MADD Versus Machine

Mothers Against Drunk Driving: A Model of Grassroots Advocacy

With the alcohol industry pouring over $2 billion annually into advertising in the United States [3,4], anyone encouraging individuals to drink responsibly certainly has their work cut out for them. Not only is the advertising well-funded, but it’s ubiquitous, consistent, and reinforces the role drinking plays in society as social traditional. There are also very few formal restrictions on alcohol advertising in the US and society’s consistent indulgence raises concerns for harmful alcohol consumption as a public health issue [4].

When it comes to public-health grassroots advocacy organizations, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) has arguably been one of the most successful in the US and is generally given credit for raising awareness and changing attitudes towards drinking and driving [1]. MADD emerged in 1980 after Candy Lightner’s 13-year-old daughter was struck from behind by a drunk hit-and-run driver in California while walking in the bike lane beside a friend. The driver responsible for the accident had a drunk driving record of four previous convictions. Following the accident, Lightner met another mother in Maryland, through a reporter, who was struck by a drunk-driver, resulting in the nearly complete paralysis of her 5-month-old daughter [2]. Following these events and the media coverage highlighting the results of drunk-driving, Lightner was inspired to establish a MADD chapter in Maryland [2].

By the time MADD had emerged, the public’s attitude towards drunk driving had drastically evolved in comparison to the early 1900s through the 1960s [1]. The nation’s shift in attitude is generally credited to activism performed by citizens, solidifying MADD as the first victim activist movement to garner national attention [1]. Three years prior to MADD’s emergence, public attention for drunk-driving was accelerated by a journalist who reported the death of two New York teens at the hands of an intoxicated driver [2,6]. The journalist, Doris Aiken, shed light on the leniency of the judicial system in their handling of drunk drivers, even when fatalities occurred [2]. Aiken’s contempt with the behavior of inebriated drivers and lack of appropriate judicial consequences led to the emergence of Remove Intoxicated Drivers (RID), an advocacy group for sobriety while driving [2]. With the materialization of MADD, Lightner and Aiken began collaborating to bring nationwide attention to the issues of drunk-driving [2]. Their efforts included publicly revealing judges and prosecutors who were lenient with DUI offenders and staging public protests to garner attention to the matter [2,6].

Public Awareness and Legislative Success

MADD’s primary angle to deter drunk driving has become lobbying for national, state, and local alcohol-safety legislation and offering support to families and victims affected by inebriated drivers [2]. The organization’s biggest wins in legislation to date are the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, which was signed into law by the Reagan Administration and solidified the legal age an individual can purchase alcoholic beverages to age 21, and the 1998 enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st century, which was signed into law by President Clinton and required all states to implement and enforce 0.8 blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limits [2]. The organization’s central focus on the victims of these incidents rather than the perpetrator is attributed as a unique feature of MADD’s approach to carrying out their mission statement [1,2]. It is believed this approach has assisted in the grassroots expansion of the organization because of the visceral component it brings to the problem [2].

Strengths and Limitations

When taken into account, the organization’s position as one of “the nation’s largest non-profit organizations dedicated to protecting families from the ravages of drunk drivers and underage drinking,” their multipronged approach to such issues can be labeled as a unique strength [1,2]. Although at the time of its emergence, MADD was not the only drinking-and-driving activist organization that was a part of the drinking-and-driving activist movement of the early 1980s, MADD has materialized as the best known for reasons that scholars and activists have taken interest to [1]. As frontrunner of the realm of organizations similar to theirs, MADD essentially has possessed more pull executing their approach to issues, which have primarily included educating the general public, placing pressure on alcohol producers to revamp enticing advertising, pressure on states and communities to implement heavier taxes and on the sale of alcohol, encouraging the development and passage of laws concerning the impaired driver, and the prosecution of the perpetrator [1,2].

While MADD’s efforts have assisted in the reduction of fatalities from impaired drivers, it is important to consider the downside of their popularity and prestige, which can also be considered a limitation. MADD’s emergence as the organization with the largest membership and reputation as “best-known to the public” among the drinking-and-driving activist movement of the early 1980s has resulted in skepticism regarding how this came to be [1]. Social scientist, Reinarman (1988) suggested the conservative political climate of the Reagan administration contributed to the advancement of MADD because its message was in alignment with the administration’s conservative law-and-order philosophy [1]. The organization placed emphasis on the immorality of drunk driving and “the individual’s responsibility for avoiding” the criminal act [1]. Fell and Voas (2006) suggest the correlation between MADD and the philosophies of the Reagan administration are difficult to evaluate objectively, however efforts to consolidate MADD and other drinking-and-driving organizations that materialized alongside MADD during the drinking-and-driving activist movement failed due to philosophical differences [2]. For example, efforts to merge MADD and Students Against Drunk Driving (SADD) failed due to SADD’s opposition to MADD’s fervent position on no tolerance for drunk driving and mandatory jail sentences for convicted DUI drivers [2]. Additionally, a differentiator of MADD from other anti-impaired driving organizations is their advocation for jail time for first-time DUI offenders as opposed to court-mandated rehabilitation [2].

A Forward-Looking Approach

Although the organization’s concerted grassroots movement has attributed to their overall success in the reduction of fatalities from impaired drivers, MADD could adopt a revamped approach that embraces the notion of community and partnership to better coincide with behaviors in culture. Because MADD’s approach to combatting drunk driving already consists of the organization collaborating with the federal, state, and local governments in their lobbying efforts, the organization could orchestrate a mandated partnership between the federal government and all ridesharing services, such as Uber and Lyft, dedicated to eliminating drunk-driving by offering free rides to intoxicated passengers. Utilizing federal funds to better ensure safety is an effective way to further close the window of opportunity where alcohol consumers are tempted to drive while under the influence. This partnership would give drinkers the opportunity to get home safely for free and refrain from drunk driving.

Currently, MADD is in partnership with Uber, but funds for free and safe rides for drinkers are dependent on public donations, whereas partnering with the government will ensure these rides are safe, free, accessible, and guaranteed. Furthermore, giving people a guaranteed free option for getting home safely also provides greater reason for perhaps stricter driving under the influence laws and higher fines if necessary. Federal funds from DUI fines and other alcohol-related punishments can also be used to fund the ridesharing program, which would ensure ridesharing services cooperation because such companies would not be losing out on money. This proposition for a different approach from MADD is not to negate the notion that laws prohibiting driving under the influence are unnecessary, but rather to approach the issue with support as the primary goal, before strict punishment is implemented.

Alcohol misuse and its role in society has inevitably made it so that rules and regulations involving it must be implemented for safety. Although collective attitudes towards harmful alcohol use have evolved overtime, multi-billion dollar advertising encouraging consumers to incorporate alcohol into their social events and interactions breeds grounds for alcohol misuse as a public health issue. Naturally, nonprofit organizations like MADD are born out of tragedy that can occur when alcohol is misused in instances such as driving. At the time of MADD’s emergence, the organization’s approach to combatting alcohol misuse was heavily punishment-oriented and embodied the cultural undertones of “Law and Order” that were prevalent during that time. However, MADD can shift their approach from punishment-oriented to partnership-oriented by advocating for a government-funded ride-sharing program, which would help them work better with people and within the culture of alcohol consumption as opposed to against it in an authoritarian manner.

1. Fell, J., & Voas, R. (2006). Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD): The First 25 Years. Traffic Injury Prevention, 7(3), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389580600727705

2. Goldbas, A., & Loewit-Phillips, P. (2013). Mothers against drunk driving (MADD): history and impact. The International Journal of Childbirth Education, 28(4), 62-.

3. Niederdeppe, J., Avery, R. J., Tabor, E., Lee, N. W., Welch, B., & Skurka, C. (2021). Estimated televised alcohol advertising exposure in the past year and associations with past 30‐day drinking behavior among American adults: results from a secondary analysis of large‐scale advertising and survey data. Addiction, 116(2), 280–289. https://doi-org.castatelib.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/add.15088

4. Morgenstern, M., Schoeppe, F., Campbell, J., Braam, M. W. G., Stoolmiller, M., & Sargent, J. D. (2015). Content Themes of Alcohol Advertising in U.S. Television-Latent Class Analysis. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 39(9), 1766–1774. https://doi-org.castatelib.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/acer.12811

5. Esser, M. B., & Jernigan, D. H. (2018). Policy Approaches for Regulating Alcohol Marketing in a Global Context: A Public Health Perspective. Annual review of public health, 39, 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-014711

6. Lerner, B. H. (2011). Drunk Driving, Distracted Driving, Moralism, and Public Health. The New England Journal of Medicine, 365(10), 879–881. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1106640

7. Sweedler, B. M., & President, P. (2006). The role of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) in reducing alcohol-related crashes in the U.S. Traffic Injury Prevention, 7(3), 193–194. https://doi-org.castatelib.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/15389580600901847