A recent article in the Dallas Morning News is talking about a new law passed by Texas to help nab more uninsured motorists.
The topic of this post is not whether or not it is a good law, waste of time, etc., but rather who helped champion the law…. Yup, MADD.
In the article, it tells us that:
One group that lobbied for the law was MADD [Mothers Against Drunk Driving] of Texas, which argued that the average drunken driver is less likely to have insurance than other drivers.
"The need for this law has not changed in the past three years. In fact, it has probably gotten worse," said Bill Lewis of MADD-Texas. "There are probably more uninsured people today than when the law was passed."
So intoxicated drivers were intoxicated at the time they were supposed to renew their insurance?
In thinking back.. with the exception of one case, every DWI case I have handled, the client had insurance at the time. OK, so my sample group may not mean much, but there is no rhyme or reason to this thinking by MADD.
This just further shows that MADD is a political lobbying group…
So this got me to thinking. Why would a group like MADD want a law to help nab uninsured motorists?
Maybe it is because they know that many state find DWI checkpoints to be illegal, and this is just their way of finding a way to allow police "reasonable suspicion" to stop just about anyone.
aims to create a database for police officers, state troopers and vehicle inspection stations to instantly verify whether a motorist has the minimum coverage required under state law.
Basically, this could just be another tool or rouse to allow an officer to pull you over, just to check up on you. Obviously, this system is going to have problems… but these officers will still argue "good faith" when explaining why you were pulled over.
So, yes, I guess it makes sense that MADD would support this initiative…