OK, I agree that punishment should fit the crime. I agree that M.A.D.D. is an out of control political group not really interested in their stated cause so much as the pursuit of power and money (my opinion, more on that later). I agree that our laws are arbitrary, stupid, and designed to punish the vast majority of law abiding citizens, while having little effect on the group they were intended for.
Studies have shown that driving and using a cell phone (one of my pet peeves), even hands free, leaves the driver more impared than if they had consumed 4 alcholic beverages.
http://www.jpshealthnet.org/JPS-Specialty-Sites/trauma/community-programs/dis...http://www.jpshealthnet.org/uploadedFiles/Medical_Services_Specialty/JPS_Trau...Yet we have no bans on cell phone usage and, to the best of my knowledge, no increase in penalty for an accident where cell phone usage played a part; unlike DUI.
As for MADD, I believe in their cause. I don't think those impaired by alchohol (and I mean Jerry's definition) should be allowed to drive. I also believe that license suspension doesn't work. I've heard of several cases where an individual has been arrested for the umpteenth time for DUI, and their license had been suspended. In one case for a number of years, and yet this individual had simply continued to get behind the wheel of a car. As I said, I believe in the cause, I just don't believe in the organization. Several years ago, I contacted MADD. I had an idea that I had run by law enforcement who said that the idea had merit, and thought it would work. In Texas, we have a barcode running on the back of our license. My idea was to use it at the pump for preapproval before purchasing fuel. For the person convicted of DUI, the license wouldn't be suspended, it would be inactivated. They would be one tank of gas away from being on foot. Use the fines imposed on the convicted to fund the system, and make the penalty for aiding an restricted license holder in the purchase of fuel a stiff fine, and the same inactivation for 6 months. Would it eliminate every restricted license holder from getting fuel, no, it had some areas that needed work; but it was at least a starting point. Every person I talked with supported the idea, and thought it would work. MADD wanted nothing to do with it. I believe for the very reason that it might have worked. How can you grab headlines if there aren't any "drunks" on the road. I couldn't get a discussion started in Austin either, and I believe it was because of MADD's undue influence in government. MADD gets money from several sources, including well intentioned people who think they're contributing to a noble cause. Without the requisite number of "drunks" on the road, the coffers might run dry.
As for obeying every traffic law all of the time, I don't believe any of us do it. Would there have been a different tone with Jerry's friend if he hadn't been drinking? I mean, alchohol or not, he crossed the center line. That's illegal. How about running the red light at an empty intersection in the middle of no where that won't change because there's not enough metal in the bike to trip the traffic sensor? I've done it. Five miles over the limit? That's illegal too. Forgot to signal a turn? Oops, call the cops. "But, but he was
drinking!" Yeah, so we throw the book at a guy 200 yards from his house, traveling an empty stretch of road. Meanwhile some drunk with a suspended license was probably on a crowded street making his way to wherever. Relax the laws, increase the penalty.