Mothers Against Drunk Driving
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or MADD, is a non-profit victims' rights organization in the United States and other countries. In the 1980s, MADD had success in changing public attitudes and laws regarding driving under the influence (DUI).
Generally the group favors:
- Strict policy in a variety of areas, including an illegal blood alcohol content of .08 or lower and using stronger sanctions for DUI offenders, including mandatory jail sentences, treatment for alcoholism and other alcohol abuse issues, ignition interlock devices, and license suspensions
- Helping victims of drunk driving
- A ban on drinking before 21 years of age with no exception for religious, medical or other reasons.
- Increases in taxes levied on alcoholic beverages
- Further limiting the operating hours of businesses licensed to sell alcohol
- Mandating alcohol breath testing ignition interlock devices on all new motor vehicles
Contents |
[edit] History
Candy Lightner was the organizer and founding president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). In 1980, Ms. Lightner’s 13-year-old daughter, Cari, was killed by a drunken hit-and-run driver as she walked down a suburban street in California. "I promised myself on the day of Cari’s death that I would fight to make this needless homicide count for something positive in the years ahead," Candy Lightner later wrote. A 1983 television movie about Lightner resulted in publicity for the group, which grew rapidly.
In the early 1980's, the group managed to attract attention from the United States Congress. At a time when alcohol consumption laws varied greatly by state, New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg was a notable early supporter. Lautenberg took exception to the fact that youth in New Jersey could easily travel into New York to purchase alcoholic beverages, thereby circumventing New Jersey's law restricting consumption to those 21-years-old and over.<ref name="madd-21-turns-20">"21" turns 20, MADD Online; published in DRIVEN magazine, Spring 2004</ref> The group had its greatest success with the imposition of a 1984 federal law that required states to raise the minimum legal age for purchase and possession (but not the drinking age) to 21 or lose federal highway funding. After the United States Supreme Court upheld the law in the 1987 case of South Dakota v. Dole, every state capitulated.
In 1988, a drunk driver traveling the wrong way on Interstate 71 in Kentucky caused a head-on collision with a school bus. 27 people died and dozens more were injured in the ensuing fire. The Carrollton bus disaster in 1988 was one of the worst in U.S. history. In the aftermath, several parents of the victims became actively involved in MADD, and one became its national president.
In 1990, MADD introduced its "20 by 2000" plan to reduce the proportion of traffic fatalities that are alcohol-related 20 percent by the year 2000. This goal was accomplished three years early, in 1997.[citation needed]
In 1991, MADD released its first "Rating the States" report, grading the states in their progress against drunk driving. "Rating the States" has been released four times since then.
In 1999, MADD’s National Board of Directors unanimously voted to change the organization’s mission statement to include the prevention of underage drinking, whether or not the drinking was associated with driving.
In November 2006 press release, MADD launched its Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving. The group plans to use what it calls a four-point plan to completely eliminate drunk driving in the United States using a combination of current technology (such as alcohol ignition interlock devices), new technology in smart cars, law enforcement, and grass roots activism.<ref name="MADD-campaign-to-eliminate">"MADD Announces National Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving," MADD Online Press Release; November 20, 2006</ref>
[edit] Activities and impact
[edit] Drunk driving laws
Since the group's inception, thousands of anti-drunk driving laws have been passed.[citation needed] MADD also helped popularize the use of "designated drivers", although at first it opposed the practice because it might enable non-drivers to consume more.[citation needed]
More recently, MADD was heavily involved in lobbying to reduce the legal limit for blood alcohol from BAC .10 to BAC .08.[citation needed] In 2000, this standard was passed by Congress and by 2005, every state had an illegal .08 BAC limit.[citation needed] MADD Canada has recently called for a maximum legal BAC of .05.<ref name="madd-canada">See MADD Canada</ref> Although many MADD leaders have supported a lower limit,<ref name="activist-cash-madd-quotes">"http://www.activistcash.com/organization_quotes.cfm/oid/17 Mothers Against Drunk Driving," ActivistCash.com</ref> MADD U.S. has not yet officially called called for a legal limit of .05.
MADD has successfully advocated, and continues to advocate, for the enactment of laws for even more strict and severe punishment of offenders of laws against driving under the influence, as well as laws against drinking and driving.[citation needed]
[edit] Declines in drunk driving deaths
The death rate from alcohol-related traffic accidents has declined since the 1980s. According to statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)<ref name="madd-online-fatalities-stats">"Total Traffic Fatalities vs. Alcohol Related Traffic Fatalities - 1982-2005," MADD Online; load date: November 17, 2006</ref>, alcohol related deaths per year have declined from 26,173 in 1982 to 16,885 in 2005. MADD has argued that the group's efforts have brought about this decrease, because alcohol-related fatalities declined more than did non-alcohol-related fatalities.[citation needed]
However, NHTSA's definition of "alcohol-related" deaths includes all deaths on U.S. highways involving drunk drivers, drunk victims, or both. In 2001, for example, the NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System estimated an annual total of 17,448 alcohol-related deaths. As a 2002 Los Angeles Times article noted, the NHTSA estimates for that year attributed only about 5,000 of those deaths to a drunk driver causing the death of a sober driver, passenger, or pedestrian (Vartabedian 2002).
In 1999 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed the NHTSA figures widely cited by MADD and concluded that they "raised methodological concerns calling their conclusions into question". The statistics, the GAO report said, "fall short of providing conclusive evidence that .08% BAC laws were, by themselves, responsible for reductions in alcohol related fatalities." [1]
[edit] Minimum drinking age laws
MADD argues that, given that the brain does not stop developing until the early 20s, alcohol consumption retards brain development and harms the parts of the brain responsible for judgment and memory.[citation needed] MADD also frequently cites NHTSA data as proof that a high drinking age has saved 22,798 lives since 1975 by reducing the number of fatalities involving underage drinking drivers.[citation needed]
However, evidence of harm to brain development is based on studies of rats and severe alcohol abusers rather than social drinkers.<ref name="hanson-health-issues-teen-brains">"Drinking Alcohol Damages Teenagers’ Brains", Hanson, David J.</ref> MADD's critics have pointed out that similar fatalities among the same age group in Canada have dropped by a similar proportion,[citation needed] despite the fact that Canada's drinking age remains at 18 or 19 depending on the province.[citation needed]
[edit] Operating hours and availability of alcohol
MADD has generally taken the position that a decrease in the availability of alcohol will lead to a decrease in consumption, and therefore a decrease in drunk driving. However, dry counties tend to have a higher proportion per capita of alcohol-related traffic crashes and fatalities (Gary, S., et al. Consideration of driver home county prohibition and alcohol-related trafic crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2003, 35(5), 641-648)
Empirical research has also revealed that later closing hours are generally associated with lower alcohol-related traffic crashes and fatalities (Halstead, R. Novato woman testifies at state hearing. Marin Independent Journal, April 20, 2004; Gordon, A. Young drivers go to pot. Toronto Star, February 10, 2006; Later sales don't increase crashes, DWI arrests. Associated Press, March 1, 2005; Reilly, S. & Snider, J. Drinking five or more drinks in a day. USA Today, May 21, 2004)
In a press release titled "Fewer Liquor Stores in Los Angeles Equals Reduced Crime", MADD implies that fewer liquor stores with shorter operating hours resulted in an improvement in the quality of life in LA. The press release made no mention of operating motor vehicleS.
In Okaloosa County, Florida, local MADD activists lobbied to reduce the operating hours of bars, requiring them to close at 2:00 AM.[2] A local bar owner responded, "I think its dangerous, because you're talking about putting people on the road at 2 a.m. and people are going to drink no matter what time you close an establishment and you'd be putting everyone out on the road at two."
[edit] Criticisms
[edit] Candy Lightner's departure
MADD's founder, Candy Lightner, left the organization in 1984 and has since gone on to criticize the group as "neo-prohibitionist."<ref name="hanson-on-lightner>"Candy Lightner: Founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)" Hanson, David J.</ref> Lightner stated that MADD "has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned … I didn’t start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving"<ref name="washtimes_madd-strugles">Bresnahan, S. MADD struggles to remain relevant. Washington Times, August 6, 2002</ref><ref name="chronicle-neo-prohibition-article">Resty, John. Neo-prohibition. The Chronicle, May 12, 2005</ref>.
[edit] Attacks on civil liberties
Some people, including David J. Hanson and John McCardell, Jr., question the effectiveness and relevance of MADD's insistence on total abstinence from alcohol. Hanson argues such policies possibly encourage underage and reckless drinking, since current public policy produces a supervision paradox where it can be difficult to assist and educate younger people in making responsible judgments about alcohol consumption; he compares the behavior of American youth to their European counterparts, who live in a society with "more liberal" consumption laws.<ref name="hanson_and_walcoff-junk_science">"Government Attacks Drinking with Junk Science" by David J. Hanson, Ph.D. and Matt Walcoff</ref> Also, they believe that it encourages some younger people to drink, to show their contempt for a law they feel is unjust, since in most other countries, 18-year olds, and even younger people, can consume alcohol legally, and that it would be safer to have them drinking legally in supervised environments.
According to Hanson, "research on the drinking age has not been able to verify a cause-and-effect relationship between the law and alcohol use or abuse." Hanson furhter notes, "Many studies show no relationship between the two variables while others report that some alcohol-related fatalities have shifted from the 18-20 age group to the 21-24 age group. When it comes to the effects of the drinking age, the most we can say is that the jury is still out."<ref name="hanson_and_walcoff-junk_science"/>
William F. Buckley, Jr., a conservative activist, has also written extensively criticizing policies MADD supports, although he has generally avoided singling out the organization. In a 2001 article, Buckley noted the paradox between political support for expanding the rights of youth in the 1960s, a movement that lead to Congress enfranchising 18-year-olds, and the sudden rescinding of some rights youth enjoyed a mere two decades later. "We all know that up until the counter-Woodstock anti-alcohol putsch of a generation ago, drinking was permitted in most states after age 18. What seemed to happen simultaneously was that our lawmakers resolved (a) to forbid drinking until age 21, and (b) to permit voting at age 18," Buckley wrote. <ref name="buckley-on-the-right">"On the Right" by William F. Buckley Jr.</ref>
Radley Balko, a libertarian writer, talks about the possible social implications of some of MADD's policies. He writes, "In its eight-point plan to 'jump-start the stalled war on drunk driving,' MADD advocates the use of highly publicized but random roadblocks to find drivers who have been drinking. Even setting aside the civil liberties implications, these checkpoints do little to get dangerous drunks off the road. Rather, they instill fear in people who have a glass of wine with dinner, a beer at a ballgame or a toast at a retirement party."
Additionally MADD has proposed that Breathalyzers should be installed in ALL new cars. <ref name="MADD Device key to keep drinkers off road">"MADD Device key to keep drinkers off road" by Tom Incantalupo</ref> Tom Incantalupo wrote "Ultimately, the group said yesterday, it wants so-called alcohol interlock devices factory-installed in all new cars. "The main reason why people continue to drive drunk today is because they can," MADD president Glynn Birch said at a news teleconference yesterday from Washington, D.C."
Sarah Longwell, a spokeswoman for the American Beverage Institute responded to MADD's desire to legislate breathalyzers into every vehicle in America by stating "This interlock campaign is not about eliminating drunk driving, it is about eliminating all moderate drinking prior to driving. The 40 million Americans who drink and drive responsibly should be outraged." She also points out that "Many states have laws that set the presumptive level of intoxication at .05% and you can't adjust your interlock depending on which state you're driving in. Moreover, once you factor in liability issues and sharing vehicles with underage drivers you have pushed the preset limit down to about .02%. It will be a de facto zero tolerance policy." <ref name="MADD Interlock Campaign Targets Responsible Social Drinkers">"MADD Interlock Campaign Targets Responsible Social Drinkers</ref>
Some point out that the policy assumes that citizens are guilty of drunkenness and requires them to prove themselves innocent not only before they drive but repeatedly while they drive. [3]
A serious concern is that the devices might actually increase crashes. The "California Department of Motor Vehicle’s “An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Ignition Interlock in California” concluded that the devices “are not effective in reducing DUI convictions or incidents [after being imposed] for first-time DUI offenders.” (The study did show, however, that the risk of crashing was higher for offenders with a lock installed—perhaps because they were being asked to conduct breath tests while driving.) If the locks have no effect when imposed after a first DUI conviction—which presumably selects for the most likely drunk drivers—what is the chance that they will have an effect if foisted upon millions of people who simply want a new car?" [4]
[edit] MADD's mission
Some critics claim that MADD has shifted in emphasis from preventing DUI deaths and injuries to preventing underage alcohol use, and that this is undermining the organization's original goal, because MADD's leadership has stated that it's more important to stop drinking than it is to stop drunk driving fatalities. For example, the president of MADD, Glynn Byrch, wrote in a letter to the editor of the Washington Post:
- Taking away a teenager's car keys and replacing them with a beer may prevent death and injury on the road, but it sends a dangerous message to teenagers that it's okay to break the law.<ref name="washpost-address-perilous-pleasures">"Addressing Life's Perilous Pleasures," The Washington Post, Letters to the Editor section; Monday, August 15, 2005</ref>
In 2005, McCardell wrote in The New York Times that "the 21-year-old drinking age is bad social policy and terrible law" that has made the college drinking problem far worse. <ref name="mccardell-oped-on-alcohol">"What Your College President Didn't Tell You," McCardell Jr., John M.; The New York Times; op-ed section; September 13, 2004</ref>
Many who are otherwise sympathetic to MADD's cause feel the organization has gone too far. Balko argued in a December 2002 article that MADD's policies are becoming overbearing. "In fairness, MADD deserves credit for raising awareness of the dangers of driving while intoxicated. It was almost certainly MADD's dogged efforts to spark public debate that effected the drop in fatalities since 1980, when Candy Lightner founded the group after her daughter was killed by a drunk driver," Balko wrote. "But MADD is at heart a bureaucracy, a big one. It boasts an annual budget of $45 million, $12 million of which pays for salaries, pensions and benefits. Bureaucracies don't change easily, even when the problems they were created to address change."<ref name="balko-targeting">"Targeting the Social Drinker Is Just MADD," Balko, Radley</ref>
[edit] Blood alcohol content
MADD's critics point out that the organization is focused entirely upon the presence of alcohol in the body, rather than upon the actual danger posed by any impairment.[citation needed] The original drunk driving laws addressed the danger by making it a criminal offense to drive a vehicle while impaired -- that is, while "under the influence of alcohol"; the amount of alcohol in the body was simply evidence of that impairment.[citation needed] With MADD's significant influence, however, all 50 states have now passed laws making it a criminal offense to drive with a designated level of alcohol, regardless of whether the driver is impaired or not.[citation needed] MADD then successfully lobbied to lower that original level of .10% down to .08%, and are actively working to lower it even further.[citation needed]
[edit] Conflict of interest criticism
MADD promotes the use of "victim impact panels" (VIPs), in which judges require DWI offenders to pay MADD a fee to hear victims or relatives of victims of drunk driving crashes relate their stories. MADD received $3,749,000 in 2004 from these fees. Some states in the United States, such as Massachusetts, permit victims of all crimes, including drunk driving accidents, to give "victim impact statements" prior to sentencing so that judges and prosecutors can consider the impact on victims in deciding on an appropriate sentence to recommend or impose. The presentations are often emotional, detailed, and graphic, and focus on the tragic negative consequences of DWI and alcohol-related crashes. However, a New Mexico study suggested that the VIPs' confrontational approaches are ineffective in the treatment of alcohol problems, and that the use of VIPs actually increased DWI recidivism in that state.<ref name="vip-deterrence-effectiveness">"A Randomized Trial of Victim Impact Panels’ DWI Deterrence Effectiveness," W. G. Woodall, H. Delaney, E. Rogers, & D. R. Wheeler; Center on Alcoholism, Substance Abuse, and Addictions (CASAA), University of New Mexico</ref> According to the John Howard Society, some studies have shown that permitting victims to make statements and to give testimony is psychologically beneficial to them and aids in their recovery and in their satisfaction with the criminal justice system.<ref name="john-howard-society-victim-impact">Victum Impact Statements—John Howard Society of Alberta, 1997</ref>
Balko also takes MADD to task for conflicts of interest. First of all, he argues that MADD seems silent on the issue of cell phones and other electronic gadgets, which are also a major cause of automobile crashes. "In fact, there is little in MADD's plan that would improve traffic safety. A British study found that cell phone use while driving caused significantly more impairment than a .08 blood-alcohol level. And a 2001 American Automobile Assn. study found that eating, fumbling with a car stereo or CD player or disciplining children while driving are even more dangerous than cell phone use."<ref name="balko-targeting"/>
Balko also criticizes MADD for not demanding higher excise taxes on the distilled spirits industry, even as it demands beer producers pay higher excise taxes. "Interestingly," Balko writes, "MADD refrains from calling for an added tax on distilled spirits, an industry that the organization has partnered with on various drunk driving awareness projects. And MADD has made no secret of its desire to lower the legal blood- alcohol level from the current .08 in most places to .06, .04 or even to zero. This despite studies showing that most alcohol-caused traffic fatalities involved drivers with a level of 0.14 or higher."<ref name="balko-targeting"/>
[edit] Financial mismanagement allegations
In 1994, Money magazine reported that telemarketers raised over $38 million for MADD, keeping nearly half of it in fees. This relationship no longer exists. Overall, MADD reports that it spends 17% of its budget on fundraising, which is below average for an advocacy organization that is heavily dependent on many individual contributions. However, the American Institute of Philanthropy and others note that MADD categorizes much of its fundraising expenses as "educational expenses." The American Institute of Philanthropy has given MADD poor grades for its high bureaucratic and fundraising costs<ref name="hanson-crash-course-on-madd">"Mothers Against Drunk Driving: A Crash Course in MADD," Hanson, David J.</ref> (MADD Money. Investigative report, K5 News, Seattle, WA.). In December 2001, Worth magazine listed MADD as one of its "100 best charities". However, MADD currently has the lowest (poorest) evaluation score among its peer charities, according to Charity Navigator.It has the highest proportion of funds going to expenses and the lowest proportion of funds being spent on actual programs.
[edit] MADD's criticism of its critics
MADD has made a blanket charge that “opponents of sobriety checkpoints tend to be those who drink and drive frequently and are concerned about being caught”. <ref name="madd-online-sobriety-facts-and-myths">MADD Online: Sobriety Checkpoints: Facts & Myths</ref>
[edit] In popular culture
- Drunks Against Mad Mothers, or DAMM, is a farcical counter-movement to Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It is usually represented by t-shirts. The notoriety of the expression may have come from James Hetfield of Metallica, and Slash formerly of Guns N' Roses who were once pictured in such a T-shirt.
- In Robert Ashley's musical duet, The Man in the Green Pants, (Sam Ashley, Robert's son) taunts police by calling them "Motherf*ckers Against Drunk Driving."
[edit] References
- Vartabedian, Ralph. 2002. "A Spirited Debate Over DUI Laws". Los Angeles Times, December 30, pp. A1.
- Brzenzinski, Piotr C. Drunk Until Proven Innocent. Harvard Crimson, November 21, 2006.
[edit] Notes
<references />
