Feds: Rhode Island Not Doing Enough to Fight Drunk Driving

December 2, 2008

  • December 2, 2008 at 10:00 am
    nobody important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Are you kidding? As long as the drunk who is impaired in their reactions and decision making don’t harm others? They harm themselves and others all the time. The anti MADD folks have unsteady legs to stand on in this arguement. You are entitled to your opinion, but thankfully you are in an extreme minority.

  • December 2, 2008 at 12:30 pm
    Disingenous says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Why is it that every time MADD is pushing a piece of legislation related to alcohol that the state where they are passing the legislation is always the state in most need of tougher laws.

    It boggles the mind. At some point MADD has claimed every single state in America
    the most dangerous state for drunk driving.

    Can someone independent of MADD, the MADD-run NHTSA and CDC produce an unbiased study based on facts, not emotion?

    MADD statistics play like a broken record…skip, skip, skip from one state to the next.

  • December 2, 2008 at 12:47 pm
    nobody important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    MADD haters are so predictable. I guessed that within an hour of this article being posted one of you would post the latest pro-drunk, anti MADD garbage. Bottoms up.

  • December 2, 2008 at 2:08 am
    Dread says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The only problem with drunk drivers is the COURT SYSTEM. Too many alleged judges allow multiple offenses with little or no consequence. There is no acceptable explanation why someone with multiple convictions is still behind the wheel of a car. If existing laws were enforced with severe penalties we might see progress. Here’s what it will take:

    First offense: Revocation of driving priviledges for 6 months, a $1,000 fine, and 5-day mandatory jail sentence.

    Second offense: Loss of license for 3 years; $5,000 fine, 30-days mandatory jail time, impound ANY VEHICLE the person is driving for 90-days.

    Third offense: Loss of license for life. $10,000 fine, 1 year mandatory jail time, seizure and sale of ANY VEHICLE the person is driving.

    Sound Draconian? Perhaps, but for idiots who just keep spitting in the face of the law that’s the only thing that will get their attention. People will think twice about lending a car to a drinker as well. If society considers DUI a serious issue, let’s make the punishment just as serious.

  • December 2, 2008 at 2:49 am
    Michelle says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Yea but its not serious. 9 of every 10 people have driven drunk every now and then. 999 times out of 1000 nothing bad ever happens.

    Thats why we are so lenient on first time offenders. Most people have been guilty at one time or another.

    Its just not that big of a deal, usually everybody makes it home ok.

    Cell phones are more dangerous. In fact there are studies proving that.

    So do you put them in jail for 10 years or whatever crazy idea you came up with??

  • December 2, 2008 at 3:27 am
    Akimbo says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    At one time didn’t the woman who started MADD get arrested for drunk driving?

  • December 2, 2008 at 3:29 am
    Scott says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Patrick Kennedy is their representative.

  • December 2, 2008 at 3:36 am
    Dread says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    While technically you may be correct in terms of “frequency”, the stakes are too high in terms of “severity” i.e.loss of life to take such a pollyannish approach. Just yesterday the local news carried a story of a 46 year old multiple offender who rammed a car being driven by a 20 year old pre-med college student and only child, killing him. You may be inclined to change your opinion if some drunk killed your child. I have a hard time understanding your willingness to tolerate excessive alcohol use just because too few deaths result.

  • December 2, 2008 at 3:46 am
    Michelle says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Dread just the other day 3 children were killed by a lady who hit them with her car while talking on a cell phone….

    So, whats your point?? More people are killed on the road each year because of distracted driving.

    And its interesting that you make the point that I may change my mind if someone killed my child.

    That supports the fact that MADD are just a bunch of people who have lost a loved one.

    Why should they have any more say than the rest of us.

    Their judgement is clouded by their grief. They need to move on and start the process of HEALING and stop being so MADD

  • December 2, 2008 at 4:08 am
    somebody important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Such logic as that posted by ‘nobody important’ is nothing short of incomprehensible.
    MADD “haters”??? Simply because someone disagrees with another’s methods, or questions their motives, means they “hate” them?!?!?
    Perhaps a more accurate description than “MADD hater” would be “U.S. Constitution lover”! (see duiblog.com)
    Another leap of logic is to characterize someone (me) who has genuine legal and constitutional concerns about some of the legislation sponsored by MADD (et al) as “pro-drunk”!!! Apparently there are some who believe that this foolish little obstacle called the U.S Constitution and the Bill of Rights can be removed, so that we may finally have Utopia, where all risk and danger is outlawed and there won’t be any criminals because, of course, crime will be outlawed. Oh, and finally, all who dissent or object will be rightfully labeled “haters” or “pro-bad-something” and summarily executed along with anyone accused of anything! (by government officials who, as we all know, are above reproach and not subject to human weaknesses such as greed, dishonesty, abuse of power, etc – who needs these little nuisances like “checks and balances” and “due process” anyway?)
    I did like the “bottoms up” part, but I don’t drink, and I have no way of knowing whether ‘disingenous’ does either…hmmm, maybe nobody important is drinking alone…



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*