home

MADD Strikes Again

The latest over-the-top "solution" to the problem of drunk driving -- brought to you by the zealots at Mothers Against Drunk Driving -- would dramatically increase the value of companies that manufacture and sell ignition interlock devices.

A new highway bill pending before Congress would instruct all 50 states to require every motorist convicted of driving under the influence equip their car with interlock systems that shut down a vehicle when a measured amount of alcohol is detected. ... There are already about 150,000 interlock system now in cars in the U.S., placed there for drivers with multiple DUI convictions. But the proposed mandate would expand the use of interlock systems exponentially; MADD's statistics indicate that nearly 1.5 million Americans are arrested annually on DUI charges, making it the number one crime for which American are arrested.

Only one-third of the drivers arrested for a drunk driving offense are repeat offenders. While the majority of first offenders will never be involved in an alcohol-related accident or arrested for a similar offense, MADD wants to burden them with an expensive gadget that will typically keep them from driving even if they're under the legal limit. The MADD plan has been adopted in some states, but MADD will settle for nothing less than federal legislation.

[more ...]

If you are a responsible driver who won't be affected by this law, and your reaction is "Even a first offender has this coming," you may be surprised to learn that MADD's agenda will eventually affect you too.

Opponents of the MADD push for stricter laws warn that a federal interlock requirement would serve as a Trojan horse, opening the way for even more sophisticated interlock technology that would be required on every car sold in the U.S., according to Sarah Longwell, managing director of the American Beverage Institute, which lobbies on behalf of taverns and restaurants. "If you go to the ballgame and happen to have a beer you wouldn't be able drive home," she says. ...

Nissan is now testing various systems that don't even require a breathalyzer to detect drinking. One system uses a tiny camera to observe facial expressions, another system being tested checks blood alcohol level though sensors when the driver grasps the shift control and a third system uses the car's internal computer to calculate if a motorists is steering erratically.

Wouldn't you be thrilled to have a tiny camera in your car, trying to decipher your facial expressions to decide whether you ought to be driving? MADD's president, Chuck Hurley (who likely isn't a mother at all), "doesn't deny he would like to see such systems put into service." Since the technology to fulfill that dream might not be available for another decade, he has to settle for proposed legislation that would blackmail states into adopting his plan to force first offenders to install ignition interlocks. States that refuse would be denied federal highway funds. That approach succeeded in forcing states to adopt 0.08 as the "legal limit," and will probably be equally effective in coercing adoption of the new interlock law. Congress is likely to go along with MADD's latest scheme to make driving more difficult because no politician wants to risk the wrath of MADD by being labeled "soft on drunk driving".

< Tuesday Night Open Thread | Advisory Panel Votes to Ask FDA to Ban Percocet and Vicodin >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    It seems to me (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 02:58:53 AM EST
    that the availability of "soft" punishments such as installation of an interlock system makes it easier for the courts to justify the lack of "hard" punishment for first-time offenders.  If the public demands something harsher than mere probation as a punishment for drunk drivers, I might not like having to install an interlock system but I'd like it a lot more than spending a week in jail.

    I don't particularly buy the slippery slope argument.  I don't think the application of interlock systems to drunk drivers makes it more likely that all of us will be forced to have one someday, any more than the existence of electronic tethers for criminals makes it more likely that all of us will be forced to have one someday.  I can't imagine a political argument that goes like "well, it's okay to require criminals to do this, so it's not that big a step to require everyone else to do it too."

    The voice of reason. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 08:19:20 AM EST
    I have to agree (none / 0) (#2)
    by BernieO on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 07:21:12 AM EST
    The slippery slope argument is not relevant. There is no way that all of us would be required to have one. First Americans are not going to stand for a no alcohol requirement.

    Parent
    We'll take more lying down.. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 08:22:07 AM EST
    than I think you'll realize...it wouldn't surprise me for us all to have to blow to start our whip in the near future...these MADD maniacs are relentless.

    50 years ago if you told somebody cars would incessantly beep till your ears bleed unless you buckle the belt they would say you're nuts.  Or red light cameras...who would ever thought we'd see those blasted things.

    The babying of America continues....

    Parent

    GPS System For Driving Tax Being Field Tested (none / 0) (#41)
    by jerry on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:32:16 AM EST
    By-the-mile road tax could replace by-the-gallon federal fuel tax

    By STEVE EVERLY
    The Kansas City Star
    More News

    The year is 2020 and the gasoline tax is history. In its place you get a monthly tax bill based on each mile you drove -- tracked by a Global Positioning System device in your car and uploaded to a billing center.

    What once was science fiction is being field-tested by the University of Iowa to iron out the wrinkles should a by-the-mile road tax ever be enacted.

    Besides the technological advances making such a tax possible, the idea is getting a hard push from a growing number of transportation experts and officials. That is because the traditional by-the-gallon fuel tax, struggling to keep up with road building and maintenance demands, could fall even farther behind as vehicles' gas mileage rises and more alternative-fuel vehicles come on line.

    Parent

    Driving is a privilege not a right (none / 0) (#42)
    by jerry on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:34:31 AM EST
    So mandating GPS, cameras, interlocks, it's all good.  Citizens that dislike these techniques and the government's need to protect their fellow citizens can walk, or take public transportation to get to work or the grocery.

    Parent
    Thats what we tell ourselves... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:40:28 AM EST
    though I have trouble wrapping my head around the priviledge business...is skateboarding a priviledge or is it just for modes of transport with a motor?  Why are motors considered special?   Speed?  How about moving at less than 30 mph is a right, and over a priviledge?  

    This gets confusing when you set out to control free people.

    Parent

    The case law I've seen says driving (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:43:03 AM EST
    a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right, thus no one has a "right" to a driver license.  

    Parent
    In 1910 it was a privilege (none / 0) (#53)
    by jerry on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:22:37 PM EST
    I think in 2010 it is a right.

    Parent
    Asking the difference between a car (none / 0) (#46)
    by tigercourse on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:44:10 AM EST
    and a skateboard is like asking the difference between a BB gun and an AK-47.

    Parent
    I know.... (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:49:56 AM EST
    apples and oranges...but still, I could see the argument if a free soul wants to go in their garage and build a motorized vehicle that will get them around in a preferred manner, what right does anybody have to stop them?

    I don't think you needed a license to drive a stagecoach...and they could be very dangerous.

    Parent

    You don't need a license... (none / 0) (#50)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:01:30 PM EST
    ...to operate a scooter under 50cc in most places.  They can be very dangerous as well.  

    Don't need a license to ride a bike either and I've seen them do a bit of damage too.  

    Parent

    It is (none / 0) (#48)
    by eric on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:56:57 AM EST
    frustrating and I also think that a lot of people are confused.  This right and priviledge business comes up when we start talking about what the government can force you to do in return for carrying a drivers license.  For example, if you have a license, you impliedly consent to alcohol tests.  The search rules don't apply because driving is a privilege that comes with conditions.

    None of this has anything whatever to do with the government planting a GPS on one's personal property.

    FWIW, in Minnesota, motors are special.  You can only get a DUI if your vehicle is propelled with a  motor.  My wife has a case with a guy in a motorized wheelchair.  Seriously.

    Parent

    Wheelchair? (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:59:31 AM EST
    good god eric...what is the max speed on one of those things...8 mph?  

    We're hopeless I swear....

    Parent

    Guess again! (none / 0) (#68)
    by roger on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 02:21:59 PM EST
    In Florida, you can be DUI parked in your garage, with the motor off, and even being over .08 while riding your bicycle.

    I think that I'll keep my old car around for a while!

    Also, current interlock devices require a sample even when driving on the highway. It can be very unsafe

    Parent

    MADD is out of control (none / 0) (#51)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:01:38 PM EST
    You can be arrested for DUI for a low dose of cough medicine.  Got a cold?  Don't drive to work.

    No one will stand up to to MADD.....But there will be a backlash as more and more people are ensnared in the lynch mob that MADD has become.

    Parent

    Steve M (none / 0) (#61)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:08:22 PM EST
    The farther one is from the Kafkaesque prosecutions that occur with respect to driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the easier it is to side with MADD.

    What actually can happen to people who have had one drink, or taken Sudafed, is truly amazing.  Due Process is a mockery in DUI courts:  Cop says you were impaired and if you have a trace of something in your system--you are convicted. Prosecutors can play hide the ball with their own lab's evidence, fail to comply with their discovery obligations, show up late and unprepared and count on a continuance.  The judges in DUI court are largely ex-prosecutors or cops, and anyone arrested for DUI is in fact presumed guilty.  

    Parent

    Neo-Prohibitionists (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by eric on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 07:32:08 AM EST
    at work.  It isn't about the driving, it is about the drinking.

    Hey (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 07:46:36 AM EST
    Everyone here wants to be treated like an adult, so what's the problem with expecting and requiring everyone to act like a responsible person?  You wanna drink?  Don't get behind the wheel of a car (because, at that point, it isn't a matter of your rights anymore - it's a matter of mine and everyone else on the road with you). If you've already been busted once, it shows that maybe you don't know how to properly judge how impaired you are and you need to be re-trained so you can employ better judgment.

    Parent
    Don't fool yourself (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by eric on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 07:58:23 AM EST
    the main thrust of everything that MADD does these days is neo-prohibitionist.

    And you don't need to listen to me, listen to the founder of MADD, Candice Lightner.

    "[MADD has] become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned ...," Lightner is quoted as saying in an Aug. 6 story in the Washington Times. "I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving," she said.

    No link to he original, so unfortunately, the link is from Cato.

    But MADD knows that they cannot outright ask for what they want, prohibition.  They just chip away.  .10 then .08, next .05, ignition locks for ANY amount of alcohol. On and on.

    And btw, if people really want to zero alcohol for drivers, let's see that proposed.  Every Applebees, TGIF, and other casual dining restaurant that litter the suburbs will be doomed to either close or offer free rides to their patrons.


    Parent

    Once is to many (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by nyjets on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 08:04:33 AM EST
    "Only one-third of the drivers arrested for a drunk driving offense are repeat offenders."
    How many drunk driving accidents are the result of a person getting behind the wheel for the first time drunk.

    "And btw, if people really want to zero alcohol for drivers, let's see that proposed.  Every Applebees, TGIF, and other casual dining restaurant that litter the suburbs will be doomed to either close or offer free rides to their patrons."
    The way that bars have gone out of business by providing drivers and rides for people who get drunk at there establishments.

    It is really very simply. If you plan to drink, plan not to drive.

    So, it would be your (none / 0) (#21)
    by eric on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:57:57 AM EST
    suggestion that everyone that goes out to get a burger and a beer in outer-exurbia should stop doing this?

    Incidentially, I am lucky because I live in the city.  But America is littered with restaurants and bars that are completely inaccessible by anything but a car.  What about that?

    Parent

    Then plan on having a driver who will not drink (none / 0) (#23)
    by nyjets on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 10:38:33 AM EST
    If you know that you are going to drive, then do not drink the beer and wine. Or be with someone who does not drink.


    Parent
    Your suggestion (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 10:58:38 AM EST
    is ridiculous and ludicrous. It would be then and the restaurant and tavern business. Why not suggest we just re-implement Prohibition. That such a huge success.

    Parent
    I never argued in favor of prohibition (none / 0) (#66)
    by nyjets on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:48:54 PM EST
    I am argueing that people should not drink and drive. You can still go to a resturant or bar and get a drink. Just do not plan on driving home.

    Parent
    A burger and a beer? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Moishele on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 10:40:50 AM EST
    The legal standard for intoxication in most states "is a blood alcohol content of .10%, which for a 160-lb man translates into five drinks in an hour on an empty stomach." That's from the article cited by TChris. Hardly 'a burger and a beer'.

    Parent
    The limit in AZ is 0.00 (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by jerry on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:26:01 AM EST
    The legal limit in Arizona is 0.00

    "Driving While Impaired to the Slightest Degree

    This charge is codified in A.R.S. 28-1381(A)(1), which states:

    It is unlawful for a person to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle in this state under any of the following circumstances:

    While under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor-releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of liquor, drugs or vapor-releasing substances if the person is impaired to the slightest degree."

    Welcome to a state in which taking a cold medication prior to driving to work can get you thrown in jail.

    So if you plan on taking a cold medication, plan on staying home from work, or plan on getting a designated driver.

    Parent

    Many other (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by eric on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:27:31 AM EST
    states have this as well.  If they can't get you over .08 they can fall back on a charge of impaired driving.

    Parent
    Or, Sudafed (none / 0) (#58)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:43:24 PM EST
    A low dose of Sudafed can land you in jail--based on the opinion of a cop who has become a drug recognition expert after taking a two week course.  The DAs in California are now refusing to release their crime lab's data on the amount of any detected drugs.  They just give a list of drugs:  e.g., Sudafed, antibiotic, etc.  And the DRE (Drug Recogntion Expert) says the driver was impaired.  That's it.  Jail.  

    I have been monitoring just such a case on behalf of a client.....

    All thanks to MADD.

    Parent

    Wrong (none / 0) (#28)
    by eric on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 10:46:56 AM EST
    the limit is now universally .08.  There are plenty of people, usually women, who find themselves caught at .08.

    In any case, my response was to the suggestion that ANY amount of drinking should be prohibited.

    Parent

    .05 in California for drivers under 21 (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:24:38 PM EST
    I sat in on a DUI trial here in California (not my case)--the prosecution's expert opined that most are impaired at .05 and some at .01.

    In California, there are two DUI offenses for alcohol:  driving with .08 (.05 if under 21), or driving while under the influence regardless of the level of alcohol.

    What that means is any cop can arrest you for any erratic driving behavior.  They will find something in your blood--even if it is cough medicine.  Many cops have gone through a two week drug recognition course and have become drug recognition "experts."  They can put people into jail based on their "expert" testimony--never mind they haven't even had Freshman Chemistry.

    MADD has gone nuts.

    Parent

    A thin woman still burns off most of (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:10:47 AM EST
    a glass of wine every hour.  Solution is tincture of time after drinking and before getting behind the wheel.  

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#36)
    by eric on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:26:09 AM EST
    it just seems that women's limits are lower.  And it is a purely anecdotal observation from my wife's practice.  Since the .08 change, she now defends clients that have absolutely no idea that they were over the limit.

    Parent
    Weight-based, not gender-based. (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:31:00 AM EST
    intoxilyzor (none / 0) (#69)
    by roger on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 02:30:22 PM EST
    Machine rates your breath alcohol and covers to blood alcohol. To do this, the machine must assume an average lung capacity. This is actualy set at 2100.

    Women generally have lungs 1/3 smaller than men. The reading therefor becomes artificially inflated.

    Also, some studies that large men read false highs because the breath techs tell them to blow hard, so that the audible tone can be heard. The above average pressure of the breath forces more alcohol into the detection portion of the machine.

    Basically, a six thousand dollar machine, revered as gospel by Courts, Cops, and Juries

    Parent

    In CA the motorist could request (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 04:42:06 PM EST
    A blood or urine sample be tested for BA.

    Parent
    not in Florida! (none / 0) (#75)
    by roger on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 07:38:06 PM EST
    Not here, unless you first take the breathylizer and pay for the blood test yourself

    Parent
    You are correct (none / 0) (#26)
    by Moishele on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 10:43:12 AM EST
    It's very simple. Don't drink and drive.

    Parent
    Yes... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 10:50:13 AM EST
    and thou shall not kill, steal, or disrespect mom and dad.  Love your neighbor...all simple kidergarten stuff.

    The question is how do we respond when people don't...I'm sick of the iron fist and the hammer treating everybody and everything as a nail.

    Parent

    How to respond? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Moishele on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:39:07 PM EST
    In this country DUI is treated as if it's a 'there but for the grace of God go I' kind of thing. Obviously from your response you think DUI is no big deal. Kindergarten stuff? It's not.

    People make a choice when they drive drunk. They endanger themselves and others. We have to endure the consequences of the drivers' actions. The driver should too.

    Parent

    The definition of "drunk" (none / 0) (#59)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:50:00 PM EST
    It will soon become any alcohol in your system--thus leaving to the caprice of the cops who gets arrested for DUI.

    The limit is .05 for those under 21 in California--conviction is automatic at that level (.08 for those over 21.)  

    And, you can be convicted at .01 as long as the cop says you were impaired.

    Parent

    You misunderstood... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:28:24 PM EST
    driving recklessly and needlessly putting others at risk is not kindergarten stuff...knowing this behavior is wrong is kindergarten stuff...no one is saying driving recklessly due to intoxication is no big deal.  

    Parent
    I will forever insist... (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 08:30:03 AM EST
    that the levels are too low, thanks to MADD.  You can get a DUI and have never been a threat to anybody...and now you'll get a tyranny gadget on your car.  How wonderful.  I feel less safe already.

    I would say its not the drinking or the driving...its reckless driving that is our problem here, and drinking is but one of many potential causes...others include phone calls, texting, fiddling with the disc-changer, intense conversation, daydreaming, eating, drinking non-alcoholic beverages, putting on makeup, shaving, reading, and general lack of driving skills to name a few.

    Lets have a law against reckless driving, realize we are all taking our lives in our hands when we travel at high speeds in hunks of metal and plastic, and get on our with what is left of our quasi-free lives.

    It is the drinking (none / 0) (#10)
    by nyjets on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 08:41:50 AM EST
    "You can get a DUI and have never been a threat to anybody..."
    If you get a DUI you are a threat to other drivers and pedestrians. A majority of car accidents are the results of people driving drunk.
    The fact is that people who drink and drive are unsafe drivers. It is very simple. If you are drinking you should not drive.

    There are laws against reckless driving. The problem is that a drunk driving can look like they are driving normal right before they get into a horendous accident.

    I realize that when I drive I have to be careful and take a risk. However, I should not have to worry about some drunks who get behind the wheel.

    Parent

    There is a very big (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by eric on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:51:09 AM EST
    difference between a "drunk" and someone who drinks two beers after work or a glass of wine with dinner.

    Are you seriously proposing an absolute ban on driving after drinking?

    Parent

    The majority of accidents, eh? (none / 0) (#11)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 08:46:58 AM EST
    I'm sure you have creditable sources to back up that claim, right?

    Parent
    MADD (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by eric on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:39:53 AM EST
    probably says so.  Not credible enough for you? ;)

    Parent
    That would be like... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:45:26 AM EST
    ...Michelle Bachmann speaking on the census or Joe the (non)Plumber talking about international relations--just a whole lot of crazy and scare tactics.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 08:50:22 AM EST
    You can never get caught driving while impaired and still be a threat to everybody.

    Again- in this case, the rights of everyone else on the road to be safe supersede your right to drive impaired.

    Parent

    And I shouldn't have to worry.... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 08:54:15 AM EST
    about random checkpoints out and about on Friday night impeding my inalienable right to freedom of movement...but I do.

    We can make DUI first offense punishable by death (not to give MADD any ideas)and you'll still have to worry about the guy who had one too many, and the guy using his Norelco in the rear-view.  I want safer roads as much as the next guy...but not at any price.  

    Parent

    You are correct but... (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by nyjets on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:25:24 AM EST
    "about random checkpoints out and about on Friday night impeding my inalienable right to freedom of movement...but I do."
    Having to put up with a checkpoint does not impede your 'inalienable right to freedom of movement.' You hit a checkpoint, they see you are not drunk, and then you move on.

    You are right, drunk drivers will always be a scourge on the road. But by punishing drunk drivers, maybe we get reduce there damage.


    Parent

    Sure it impedes... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:32:46 AM EST
    traffic gets backed up bumper to bumper, ya gotta do the whole insurance/registration/inspection rig-a-ma-roll...and if they don't like the look of ya you really get the third degree.  There's just no place for it in a supposedly free society...no place for warantless suspicionless stops and papers please and searches...no place.

    And no place for robocop on dashboards...imo.

    Parent

    there is a place for it (none / 0) (#24)
    by nyjets on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 10:40:39 AM EST
    To stop the drunk drivers, who are a danger on the road, there is a place for random check points. Espically on days where the number of drunks on the road are very high.
    And I have no problem for the robocops for people who already have been convicted of drunk driving. These people have establed themselves as dangerous drivers for driving under the influence.

    Parent
    Like it or not (none / 0) (#31)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:02:54 AM EST
    there is a cost to living in a free society. Certain perils come with it. This country gotten gotten way out of hand in attempting to protect us from ourselves. I, for one, refuse to surrender liberty for so-called, non-existent security.

    Parent
    Tolerating drinking and driving (none / 0) (#67)
    by nyjets on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:50:56 PM EST
    is not a price I am willing to accept to live in a 'free society'.Driving after drinking is dangerous. Punishing drunk drivers and checking points are not a peril to a 'free society'.


    Parent
    dogs (none / 0) (#70)
    by roger on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 02:33:31 PM EST
    The police checkpoints down here usually have a drug dog with them. This not to see who is impaired, just who might be in "possession"

    Parent
    BTW.... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 03:40:48 PM EST
    Good to hear from ya Roger...I don't know if I ever thanked you for recommending Zamyatin's "We" to me years ago...I loved it.

    Parent
    Checkpoints (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by eric on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:42:04 AM EST
    are unconstitutional in Minnesota.  Something to do with the right to be free from arbitrary searches...


    Parent
    I'm with you 100% (none / 0) (#27)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 10:46:34 AM EST
    Kdog, I love your posts. We're simpatico bud.

    Parent
    Thanks Chuck... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:08:05 AM EST
    and likewise.

    But we're hopelessly outnumbered...by the time the safety-first crowd wises up it'll be too late...we'll be blowing in tubes to put on roller skates, and don't forget your helmet or thats a hundred dollar fine:)  


    Parent

    Simple Physics (none / 0) (#37)
    by jerry on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:27:21 AM EST
    If you're driving faster than walking speed, you are a danger to those around you and can cause a horrendous accident.  Not to mention you will scare the horses.

    Parent
    has pretty much been determined to be driver distraction. Driving under the influence looks to be the second leading cause.

    Parent
    Sleepy drivers (none / 0) (#55)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:33:44 PM EST
    who have zero alcohol are a large threat.

    Parent
    Yes, driver fatigue, speeding, (none / 0) (#64)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:23:17 PM EST
    aggressive driving, weather, road hazards, etc., are all significant.

    Parent
    The MADD folks are neo-prohibitionists (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:40:03 AM EST
    But I don't think that's really manifested in this story.

    Shades of (none / 0) (#22)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 10:16:01 AM EST
    the Brady idiots.

    Shades of movements (none / 0) (#73)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 03:43:47 PM EST
    started by guilt ridden folk unhinged by tragedy.
    And assuaging them is just too-too much of a delicious oppurtunity for public grandstanding for most pols to turn down.

    Parent
    The law in effect in some states now (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:13:57 AM EST
    a person convicted of first DUI to have the device installed during the period of time the person's driver license is suspended as a result of that DUI conviction.  

    I don't see what the big deal is. Don't (none / 0) (#39)
    by tigercourse on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:27:55 AM EST
    get drunk and drive. It's very, very simple. This is a free society, not an anarchy. I've always found it pretty easy to get as hammered as I'd like, and still not drive off to play pinball with everyone else on the road.

    In defense of MADD, the organization's (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:38:05 AM EST
    local representatives provide tremendous support to people whose relatives have been killed by persons driving under the influence.  

    Sure, (none / 0) (#56)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:35:53 PM EST
    But they have way too much political sway and have become very unreasonable.

    In California, you can be convicted based on the observation of a cop who has been through a two week Drug Recognition School--regardless of the level of drugs or alcohol in your system.  MADD is all for it.

    Parent

    Problems with your data (none / 0) (#60)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    1. Stale - c. 1992, i.e., pre-MADD.

    2. Sparse - only 7 states reporting, only one big state (Ohio)

    3. Misrepresented - You label the statistics as pertaining to repeat arrests, but 5 of the 7 states counted only repeat convictions.

    4. Actuarial fallacies (I) - 4 of the 7 states looked back 7 years or less for priors. The states with 30 year histories reported higher repeat rates. [MN (arrests) 46%, NM (convictions) 48%, NE (convictions) 26%]

    5. Actuarial fallacies (II) - The non-repeat population obviously includes (and occludes) a substantial number who have had a first conviction, but haven't YET had their second conviction.

    6. Actuarial fallacies (III) - repeaters whose histories cross state lines are excluded.

    7. Other bias (I) - DWI offenses tend to be aggressively defended, and diversion programs often provide opportunities to clear an incident from the record.

    8. Other bias (II) - Most data are from rural states, where enforcement action (or even observation) is less likely, and the chances of identifying a repeater decline as the square of enforcement intensity.

    Without regard to the merits of your general argument, the study you cite does do not support your case.

    Link (none / 0) (#62)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:12:01 PM EST
    Diversion programs are being cut (none / 0) (#63)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:16:35 PM EST
    in California.  Jail time is frequent.

    You can be convicted for any level of drugs or alcohol in your system in California based on the testimony of the arresting cop.  If the cop doesn't like you, you're screwed.

    Agressively defended?  Sure, if you have 20k.  That is what it will cost (not including trial) to get a good DUI lawyer and your own expert to counter the DRE (Drug Recogntion Expert) cops--who have had a two week seminar.

    The balance is out of whack.

    Parent

    Nonresponsive. (none / 0) (#71)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 03:33:21 PM EST