When I agree with Glenn Reynolds:
RADLEY BALKO: Putting MADD in Charge of America’s Highways. “With Hurley in charge, MADD’s goals will become NHTSA’s goals. That’s troubling because at heart, MADD is an activist organization. The groups once-admirable goal of raising public awareness about drunk driving has over the last several years morphed into a zealous, evangelical teatotaling campaign. When a coalition of college presidents recently asked for nothing more than a new debate over the federal drinking age last year, for example, MADD called on parents to boycott the presidents’ schools.”
MADD has been off the deep end for years. They have been enablers of America’s treatment treadmill, and have made it impossible to to just go out and have a few good times with a few good friends. The .08 limit has been a money maker for states- its increased the number of DUI arrests and not made a real dent in anything.
There once was an insurance study that noted the Blood Alcohol level in DUI arrests resembled a bathtub curve: between .08 and .11 it went up-starting at .12 it dropped off a lot and did not start back up again till .18. That’s not surprising. There are two types of people out there-those that just have one too many and those who are not going to stop no matter how stringent the law is. The first is being punished in vain efforts to ensure we get the second.
Speaking of drunks-in sports, the Pens sent the thuggish Flyers and their drunken reprobate fans home. Give me a beer!
I would be more interested in seeing the correlation between BAC and traffic accident fatalities/injuries instead of BAC and DUI arrests. Are injuries less severe or deaths any less significant in situations where accidents are caused by the “those that just have one too many” group?
If you really want to drink and head on down the road, get a bicycle. That way, if and when an accident does occur, there’s a much better chance that only you get hurt, myself and my family stays safe and whole, and I only have to spend some time at the auto body shop instead of funerals or physical therapy.
Sure, current policy isn’t able to make a dent in the “those that are not going to stop no matter” group, but doesn’t it have some beneficial effect (via risk reduction) for those of us motoring down the freeway in a state of sobriety?
You’ve lost me on this one.
Nothing to lose you on. If we want really stringent standards-then fine. However most nations that do have those (Like Japan with a .03 limit) also have decent public transportation-and/or plentiful cheap taxis.
.10 was always the correct BAC limit IMHO. I think if you did pull your correlation between BAC and accidents you would find the overwhelming majority are over that amount. Well over.
The quoted article sums it up well-MADD’s supposed risk reduction efforts have made the roads more dangerous:
Hurley has also aggressively pushed for the use of constitutionally-dubious roadblock sobriety checkpoints to enforce the new standard, even though there’s convincing evidence these invasive tactics have actually made the roads more dangerous. DWI deaths began inching upward again as the roadblocks were implemented in the early 2000s. It isn’t difficult to see why. Roadblocks are designed to catch motorists who aren’t driving erratically enough to be caught with conventional law enforcement methods. The officers who staff them would otherwise be out on the streets, looking for actual drunks who pose an actual threat to highway safety.
Not to mention the literally thousands of people who have albatross of “addiction treatment” placed around their necks because of MADD’s vigorous support of mandatory 12 step programs for people who are no more alcoholics than anyone else.
I probably could have worded the second sentence of the first paragraph a little better. I should have added “to the families of the victims” after the word ‘significant’.
Re the article –
1) “Critics at the time pointed to numerous studies showing that motorists aren’t significantly impaired at .08,…” So then, I’m not at any increased risk if I’m sharing the road with someone who’s partially impaired. Did I read that correctly? Heck, I feel better already.
2) “Roadblocks are designed to catch motorists who aren’t driving erratically enough to be caught by conventional means — and consequently, aren’t as much of a threat. Given that the sites are generally well-publicized, hardcore drinkers know to avoid them.” So the totally blitzed driver is going to, prior to turning the ignition key, carefully consider and then formulate a route that avoids what he/she believes are possible sobriety checkpoint locations? Got it.
3) The article states that “Roadblocks have also turned into naked money-generators.”, citing revenue generated by citations for offenses other than DUI. So what? The drivers are in obvious (read ‘visibly apparent’) violation of the law and they got caught. Tough noogies. In the same paragraph, “Many police departments have grown so frustrated with the process that they’ve given up roadblocks altogether, as well as the federal funding that comes with them.” So the State or County Police are going to tell the State or County elected officials that, hey, it’s just too frustrating for us to operate them, so no, we won’t be doing that anymore and you won’t be seeing the extra revenue being generated showing on our next yearly budget balance, or the federal highway funding associated with it on your next FY accounts spreadsheet. You bet.
4) “…between .05 and .079, a level of impairment studies show to be lower than having kids in the backseat.” What studies? There was more than one? Whose kids did they use? Try (i.e., Google) as I might, I am unable to find the source for this tidbit of information. I would certainly be interested in finding the peer-reviewed studies where it originated.
It’s all fun and games (and funky risk/benefit rationalizations) until it’s your wife/husband/son/daughter/brother/sister/mother/father….. (pick one or more) on the gurney(s).
P.S. – Don’t like the idea of a dead albatross hanging from your neck? Then don’t drink and drive. Couldn’t be simpler. Works for me. It’s supposed to be a harsh lessons-learned, dagnabbit, since you’re drinking and driving is exposing me and mine to increased risk.
I’m not going to try to convince you. .10 is the correct number. 18 is also the correct age for the drinking age.
Tell you what-lets drop the number to .03-but build some decent public transportation. Then you have away to get around and everyone is safer. Might even save money and energy.
Which is reason number 343 why I liked Asia. Lots of public transportation. If you drink and drive there you are an idiot.
As for the dead albatross around your neck-its one thing to hold people accountable for their actions. Nothing wrong with that. The law is the law. Its quite another to shove them into a program that is at best: unconstitutional and at worst: very destructive to your mental health and psyche if you actually take it seriously. The forced treatment programs that MADD supports are very destructive and create as many drunk drivers as they solve. Only this time they really are drunk.
As for studies- I will refer you to a few as well as a book that MADD should read:
Resisting 12-Step Coercion-by Charles Bufe
The other is a survey by the National Restaurant Owners association pointing out that the .08 limit is not a silver bullet.