensitive. I was referring the reports you cited, not your reporting. Perhaps you ought to read my post with your glasses on before making an idiot out of yourself…

# 8 Improbus said, on November 20th, 2006 at 2:17 pm

I am not as think as you drunk I am.

# 9 DeLeMa said, on November 20th, 2006 at 2:30 pm

All right kids..both of you to your corners…better yet, let’s have a drink and talk about being idiots rationally…
I’d be all for the MADD proposal but, I still got the mind think that if you give those bastards an inch, they’ll blow you a mile !!
I know, let’s continue to shift responsibility towards the tavern owners!
Hey..it worked for smokers in my state..we gonna tax them into quitting…yepper..makes me wonder why we didn’t get to include the stoners though..woulda been nice to get some taxes outta them bums !! …..gosh !! am I HUNGRY or WHAT !!

# 10 Bob said, on November 20th, 2006 at 2:34 pm

Well we let them tie us up with seat belts. So before long you’ll be wearing a helmet and a fire retardant suit. It’s a short step from there to a device that you constantly breathe into no breath or a .08 and the car quits.

# 11 SN said, on November 20th, 2006 at 2:37 pm

#7. “My, aren’t we sensitive.”

Sorry about that Mike. I made an ass out of myself!

Anyway, I agree about the bad reporting. My first guess is that some reporter simply added the “every” to the story to make it more interesting. Because there are no quotes linking it to MADD. But once that reporter did it, everyone else included it to make their stories more interesting.

My second guess is that the MADD spokesperson said something off the record about wanting the devices on all cars. And then the unscrupulous reporter put it in unattributed.

# 12 Improbus said, on November 20th, 2006 at 2:38 pm

I guess everyone will have to swtich to weed to get around the alcohol detection devices. This is sort of like trying to outlaw stupidity.

# 13 spsffan said, on November 20th, 2006 at 2:51 pm

To do my usual job playing devil’s advocate…..

What’s wrong with drunk driving? Millions of people do it safely every night, some of them every night for years on end. Heck, some of them in the middle of the day.

The problem is causing a collision. Doing so sober is one thing. Doing so drunk is well, let’s say premeditated. (or premedicated, heh)

How’s about a manditory prision sentance for causing a collision while intoxicated? No ifs, ands or buts. A year in the penn for first offenders seems about right. Life for the second.

DAve

# 14 Sundog said, on November 20th, 2006 at 2:51 pm

Can we return to freedom and common sense in this country. Can we stop being afraid of every little danger out there? People die, there are accidents, if you eat too much fast food, you die. If you smoke too much you die, you could be endangering others with second hand smoke. I am required to where my seat belt when driving a car thats required to have an air bag, in the meantime I can ride my Harley in Colorado, and guess what? I dont even have to wear a fucking helmet! For Crying Out Lloud.

US Govt. LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE!!!!!!!!!!

# 15 Gonster said, on November 20th, 2006 at 2:55 pm

I wonder what the rate of re-offenders really is. I also wonder how many cars they might have access to. How could you know? What choice would you have but to put the interlocks into all of them?

I’d be all for increasing the taxes on bars to fund an insurance pool for covering the damamges drunks cause. Liquor at home would be taxed less. The loss of the neighborhood bar that you could stagger home from without driving left us with the sprawlification of America.

We could fund all kinds of things if we were to tax weed the same way we tax alcohol and tobacco.

# 16 Canucklehead said, on November 20th, 2006 at 3:10 pm

The problem is drinking and DRIVING. If we had neighbourhood pubs, and better public transit, and less cookie-cutter subdivisions, then the problem would disappear.

# 17 MisterRustic said, on November 20th, 2006 at 3:19 pm

If you live close enought together for public transit to work, you live in HELL. 10 acre lots for urban areas and bigger rural would be about right. In a desirable worl, it’s not possible to not drive.

That being said drunk driving ain’t the way to go either. Bars should have attached dorms where you can rent a cot and sleep it off. (Becasue, of course, not drinking is not acceptable either. )

# 18 Raff said, on November 20th, 2006 at 3:28 pm

Why don’t we just make rides free for drunk people.. make that part of the taxes we pay when we buy alcohol.. gotta be cheaper than installing devices in every flippen car in america..

# 19 tallwookie said, on November 20th, 2006 at 3:46 pm

I agree w/ #13

Ive done a lot of drinking and driving and have NEVER been pulled over for it – its all about how much you practice…

and madd can go suck it

# 20 Tom said, on November 20th, 2006 at 3:55 pm

RE: #13…

I don’t think we should be applauding pure dumb luck…

# 21 Eddie said, on November 20th, 2006 at 3:56 pm

I was nearly killed last summer by a head on collision with a drunken uninsured motorist on his 18th birthday. I was an avid jogger, now I walk with a limp. He got 1 month in jail (not prison), and since he has no money, hasn’t even paid my deductible. He has to use a in car breathalizer for 1 year. I commend MADD for pushing the issue. He should have to use an in car breathalyzer for as long as I’m handicapped (forever). That said, the rest of us responsible drivers don’t need nanny state devices.

# 22 Angel H. Wong said, on November 20th, 2006 at 4:08 pm

I can’t drink booze.. I’m allergic to alcohol

# 23 Mike said, on November 20th, 2006 at 4:31 pm

#11 (SN)
No harm, no foul. Keep up the good posts.

# 24 RBG said, on November 20th, 2006 at 4:50 pm

How completely, completely weird that while reading this item I should receive a call from a fellow who happens to be a spokesperson for MADD (and once was injured beyond comprehension by a drunk driver).

So I was able to ask him directly about the blow device. He mentioned that the system is designed to have a thumb recognition device positioned exactly where it needs to be when the head is in position for the blow. But he admitted, it ain’t fool-proof. I began wondering why a driver over the limit couldn’t just use a can of compressed air or rubber bulb or plastic bag or a ready balloon of old air, etc. to foil the system. Maybe just the hassle.

But I think MADD is going to have to change its name to MAZOTUD – Mothers Against Zonked Out, Toked Up Drivers – eventually. Especially with countries like Canada considering legalization of marywana. And you’re all upset about deaths in Iraq? C’mon…

RBG

# 25 John Henri Allyn said, on November 20th, 2006 at 5:04 pm

I’m too lazy to read this one, is it M.A.D.D like Dr. Claw?

Dr. Claw “I’ll get you next time Gadget! My new Dr. Claw Seatbelts will take care of you!”

Mad Cat ” Ke Ke Ke Ke”

# 26 Mr. Fusion said, on November 20th, 2006 at 5:47 pm

As a disclaimer, I very seldom drink and am almost always the Designated driver.

#14, How sad. If you want to eat yourself to death or smoke until the cancer kills you then feel free. It’s your health. But when you sit behind the wheel of a car drunk then it is ALL of our business. I have lost three friends to drunk driving over the years and know several others that have been severely injured. Your right to being an asshole does not extend to hurting others.

Jail should be mandatory for drunk driving. License suspensions should be at least a minimum of 1 year for the first offense, 5 years for the second, and 10 years for a third. I’ll leave it up to Colorado or the Virgin Islands whether being an asshole should be punished as a felony or a misdemeanor.

This is an attempt to limit drunk driving and I’m all for it.

# 27 James said, on November 20th, 2006 at 5:58 pm

MADD has lost there credibility with me. If they pursued these issues w/the habitual, and completely tanked up drunks who truly are a menace to us all I’d agree with them…… but if those zealots had there way you wouldn’t be allowed to drink at all.

My guess is, one DUI and they’d never let you drive again if they had there way. And, no, I have never had one. I drink, I drive,…. I use my brain to know when I can and when I cannot.

There’s has to be a middle ground people between responsible consumption and wacked out craziness. When they get to a place where they are pursuing the latter and NOT the former I’ll support them.

Until then, they are just a bunch of crazies themselves. Like most of the right-wing bible-thumpers.

# 28 James said, on November 20th, 2006 at 5:59 pm

*their credibility….. and I forgot a good hyperlink:

http://www.getmadd.com/

# 29 catbeller said, on November 20th, 2006 at 6:13 pm

Definition of a police state:

The police stop acting as your protectors and start acting like your prison guards.

Not one more inch. Stop this insanity now.

# 30 catbeller said, on November 20th, 2006 at 6:15 pm

You know, I’ ve never heard of a fatal car accident caused by marijuana?

# 31 AB CD said, on November 20th, 2006 at 6:17 pm

I take it you also support checkpoints for sobriety checks? And also searching cars for drugs and illegal cigarettes?

# 32 ChrisMac said, on November 20th, 2006 at 6:21 pm

If a drunk driver injures or kills someone, they get demonized..
If a sober driver injures or kills someone it is generally deemed to be an accident.. I’ve personally never understood this logic.

If sober drivers were driving within the rules and paying complete attention.. Will they never have an accident?

Although, I do agree, that if you hurt anyone while driving drunk that should be you last go at it..

But above all.. The crime shouldn’t be driving drunk.. It should be causeing others injury while driving..

Most accidents aren’t caused by drunk drivers.

# 33 Bryan Price said, on November 20th, 2006 at 6:28 pm

MADD isn’t going to be happy until the legal limit for alcohol is 0.00%.

They’ve already been given that inch. That’s pretty damn obvious.

# 34 John Henri Allyn said, on November 20th, 2006 at 7:12 pm

32 that may be true but when you purposely impair yourself before driving that is why you get demonized. You can screw up when you’re sober but if your plastered and you choose to get behind the wheel, thats essentially premeditation.

# 35 JimR said, on November 20th, 2006 at 7:30 pm

#25 Mr. shortFusion… good post on #14, exactly what I wanted to say but I liked your flare on this one. It also applies to tallwookie #19 who apparently needs some growing up to do.

# 36 Joe B said, on November 20th, 2006 at 7:35 pm

#30
Maybe not a car accident, but marijuana was a contributing factor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chase,_Maryland_rail_wreck

According to Wikipedia:

Engineer Gates later admitted that he and Edward Cromwell had been smoking marijuana and had overlooked the necessary safety precautions. Gates was eventually charged with homicide by motor vehicle, a statute in Maryland that specifies locomotives as motor vehicles.

# 37 ChrisMac said, on November 20th, 2006 at 7:40 pm

that’s the arguement.. and like most arugments.. it is flawed

you’re assuming everyone that causes damage while driving over.08 premeditated it or did it purposely…

If someone is doing that.. lock em up/take away their liscense.. whatever

But when it’s an accident.. the scapegoat shows up as.. They had alcohol in their system..

I just think there’s more to it than that..

# 38 jccalhoun said, on November 20th, 2006 at 8:19 pm

How foolproof are these devices anyway? Would something like using a can of air to blow in the hole work? Even if it didn’t, it wouldn’t be hard to find the person who just came to the bar to blow into the thing for you for $20 or something.

# 39 Mr. Fusion said, on November 20th, 2006 at 8:20 pm

#37, Chris
It’s a fact that alcohol reduces your reaction ability and response time. It is also widely known, and also part of the driver test in all jurisdictions, that you will be responsible if you drink and drive. Drivers that have been drinking may not be the primary cause of the accident, but their diminished ability to avoid the situation may be a contributing cause and even increase the severity of the collision.

Again, your right to be stupid does not extend to sharing the consequences of that stupidity with other innocent people.

# 40 ChrisMac said, on November 20th, 2006 at 8:28 pm

MY reaction?

Where is this test.. and how soon can i take it…

# 41 ChrisMac said, on November 20th, 2006 at 8:47 pm

and also part of the driver test in all jurisdictions, that you will be responsible if you drink and drive..

Agreed!

Always resposible..even if sober

# 42 Sundog said, on November 20th, 2006 at 8:55 pm

Fusion- obviously my rant was about the fact that they (MADD) would like to require this device in all vehicles. And I think you know thats what I was talking about. I am really tired of govt intervening in every aspect of our lives. No sane person supports getting behind the wheel when they are drunk. But I also dont believe seatbelts should be mandatory either. I wear one, because its the smart thing to do, I also wear a helmet on my motorcycle, even though I am not required to. You are a little too quick with the asshole switch.

# 43 AB CD said, on November 20th, 2006 at 10:37 pm

How many of you complained whern MADD got there wish of lowering drunk driving levels to .08? I think this is too low, and renders void the drunk driving laws’ justification.

# 44 ChrisMac said, on November 20th, 2006 at 11:02 pm

now we’re getting somewhere..

# 45 Juan Cardona said, on November 21st, 2006 at 3:00 am

Trying to get technology to do what education and acknowledging your own responsibility is never a wise choice. The devices, no matter how sophisticated they are, are hackable and before you know it someone’ll come up with a bypass or something else so millions will be spent in the wrong direction. If someone is irresponsible enough to drive while drunk, what’s gonna stop him/her to go get the system hacked/bypassed or removed altogether???

# 46 gquaglia said, on November 21st, 2006 at 6:55 am

MADD reminds me of that gun control group that Jim Brady’s wife was the spokesman for. They like, MADD had good intentions, but took it overboard to the point where they no longer seemed credible and people stopped listening to them.

# 47 Abram Nichols said, on November 21st, 2006 at 10:21 am

Ok, I have to ask, why is this a bad idea? If you’re just a little over the limit, but still feel like you can drive, you’ll have to wait an hour or so before the car will work. Big deal. Go grab a slice of pizza or something and sober up a little. If you’re way over the limit, you shouldn’t have driven in the first place buddy. Leave your car where it is and get a cab home. Or sleep in your car. Either way, you don’t have to worry. Think of these things as anti-worry-that-I’m-gonna-get-pulled-over devices.

See the con side

# 48 meetsy said, on November 21st, 2006 at 10:26 am

Great…now people will be “designated blowers” …I can see every bar hiring one to hang out and …for a fee…blow in the tube. Sounds like a business opportunity for the LDS church, Muslims and other non-drinking groups.
MADD has good intentions, but let’s face it…they can get a little shrill.
Drunk driving is an issue, and a problem, but so is pot-impaired driving, and prescribed meds impared driving, tired driving, and angry driving. As far as all auto accidents go…we must also consider cellphone distracted driving, screaming kids in car spilling stuff distraction driving, and flat out tired out, overworked, sleepy driving. And, then there are the bald tires, mechanical defects, and cars that should be on the junk heap!
It’s all to easy to get a license, and people take driving way to casually, and our public transit systems (in most areas) were destroyed in the 50’s to make way for more cars.
MADD has too small a focus.

# 49 BHK said, on November 21st, 2006 at 12:33 pm

#47 – forget the pizza, it’ll make you fat. Fat people = higher healthcare costs for everyone. Accepting the premise that we have no self-responsibility for our driving but must be given permission by the state to even turn on the car means accepting that it’s ok for the government to tell us what to eat, how to live, how to dress, etc.

As for me, I’ll make a mint seling devices to disable these damned things.

# 50 hamgrl said, on November 21st, 2006 at 2:06 pm

It is beyond me that anyone would argue against it…oh wait thats right ….we are in America where the attitude is..” I dont give a fuck what happens to you as long as it doesnt infringe on my right to drink and drive and possibly smash your brains in or better yet your childrens’ ”

My bad…

# 51 Charles Ellis said, on November 21st, 2006 at 2:28 pm

I was actually talking about this with a friend the other day, after noticing the person in the car next to me using one.

I’m of the opinion that these things, being complicated devices, would be prone to breaking, which would limit their inclusion in vehicles severely.

Imagine if you couldn’t get to work because the breathalyzer in your car was on the fritz and either wouldn’t take any reading, or presented a false positive. Not to mention the problems with alcohol-based mouth washes…

# 52 Sundog said, on November 21st, 2006 at 2:37 pm

50. Slaves with training wheels.

# 53 OhForTheLoveOf said, on November 21st, 2006 at 3:26 pm

#16 The problem is drinking and DRIVING. If we had neighbourhood pubs, and better public transit, and less cookie-cutter subdivisions, then the problem would disappear.
Comment by Canucklehead — 11/20/2006 @ 3:10 pm

Drinking and driving may or may not be affected, but a billion other problems would be solved if we just carpet bombed all those god-awful cookie cutter suburbs.

As far as I am concerned, the suburbs is where frightened white people go to hide from culture and dark people… and cabins in the woods are just for miserable misanthropes.

Sure, I’m a misanthrope too, but I prefer to hate people face to face

#17If you live close enought together for public transit to work, you live in HELL. 10 acre lots for urban areas and bigger rural would be about right. In a desirable worl, it’s not possible to not drive.

That being said drunk driving ain’t the way to go either. Bars should have attached dorms where you can rent a cot and sleep it off. (Becasue, of course, not drinking is not acceptable either. )

Comment by MisterRustic — 11/20/2006 @ 3:19 pm

Speak for yourself. If I can’t get chinese food at 3 AM then I am in Hell… and I’m in Indianapolis, so I’m in the 13th largest city in the US and it is too damn small for me. In an ideal world, I wouldn’t have a car.

As far as I am concerned, New York and Chicago are the two absolute best places on Earth to live… and that’s only because I don’t speak the language in most of the cities that are larger.

But to stay on topic, I don’t drink and I don’t get the appeal. Most alcohol tastes like dog piss (not that I’d know) and drunks are idiots who deserve no sympathy.

I say, first offense, 30 days minimum. License suspension of 6 months or more. Got a job? Too bad, you aren’t going. And your employer will NOT be legally required to hold your job.

Second offense, at least a year. License suspension for 5 years.

Third… 3 years… You ain’t never driving again… and if anyone dies, ever, it’s premeditated murder.

If you think I’m being harsh, then try peeling a corpse off a tree or cleaning a baby off a windshield. If you think you can control a car after drinking you are wrong and you are an idiot. You should be in jail.

As you may know, I used to drive a cab and prior to that I bounced in a bar. Drunks aren’t funny or cute. It’s not a delightful phase. It isn’t harmless fun. Almost 100% of the time, when I’m involved with the cops, it also involves alcohol.

Social drinkers, copping a buzz, or pot smokers, or whatever, isn’t a problem. You can use drugs responsibly, in controlled situations. But operating a vehical under the influence is a crime that should be punished harshly and without compassion.

Maybe my view is colored by years of dealing with drunks and alcoholics, and from witnessing the devastation these people cause… but there it is.

# 54 ChrisMac said, on November 21st, 2006 at 9:07 pm

#53.. and all i was trying to say.. is that those penalties should apply to everyone who causes an accident causing harm.. drunk or sober

Back Back Refresh

# 55 kr said, on February 21st, 2009 at 5:04 pm

come on now the majority of people have all drove after a couple or even more drinks in their system. Does not make it any different. You just havent got caught.It doesnt make it right but dont be so judgemental or doublestandard. Look at society if it was such a big deal they would legalize it. Its a money maker people as if we didnt know. Its sad and terrible for all the fatal accidents but on the other hand people are surrounded by liquer all the time in entertainment. Resteraunts, movies, sports, numerious of events and you tell me how many of those people call for cabs. Not very many. I need a drink!

# 56 kr said, on February 21st, 2009 at 5:11 pm

k chris i agree. The idias can go on and on its just this problem will contiune as long as there is alchohol. It just a big racket because people will continue this behavior for decades to come.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!