YOU SAID: whatever it was that you said. I fail to see where it needs repeating, or why I need to argue about what you said. You're absolutely correct about the money grubbing aspect of the issue. MADD isn't about solving problems or gaining closure, or whatever their objectives are: MADD is a victims retribution/vengeance organization.
I can sympathize with the pain of the families who've lost loved ones because of drunk drivers; I can never empathize with their loss. I hope never having to do so, and it is my fervent prayer that I may never be the cause of such pain; especially with recidivism rate as high as it is.
That being said, and notwithstanding, "alcohol related" is exactly what you intimated it to be. And even more chilling is what you said about the pedestrian getting run over. The thing that the previously convicted driver for alcohol offense has to consider: if a pedestrian steps out in front of their moving vehicle (and the driver has any measurable amount of BAC), despite said pedestrian being a jay-walker, said driver is at fault pro se, and MADD is not the least concerned about that.
The pedestrian always has the right of way no matter what, eh? But in certain circumstances, that will be outright ignored.
I'm unclear where you're getting the time frame from with respect to that last objection you made. There's no way you could make such assertion without knowing the age of the individuals when they were convicted of their first alcohol related offense.
Un-asked for opinion is just that: unasked for. Nevertherthes, and the foregoing notwithstanding, I'm going to be so bold to tell you what I think: anybody that ever comes into contact with the police for harming anybody or anything, should have the book thrown at them. If they get pulled over for no seat-belt, and they fail field sobriety test(s), then they are issued a ticket for public intoxication while operating a motor vehicle. The insurance companies should be aware of these individuals. If their premiums double, quadruple, pentuple or even hexituple, I wouldn't care. Insurance companies know things about stuff. The stuff that they know about things is contained in what is known as "actuarial tables". These tables define the insurance companies risk to its shareholders and investors.
Its not so much the drunk driver that I have issue with, but I have issues with creased cars, dented fenders, knocked over mailboxes that don't cost $25k+. We catch you weaving down the road, we pull you over and give you $50 ticket (you're insurance will increase according to actuarial tables). You can't afford insurance and we catch you driving (or with revoked license), minimum 10 years in jail. In the case of lack of insurance, one should be compelled to prove the ability to self-insure for $10 million in catastrophic damages (or one goes to jail for reckless endangerment). Who pays the bill if the offender can't? And how much is paid to the family that lost their loved one? What is the worth of a human life? I've heard it said that no company would put into place safety measures that would in aggregate be more expensive than what could be actuarialy be expected to be the litiginous risk. Believe me when I tell you that many business do this (especially airlines). The objective conclusion to this is that certain people have to die before things are done about it.
Just what are the risks for drunken driving? I'm certain if the private insurance companies bore the full brunt of that burden, things would be quite a bit different.