Join 3,440 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Crumple Zone
October 12, 2006 1:50 PM   Subscribe

MADD has an interesting new ad campaign out that uses something a lot of designers tend to forget about when putting together a poster: the paper it's printed on.
posted by dead_ (63 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

 
This is why driving in bar bathrooms is a bad idea.
posted by nebulawindphone at 1:52 PM on October 12, 2006


One additional poster here.
posted by dead_ at 1:55 PM on October 12, 2006


If you are out at a bar and see one of these, I recommend lighting the poster on fire, and then screaming quietly (because the people would be small if they could fit in that car) "Ahhhh! I'm burning! Ahhhhh!". The life you save may just be your own.
posted by ND¢ at 1:58 PM on October 12, 2006 [1 favorite]


Not paper, but this is great in a similar way. From the same blog.
posted by pokermonk at 2:00 PM on October 12, 2006


WOMG. Caught by the link police. Here you are. Sorry.
posted by pokermonk at 2:03 PM on October 12, 2006


That's very good. At least it's not like those NHS adverts about smoking and impotence that I had to pee on to see the message.
posted by parmanparman at 2:03 PM on October 12, 2006


Nicely done and attention-getting, which I assume was the idea.
posted by AuntLisa at 2:10 PM on October 12, 2006


Very clever.
posted by owhydididoit at 2:19 PM on October 12, 2006


This is some really effective advertising. When I read the fpp i was imagining pictures of deceased people killed by drunk drivers screen printed on to the hood of the offending vehicle with the usual prom night, cusp of their life accompanying bio. Now that would be effective advertising.


/mini MADD rant

I too am against drunk driving, what rationale person isn't. That said, how many people in rural communities are in jail or on probation now because of the laughably low blood alcohol level that is required for a DUI thanks in part to this lobbying machine.
posted by sourbrew at 2:24 PM on October 12, 2006


That said, how many people in rural communities are in jail or on probation now because of the laughably low blood alcohol level that is required for a DUI thanks in part to this lobbying machine.

Huh? What are you advocating? That people in rural communites be allowed to drink and drive? Or that people in rural communities handle their alcohol better? Or that you're against drunk driving but not really?
posted by xmutex at 2:29 PM on October 12, 2006


I really don't like MADD. They sit in the courtrooms here where I live and take notes about sentences and dispositions. If people are being found not guilty (whether the person is guilty or not is irrelevant -- MADD is concerned with convicting everyone who is charged) at a rate they find unacceptable, then the go to the newspaper. The newspaper then runs a story about the judge or the DA. Both of those are elected positions. As such, they are terrified of MADD. They see it as MADD/newspaper/loss of votes. It is a simple formula for them.

I would love to see what would happen if the ACLU sent representatives to court and kept track of which Judges stomp the most heavily on people's Fourth Amendment rights (our DWIs are tried in front of a judge here, not a jury). I have no doubt that the newspaper would not be interested in printing a story about what judges fail to abide by the Constitution.
posted by flarbuse at 2:29 PM on October 12, 2006 [1 favorite]


Cool, our art is finally catching back up to the Upper Solutrean!
posted by jefgodesky at 2:37 PM on October 12, 2006


This TV spot, part of their "If you're high, you can't drive" campaign, is brilliant. No browbeating anti-pot message; instead, a clever stoner in-joke.
posted by onshi at 2:39 PM on October 12, 2006


As someone who's never heard of MADD, it took about 5 minutes to find out what MADD actually stood for. It's not on their logo, it's not on their "about us" page, it's not on their "history" page. I'd guessed it was something Against Drink Driving and was going to opt for "Mothers", but their president is male (unless there's some severe hormone abuse going on). Eventually I found it on the copyright notice in the footer.

That was about the most interesting thing about the site.
posted by TheDonF at 2:40 PM on October 12, 2006


Not trying to be snarky, but as a fan of print media I was excited about some nouveau or special paper being used. The placement is nice and all, but isn't that ad placement, and not paper?

It's a clever idea. Just looking for more paper links!! MORE DEAD TREES DAMN YOU
posted by cavalier at 2:41 PM on October 12, 2006


Huh? What are you advocating?

That the legal blood alcohol level used to judge insobriety is artificially low, and people who cannot take a bus/ taxi/ walk to enjoy their libations are unfairly ensnared by this test.
posted by docgonzo at 2:43 PM on October 12, 2006 [1 favorite]


When my bong looks and talks like Tom Servo, I generally curl up in a fetal position and murmur platitudes to myself.
posted by hal9k at 2:45 PM on October 12, 2006


TheDonF, it did stand for Mothers against Drunk Driving originally. Then, I believe it was changed to Mothers against Dangerous Decisions (I had a hard time too finding the acronym on their website, so I could be wrong), when they started echoing the "just say no" "all drugs are always terrible" message. Recently, they stupidly criticized adult-supervised parties where alcohol was served. Their mission has crept from a noble one to a knee-jerk puritanical one.
posted by SBMike at 2:46 PM on October 12, 2006


TheDonF: It doesn't help that the main link lists them as "Mothers against Drunk Drivers"

The group at our school was SADD, Students against Drinking and Driving. Which seems to be a lot more clear cut.
posted by ODiV at 2:48 PM on October 12, 2006


At my high school, SADD was Students Against Destructive Decisions.

I dunno if these were posted here, but these bags are awesome!
posted by daninnj at 2:51 PM on October 12, 2006


Oops, my mistake. Got it confused with SADD. But it was MADD that criticized the parties.

And looking at their FAQ, it seems that they have been largely responsible for upholding the 21 minimum drinking age legislation and zero tolerance laws, which I think do far more to foster a culture of irresponsible drinking than any beer ad possibly could. It's called moderation, people.
posted by SBMike at 2:54 PM on October 12, 2006 [1 favorite]


That is really brilliant.
posted by fire&wings at 3:05 PM on October 12, 2006


TheDonF: It doesn't help that the main link lists them as "Mothers against Drunk Drivers"

You mean the link to the blog? On the blog under the posters it does, but I didn't get that far. I just went "oh, another blog", clicked the images and shut it down. Even the blog owner couldn't be bothered to write more than "MADD" at the top of his post. If you don't mean the blog, then, nope, I'm not seeing it.
posted by TheDonF at 3:13 PM on October 12, 2006


Huh? What are you advocating? That people in rural communites be allowed to drink and drive? Or that people in rural communities handle their alcohol better? Or that you're against drunk driving but not really?

Probably that the BAC limit should be higher then 0.8, which is about as dangerous as driving with a cellphone (not that dangerous). A young person with a 0.8 BAC is a much safer driver then an elderly person with no alcohol in their blood.

Drunk driving is a bad idea, but MADD has taken things way to far with the 0.8 limit.
posted by delmoi at 3:46 PM on October 12, 2006 [1 favorite]


Hm. It's clever design, granted, but I'm not sure it really works on an emotional level, as the cleverness of the physical medium detracts from the impact, so to speak. It makes me think of Charlie Kaufman films - which, with their ultra-postmodern approach to the cinematic form, make me think about and question the paradigms of cinema, consequently detaching me from what I'm supposed to be feeling. Not that I don't appreciate Kaufman's stories, it's just that I've never felt moved to shed a tear for the protagonists therein. The same goes for this campaign, for me anyway.
posted by bokeh at 3:47 PM on October 12, 2006


Why is the BAC limit .08 in about half the US states, and .1 in the rest, instead of being .09 in some states?
posted by found missing at 3:50 PM on October 12, 2006


I thought all states had to go to .08 or risk losing federal funding for road construction.
posted by I Am Not a Lobster at 4:30 PM on October 12, 2006


I thought that was the threat that got all the states to change to 21 as the legal drinking age.
posted by ODiV at 4:33 PM on October 12, 2006


It was; they did the same thing for the .08 BAC. Clinton signed it of October 6, 2000 as part of the Federal Transportation Appropriations Bill. States had until 2003 to pass lower BAC laws, then they started losing funding each year until they complied. I don't know how many states haven't complied yet.
posted by I Am Not a Lobster at 4:37 PM on October 12, 2006


Looks like all of the states went to .08 to protect their federal cash.
posted by I Am Not a Lobster at 4:42 PM on October 12, 2006


You're far more likely to be killed by a doctor than a drunk driver.

But then, more people in the US died of food poisoning in 2001 than were killed by terrorists. If only this country would pull its head out now and then.
posted by landis at 5:14 PM on October 12, 2006 [1 favorite]


If you are out at a bar and see one of these, I recommend lighting the poster on fire, and then screaming quietly (because the people would be small if they could fit in that car) "Ahhhh! I'm burning! Ahhhhh!".

Fortunately, the firefighting equipment necessary to save the lives of those poor people who are burning up in their car is just an arms reach away.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:19 PM on October 12, 2006


If only this country would pull its head out now and then.

We could use it as firefighting equipment, instead of just for pissing!
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:20 PM on October 12, 2006


It's a marvelous design. But I don't know if it's as effective as it is clever.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:28 PM on October 12, 2006


Candy Lightner founded MADD after her daughter was killed by a drunk driver who had four previous drunk driving accidents under his belt. Her goal was to keep such repeat offenders off the road. She quit the organization when it became "anti-drinking" instead of "anti-drunk driving."
posted by Oriole Adams at 6:30 PM on October 12, 2006 [2 favorites]


I remember what is was like before groups like MADD. Drunk driving was a national sport. I can't recall a time when I was a kid driving with my old man where he didn't have an open beer in his lap. We all did then.

I have a soft spot for the organization.

My freshman year in college my best friends little brother, Dan, was struck and killed by a drunk driver.

Dan had gallantly stopped to help change a tire of some strangers when a car, speeding and swerving, slammed into him before he could get up off the pavement. He was thrown nearly fifty feet and was killed instantly. He was sweet, bright, kid. He was 17.

The fuck that killed Dan was a four time DUI loser. In fact he fled the scene, got home, and before the cops got there he had managed to get his wife to cop to driving the car because she had a clean record. So his WIFE gets hauled off as she didn't know he'd killed a kid. What a fuck.

Dan's mom got heavily involved in MADD after that and I have to tell you everybody I knew cleaned up their act after that.

And another weird thing. My bud - the next morning, before we hand found out the news, BOTH of us woke up to "Daniel" by Elton John on his clock radio. And the phone rang during "Your eyes have died but you see more than I. Daniel you're a star in the face of the sky."

That song still makes me cry.
posted by tkchrist at 7:21 PM on October 12, 2006


You're far more likely to be killed by a doctor than a drunk driver.

Well, by doctor error. And unlike drunk driving, doctors serve a necessary purpose.

Dan had gallantly stopped to help change a tire of some strangers when a car, speeding and swerving, slammed into him before he could get up off the pavement. He was thrown nearly fifty feet and was killed instantly. He was sweet, bright, kid. He was 17.

Did the guy have a .08-.10 BAC?
posted by delmoi at 7:57 PM on October 12, 2006


I too am against drunk driving, what rationale person isn't.

Probably the idiots who wear DAMM t-shirts (drunks against mad mothers) or anyone else that finds it necessary to mock those who've lost a child because some selfish prick thinks he should be able to do whatever he wishes.

Y'all seem to be arguing the laws against DUI are too harsh. i think they're far too lenient. Personally, I think if you're caught DUI you should have your license revoked permanently. No second chances or temporary suspensions. If you kill someone on a DUI? Major prison time.
posted by dobbs at 8:16 PM on October 12, 2006


dobbs:

People aren't saying that laws punishing drunk people are too harsh; they're questioning whether the people being punished are drunk.
posted by callmejay at 8:23 PM on October 12, 2006 [1 favorite]


I live in a college town, and from what I can see the drunk driving laws, with their rediculously low BAC standards, serve to pump thousands of dollars into the DA's coffers. Not to mention lining the pockets of those running court-mandated "drunk driving schools" and the like.

I know no one personally who has been affected by a drunk driver. But I know that it happens, and my heart goes out to all that have been hurt by drunken idiots.

I do, however, know three people that have had to pay up to six thousand dollars in court costs, lawyers fees, and the aforementioned "schools". All were either stopped at roadblocks or during late night "fishing expeditions" by local law enforcement. (Make sure to use your turn signals after midnight). All three were barely over the "limit".

Its not that the laws are too harsh. Its that the standards for drunkeness are so low. And that said standards are used not to get dangerous drunks off the streets, but to enrich the local legal establishment in all their capacities.
posted by landis at 8:31 PM on October 12, 2006 [1 favorite]


Yes, doctors serve a purpose. But considering just how much more likely one is to kill you than a drunk driver, I think the comparison stands.
posted by landis at 8:35 PM on October 12, 2006


*ridiculously*

I'm sober, but these fingers . . . .
posted by landis at 8:36 PM on October 12, 2006


Decent Wikipedia page about MADD, including a link to an interesting opinion piece about Candy Lightner's break with the group.
posted by mediareport at 9:22 PM on October 12, 2006


I knew a kid in high school who was killed by a drunk driver in a story just about identical to tkchrist's, so I understand why there's certinly a need for MADD, and I also understand their fervor. If I had lost a child to a drunk driving accident, whether it was the other driver's fault or my own child's, I would do everything I could to keep anyone who'd had a drink off the road.

However, it's a little like that old defense of the death penalty, asking, "If your child were raped and murdered, what would want to have happen to the perpetrator?" It's irrelevent to justice at best, and detrimental at worst, to have the people most emotionally wracked by an event be involved in legislating, or enforcing, the laws that are involved. MADD's intention's are noble, but it oversteps its bounds in a few places and that's what people are commenting on here.

The problem with our modern drunk-driving-view isn't that we're too harsh or too lenient - people shouldn't opoerate a vehicle when impaired, it's that simple - but rather that we overuse it in a need to find blame. I don't have the figures in front of me, so strike me down if I'm wrong here, but common sense tells me that nighttime has a much higher frequency of automotive accidents than the daylight hours do. It's dark, and a lot of roads don't have the best lighting, especially around wooded corners. Add to this the fact that people are a lot sleepier in general. Now pull into this the factor that this is when anyone who has been drinking, whether they've had ten shots of whiskey or a single beer, is likely to be on the road, and we see a great number of factors in play that soon come down to one once in court.

One of my favorite anecdotes from Driver's ed back in the day was of a priest, who had never drank before, studied as being entirely unable to drive in a straight line after reaching only a .04 BAC, coupled with the story of a guy who'd been pulled over just for making an odd swerve, was questioned by the cops for a bit and seemed fine, and then blew a .25 on the scale. .08 is arbitrary, and we'd probably have a lot fewer accidents if we lowered the drinking age to 16 and raised the driving age to 18, though we might end up with a lot more teen pregnancies that way.

I don't have the solution, which would idealy involve some way of truly knowing whether or not the driver was truly impaired or not (field sobriety tests have been notoriously used just for officers to prove that anyone - even stone-cold sober drivers - are under the infulence, and have since been largely replaced by the .08 BAC Breathalizers) but the current system isn't perfect, and as long as the fear keeps turning towards puritanism, then it will only serve as an inneffectual preventative and an injustice in the courts.
posted by Navelgazer at 10:14 PM on October 12, 2006 [1 favorite]


From the Candy Lightner op-ed:

Before Ms. Lightner’s crusade, intoxication, including drunken driving, was not taken seriously. Some comedians actually made a career of impersonating drunken people on stage. Intoxication was often used as an excuse for otherwise unacceptable behavior: “I didn’t know what I was doing --- I was drunk.”

Glad to see times have changed.

Still, a good illustration of the dissagreements in this thread.
posted by Navelgazer at 10:21 PM on October 12, 2006


I can't seem to let this go . . . .

Just to clarify my statements above: the reason I made the drunk driving/doctor comparison was not to dismiss the problem of drunks killing people, but to make the point that doctors are far more likely to kill you; yet we see no Mothers Against Dangerous Doctors.

And the food poisoning/terrorist comparison was to illustrate this country's seeming inability to realistically assess dangers.

Of course, the answer might be that there is money to be made from DUIs and going after the world's second largest supply of oil, while money can be saved by cutting inspectors at the FDA and the AMA (with all it's lobbying power and money) can be counted on to police itself.
posted by landis at 10:55 PM on October 12, 2006


Yes, doctors serve a purpose. But considering just how much more likely one is to kill you than a drunk driver, I think the comparison stands.

Well, I would certainly agree we should ban drunk doctors...
posted by delmoi at 12:03 AM on October 13, 2006


and we'd probably have a lot fewer accidents if we lowered the drinking age to 16 and raised the driving age to 18, though we might end up with a lot more teen pregnancies that way.

LOL.
posted by delmoi at 12:05 AM on October 13, 2006


Well, I would certainly agree we should ban drunk doctors...

Second the motion.
posted by landis at 12:10 AM on October 13, 2006


Here's some stats from the NCIPC that address the BAC issue (about halfway down the page).
The review revealed that state laws that lowered the illegal BAC for drivers from 0.10% to 0.08% reduced alcohol-related fatalities by a median of 7 percent, translating to 500 lives saved annually.
Of course, correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but if you're going to set an arbitrary limit on the permitted BAC level you might as well base it on figures like these.

Per Navelgazer's point about different people having differing levels of driving skills at a certain BAC level, anecdotally that makes perfect sense to me, but I don't see how you'd go about formulating public policy based on that information.
posted by whir at 12:30 AM on October 13, 2006


Va. Judge Disputes Constitutionality Of DUI Law
From the article:
The judge is challenging one of the powers police and prosecutors rely on for arrests and convictions: the results of breath tests given to suspected drunken drivers. Virginia law says that anyone with a blood alcohol content level of 0.08 percent or more is presumed to be driving under the influence of alcohol. It is then up to the driver to rebut the presumption or prove he or she wasn't drunk.

O'Flaherty began dismissing DUI charges two weeks ago, ruling that the law is unconstitutional because the burden of proof in all cases rests with the prosecutor and this law puts the burden on the defense.

*Anyone have a followup on this?
posted by landis at 12:39 AM on October 13, 2006


People aren't saying that laws punishing drunk people are too harsh; they're questioning whether the people being punished are drunk.

Which may fly if the majority of those convicted of DUI were caught in sobriety checkpoints as opposed to being stopped after driving erratically/violating motor vehicle laws or if the majority of those convicted of DUI had BAC levels in the, say, .08-.12 range rather than higher. Are there any statistics to demonstrate either?
posted by Dreama at 2:14 AM on October 13, 2006


I should note that yes, there are statistics which show that most fatalities are associated with those with BAC of .20+ but fatalities aren't the only metric to be concerned with. There is great, long-lasting, life-altering (and life-shortening) injury that can come with a non-fatal accident. (There is also the matter that improved medical technology is converting what were once accident fatalities into gravely injured accident survivors.) There is also great financial loss involved in many accidents which involve no injury or no major injury at all.
posted by Dreama at 3:10 AM on October 13, 2006


the point that doctors are far more likely to kill you

No shit sherlock - the reason you are at a doctor is because you are ill. the reason you get murdered by a drunk is because, well... he's drunk.

Alcohol impedes on your ability to control a motor effectively. Different people have different tolerance to alcohol. therefore it makes sense to pick the lowest levels. I wouldn't be able to drive effectively after a glass of wine, so I don't. Some fools think they can drive fine when they can't.

Personally I think this could be settled easily. Got drink in your system, don't drive. stop making excuses for dumb asses.
posted by twistedonion at 4:48 AM on October 13, 2006


I do, however, know three people that have had to pay up to six thousand dollars in court costs, lawyers fees, and the aforementioned "schools". All were either stopped at roadblocks or during late night "fishing expeditions" by local law enforcement.

Here's the fucking hint.

Number of alcoholic beverages to consume before driving. Zero.

See how fucking hard it is to avoid drinking and driving?

My answer is simple. .05% is too fucking high, but there's enough noise in the test that we can't safely say .01%, so I'm willing to accept .08%. Because the correct BAC for a driver is 0. Period.

So, you want to know what I think of having to pay $6000 in court costs, lawyers, and schools? Not enough!

(Make sure to use your turn signals after midnight).

Make sure to use your turn signals EVERY TIME YOU ARE GOING TO TURN OR CHANGE LANES.

All three were barely over the "limit".

Which means it should be at least a decade before they should be allowed to drive again. They got off far too cheap.

I've buried far too many people I cared about because someone thought they could handle it, and I'm fucking tired of what drunk drivers have done to my life and the life of my friends and relations.
posted by eriko at 5:36 AM on October 13, 2006


I agree, eriko. My husband and I have lost too many people as well. Here at least in Chicago there are lots of transportation options, but I'm horrified at his friends in Massachusetts, who frequently go to bars and all drive home drunk. He's had at least three friends die that I know about, either from crashes or from being hit by a drunk driver. It's disgusting that people think it's acceptable to get behind the wheel when they've been drinking.
posted by agregoli at 7:01 AM on October 13, 2006


I'm sure this will raise some hackles, but...:

I'd rather share the road with a tipsy, but attentive, driver than a sober, but inattentive, driver.

Where are the stats on wrecks caused by folks that fail to look both ways before pulling out or check their blind spots before changing lanes? How about the chick who was putting on lipstick or the chap who was busy tuning his radio? What about the folks that drive with music loud enough that they can't hear what's going on around them?? (that's basically everybody on the road, but waaah I loves my Sirius...) And if they hit a driver with alcohol in his system, through 100% of their own negligence, guess whose "fault" that is? Sure, sure, if the guy's been drinking he shouldn't be on the road anyway, so anything that happens is his fault, huh? Right.

Certainly, there are clear-cut cases where a very drunk driver, swerving all over the road, plows into another car or pedestrian -- yep, totally that asshole's fault -- but the stats are politically skewed to be support a predetermined conclusion. It's kinda like "excessive speed"...

The problem is that there is no way to easily enforce a You Must Pay Attention law, but we *do* have breathalizers and radar guns. Somebody needs to invent an Attent-o-meter.

...almost got hit 3 times over a week's stretch. In each case, the driver merged over right into me, and I mean completely into my lane. (My car is bright fucking RED!!!) Twice, I had a clear lane to dodge into, honked the horn they jerked their own car back. Once, I had to threshold brake because I was trapped between the other car and a curb. The girl never even looked up, never knew she nearly caused a wreck -- thank jebus I was on my race tires or she woulda gotten me.
posted by LordSludge at 8:04 AM on October 13, 2006 [1 favorite]


I'd rather share the road with a tipsy, but attentive, driver than a sober, but inattentive, driver.

I'd rather both had their licences revoked. The road would be twice as safe to drive.
posted by twistedonion at 10:48 AM on October 13, 2006


Agreed, but one is demonized (and used as a tool for the War On some Drugs) while the other is tolerated because "oopsie, accidents happen!"

Study after study shows that talking on the cellphone while driving is as dangerous as driving drunk. Here's a fun thing to do: Make a mental note of every police officer you see talking on the cellphone while driving. It's about half of em around here. (I understand; the temptation must be high when you're on the road all day.) Now imagine the outrage if those same police officers all were just a little drunk. "Oh noes, teh public is at risk!!" and I would agree. But I've never heard one single person complain about officers chatting it up behind the wheel.

It's just a bit of misplaced outrage with a dose of morality -- after all, alcohol is baaaad.
posted by LordSludge at 4:32 PM on October 13, 2006 [1 favorite]


Everyone I know tsk tsks just as much for stories of when a person causes a fatal accident because they were inattentive as they do for stories of when a person causes a fatal accident because they were drunk.

It's that preventing drinking and driving is a much easier cause to take action on. Also, you can prove someone was drunk - you can't always prove they were inattentive.
posted by agregoli at 8:40 AM on October 16, 2006


And yes - alcohol mixed with operating a motor vehicle is, as you say, "baaaaad." Nothing wrong with thinking that way - it's the truth.
posted by agregoli at 8:40 AM on October 16, 2006


Thanks Metafilter, for reinforcing that nagging belief of mine that people are getting more and more blase about drunk driving. We shouldn't worry about drunk driving because people are talking on cell phones and doctors are fucking up patients? False dichotomy much? 1/84 people die transportation related deaths, the majority of those are related to drunk driving and almost all transportation deaths are human error and totally avoidable. These aren't dying sick people. These aren't the elderly. They're everyone. At least I can avoid second-hand smoke. Until somebody shows me a way to get around town without ever crossing a single street, I can't avoid sudden, violent, automobile related death.

I prefer cultural change over government regulation, but, if you're going to be a libertarian care-nothing dickhead about it, I'll help pass more laws just for spite.
posted by Skwirl at 11:03 PM on October 26, 2006


Oops, wrong thread. Oh well, still relevant.
posted by Skwirl at 11:04 PM on October 26, 2006


« Older Haiku Circus....  |  Imagine Earth Without People... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments