What should Minnesota do to reduce the number of DWI offenses?
Posted at 5:00 AM on January 21, 2010
by Eric Ringham
(44 Comments)
Filed under: Health
Each year, roughly 35,000 Minnesotans are convicted of driving drunk, and about 524,000 Minnesotans have such a conviction on their records. Gov. Tim Pawlenty has proposed tougher sanctions against drunk drivers. What should Minnesota do to reduce the number of DWI offenses?
Comments texted to MPR:
Many DWI offenses are unintentional. I've always thought that bars should have breathalizers available so would-be offenders know if it's safe to drive or not. -Adam, Bloomington, MN
Minnesota needs to have Cheaper taxi services or free driving for drunk people at bars or parties. Community organizations need to encourage friends to step in and take a drunk drivers keys. -Tamara Murphy, Sunfish Lake, MN
I agree with tough limits. But help people make informed decisions by making breath tests available for public use. Don't force folks to guess what is safe. -PJ
Make ignition interlock systems easily available on new cars with significant insurance discounts for users. The .08 limit is low enough that many, if not all, alcohol users drive legally drunk. Remove the stigma attached to the acceptance of personal responsibility! -M. Mammel, MD
Share your reply in the comments: What should Minnesota do to reduce the number of DWI offenses?
Comments (44)
Abstinence guarantees 0.0 BAC(blood alcohol content) and freedom from DWI arrest.
Minnesota doesn't have to do a thing. Individual citizens must practice abstinence or face arrest.
Michael Shepard
teetotaler
Alcohol abstinence results in a 0.0 BAC (blood alcohol content). This is the only way to guarantee absence of DWI arrest.
Wow,
So my comment was asked "Don't you feel that responsible drinkers are being lumped in with irresponsible drinkers?"
The answer was of course "No"
Immediately after saying this, the guest went on to say that the most important thing to do was raise the usage tax on Alcohol! Talk about a disconnect.
Responsible drinkers already:
1) Appreciate and respect the usage of Alcohol
2) Don't drink to intoxication
3) Have designated drivers, plan ahead for a place to stay, and don't drive impaired!
4) Promote safe drinking habits with friends, colleges, and acquaintances.
So why are we demonized?
From experience, I know the laws are definitely tough enough for 1st time offenders. The solution to this problem will not be found in tougher laws.
In California repeat offenders are required to attend classes on substance abuse. Does that ever happen in Minnesota?
I see articles about people repeatedly driving drunk without licenses. How does that happen? Someone loaned them a car or someone sold them a car. Let's hold those people responsible for their actions. Take away the car any time someone drives without a license and prosecute anyone who loans/gives/sells a car to someone without a valid drivers license. We should make it easy for anyone to check to see if someone has a valid driver's license at a state website.
DUI (and DUI recidivism) is, unfortunately, a socially acceptable problem. How about utilizing North Dakota's checkpoint system right here in Minneliberal? Violating your rights, you say? How about looking at it as protecting the innocent? Or, if you have nothing to worry about, why care if you pass through a checkpoint for only but a moment to help keep our roads safe? It's the same principle as the body scan prior to boarding a plane: I could care less what TSA sees because all I want is to get to where I am going safely without my plane blowing up. And, the true mission of the DPS: public safety. It's time we start focusing on safety instead of allowing special interests groups to operate under the guise of "rights violations."
And, as was mentioned before, a breath tester in a bar would become nothing but a new game to play (hey, look how drunk I am!). Plus, who gets to be responsible for its accuracy? Don't know your limit? Don't drink or maybe stay home. At a bar and want to know what your BAC is? It's not illegal to call the local police and ask to be tested BEFORE you drive.
If you are arrested for driving over the limit, allow the law to actually impose the current fines, fees and sentences to the letter rather than allow or accept plea agreements. Currently, a 4th degree DUI is a misdemeanor, punishable up to 90 days in jail and/or a $1000 fine; 3rd and 2nd degree DUI is a gross misdemeanor with up to a year in jail and/or $3000 fine and lastly, the 1st degree is a felony.
The cops are doing their job; now, allow the law to work, people...
The question being asked is the wrong one. "What should Minnesota do to reduce the number of DWI offenses?" Simple - revoke the law. No law, no offense, the number drops to zero (the question's implied goal.)
The question that SHOULD be asked is "What can be done to prevent people from driving while intoxicated?" That's different... and it takes a culture change. Whether they think about it or not, potential drunk drivers weigh the risk and associated costs of being caught against their chances of getting away with it. Safe (legal) driving often loses that analysis.
Penalties for bad behavior and rewards for good may help some... but they're too little, too late when compared with the effect that could be achieved by being raised in a culture where that sort of thing is a taboo.
As long as drinking to excess is even marginally acceptable in society, the problem will remain. Laws make people feel safer, but it's the memories of Grandma shaking her finger at you that keeps you in line.
lst offense: take away car, 6 months in jail, then 6 months home detention. The offender can use public transportation to go to/from work during home detention.
Minnesota is a driving state. Where is the public transportation outside of the cities? Even taxis are way over priced. In Bemidji, if I leave my car on a downtown street overnight, I'll either have a $20 ticket or be towed before 9am. A taxi out and back is twice that much. Add to that small minded approach that alcohol is an evil to be tolerated, although ironically, it is revenue producing at the municipal liquor store. Morality turns a blind eye to the reality that people drink and need alternative, affordable late night transportation.
Take away not just the license, take away the car.. for good! Get a DWI and the state owns your car on the spot! Even before you are taken away from the scene under arrest, your car is on the back of a tow truck on it's way to the impound lot. The only way you will see your car again is at auction. Thinking of just buying another car? Don't bother, you won't even be able to register a skateboard in the state for the next two years. Politicians, are you listening?
We need to create a society where public transportation and walking/biking are easier than driving a car.
With the way our cities and towns are constructed, the only way to get from point A to point B is to take a car. Public transportation needs to be more frequent, cheaper, and in more places.
We also need to construct cities where people can walk/bike to work or to shop instead of traveling huge distances every day.
By changing the way we travel, we can hopefully reduce the amount of drunk drivers.
The punishment for driving while intoxicated should be equivalent to that of attempted murder, as that is essentially what drunk driving is.
Mandatory short term jail time ( a few weeks to a month) for the first offense, a substantial fine to cover the cost of their incarceration, and a mandatory treatment program. That first jail time should provide offenders with plenty of time to think about whether they would like to live significant portions of their lives behind bars. It will also result in poeple warning their friends that it isn't worth the risk.
For additional offenses the penalty should match that of attempted murder since that is what drunk driving is.
It always makes me smile when we can't figure out what to do about this or other issues of this nature. If you want to make people change their ways you make the punishment severe enough that they don't want to encure that punishment. Currently there is no strong deterrent, if there were we would not have people out driving our highways endangering my family with 6, 8 or even more DWI convictions. We need not make it more difficult than it is, make the laws and enforce them!
And ditto to Amy's comments.
Erik: "Knee jerk reaction or not - does not "intoxication" refer to a level of impairment that should make it irresponsible to get behind the wheel? And do we not indicate that level in the state to be .08?"
You're absolutely right, and thats exactly my point. Statistics for DUI and alcohol-related offenses are commonly misinterpreted at best, and deliberately skewed at worst. "Intoxicated" is used interchangeably with "had some amount of alcohol".
One should examine the obvious profit motive of the state to continue to charge such outrageous fines for even first time offenses, despite a good amount of evidence showing that fines of any magnitude do not serve as a deterrent. This type of rhetoric may draw public support for such punishments, but does little to solve the core issues of alcohol-related offenses, providing a great disservice to the victims whom are so often cited as the reason for the fines in the first place..
Heres the actual study - the highest percentage is on weekend nights, where 4.8% of drivers are over the legal limit - a far cry from the 25% figure often cited. NHTSA 11175
I think there needs to be more enforcement, not more laws. Without adequate enforcement, laws won't change behavior because people have every expectation of getting away with drunk driving.
When I see people driving far in excess of the speed limit, I have to assume there are no state patrol, sheriff's deputies or police around. As a result, I expect that if I did drive drunk, I'd be unlikely to get caught as long as I didn't crash. The problem is worst on the rural two-lane roads, where you can drive for hours on a weekend evening without seeing any sign of law enforcement.
I think making the penalties stiffer is an easy way to seem "tough on crime" (whatever that means), but I think that increasing law enforcement to the degree that the average bar patron can expect to encounter a cop on the way home is more likely to change behaviors.
Repeat offenders are usually addicted. I have watched a member of my family who is severly addicted struggle with alcohol addiction with very little resouces. We need more brain research to help these people. The treatment centers we have are expensive, which eliminates many who need help. This addiction ripples to countless numbers of people surrounding the addict.
Answers are a bit easier where chronic addiction is not the reason for the offense.
A combination of punishment & options of public transportation would go a long way.
It is time that we finally get really SERIOUS about this problem. We need to shift our perception of it from a "Good Ole Boy" offence to the willful prelude to manslaughter that it all too often becomes.
We need to prosecute drunk driving as some form of intention to commit manslaughter.
As someone who as a DUI conviction on my record, I can say that 1.) The financial burden put upon by first-time offenders is already quite significant. Including lawyer fees, license re-instatement, fines, and posting bond...the total adds up to thousands of dollars.
2.) An increase in penalties is NOT going to dissuade people from drinking and driving as much as the governor might think. It's not going to stop someone for have 3 beers when they should've had one, and it's not going to stop someone who's mind is impared who may not be thinking clearly about the consequences of their actions.
3.) What needs to be done, if he really does want to reduce drunk-driving and not just increase revenue; is an increase in the range and time-schedules of public transit, and possibly giving cab-companies incentives to lower their fares, even if just on friday and saturday nights. For many people, a lack of viable transport alternatives means that they have to choose between risking a DUI, or sitting at home re-arranging their sock drawer...and many people are going to choose to risk it.
We really need to pull our heads out of the sand and get light rail built and greatly improve mass transit. I really was struck by a sign I saw in a subway station in London, England. It said, "One DWI Last Year, One Too Many. Take The Underground." People would be less likely to drive if they could walk a few block and get on the light rail and be home in 20 minutes. As for outstate, there needs to be more taxi service.
Simple solutions. Outlaw alcohol, outlaw driving, or execute those who drink and drive. Also get the facts. Less than 2% of multiple car crashes involve alcohol. The number one cause of car crashes and car deaths is sober driving (speeding, texting, radio, eating, being young and stupid, on the phone while driving, and so on.)
The number on cause of car deaths is SOBER DRIVING, not drunk driving. The statistics are distorted to demonize alcohol. It's not alcohol, it's the cars, the drivers. Cars kill people, not alcohol. I oppose drunk deaths. I even more oppose sober deaths.
Can we attack the real problem, bad sober driving?
I've had 2 friends get DUIs on their record. Neither one realized they were over the limit.
I do not agree with this proposal from Gov. Pawlent for first time offenders. Both friends felt the present punishment was sufficient for them to quit drinking. I believe we should ttry to give drivers the opportunity to know if they are over the limit without disabling the car(as we do with speed and speedometers).
Multiple offenders need treatment.
Having lost two members of my family to drunk drivers, I'm sympathetic to finding a solution, however, this not the only source of the murder on the highway. Pawlenty's proposal of an indefinite $100/month tax on first time offenders while sounding cool, would be a terrific economic burden those most affected, the working poor. I believe his motivation is totally political and self serving. If he was serious about reducing auto fatalities he would also call for a similar restriction for people who are caught using a cell phone while driving. Any action to do otherwise is hypocritical.
Hey KM - I understand completely what you are saying - however - a chef I used to work with blew a .16 I believe? He was just at the Felony level on his DWI... So what ever level that is.
He purposly hired a "high price laywer" who in our community has a reputation for getting punishments lessened.
Sure enough - the Felonly charges were dropped - he is serving 60 days of time served - but he has family and work release. So he is permitted to leave 3 mornings a week to be with his kids and then released for work for the 40 hours a week. To his own admission he feels it sucks but is really only him having to sleep in jail. I'm sure there are countless cases on both sides of the argument - but - there is certainly a case for hiring the right lawyer to lessen the charges.
yes, it would take some cultural change, too. if i know i'm going out and will be drinking, part of the money i spend will be set aside for a cab ride. the "i can handle it" attitude has got to go and the phrase "oh, i'm just fine to drive" is overused and almost always a big fat lie.
also, i really believe that people are just not educated and aware about their own individual BAC and just try to guess by number of drinks or some chart that they read. make breathalizers more availabe or part of getting a drivers license.
I'm an attorney who frequently handles DWI cases-- and because of state statute, "high priced attorneys" are not getting their clients out of DWIs. Attorneys have VERY little to challenge in DWI cases, despite what is commonly believed. Over 99% of people charged w/ a DWI end up pleading guilty as charged.
We need to address the root causes of the problem-- alcoholism. DWI courts are great programs that should be expanded to allow first time DWI-ers and people with violent criminal histories participate.
Legalize marijuana. I can imagine the alchohol industry and bars lobbying against legalization of marijuana due to a substantial decrease in sales of alchohol.
Another point. The american public as of yet accepts the slaughter on the roads in order to protect their right to get drunk. It's called collateral damage.
I would not consider myself to be "intoxicated" after 1 pint of beer - which if I am driving - I will typically limit myself to over a 90 minute period of time.
Knee jerk reaction or not - does not "intoxication" refer to a level of impairment that should make it irresponsible to get behind the wheel? And do we not indicate that level in the state to be .08?
Michael: "By the way, the actual percentage of drivers with a BAC of .08 or above is 2.2%, from a 2007 NHTSA survey." The unfortunate part of that statistic however is that the time of day is not taken into consideration - link us to a webpage if there are hourly statistics. (I'm googling away to find one myself with little success.)
In response to Eric's comment:
-- "The scariest part of it - my boss went to a defensive driving course recently - where he was told that 1/4th of the drivers after 11pm are driving intoxicated. That being the case - are the current laws working? NO. Are these 25% of the drivers taking the law seriously and feel it as an actual threat? It is obvious they aren't." --
This statistic, which is referenced in countless articles related to DWI offenses, makes no mention of the level of intoxication - only the fact that the driver has consumed alcohol in any amount before driving.
By your own admission, you also drive home after a beer or a drink, meaning you are a part of the 25% of which you had previously referenced.
Skewed statistics and knee-jerk reactions to alcohol consumption make it impossible to have a real, meaningful conversation on the problem of drunk driving.
By the way, the actual percentage of drivers with a BAC of .08 or above is 2.2%, from a 2007 NHTSA survey.
Eric makes some good points; i.e. that breathalyzers in bars can have the opposite effect intended "I blew a .5 and am still standing!" Also how public transit isn't a solution for non-metro communities. Even in the metro, its only a viable option for a distinct minority of the population.
Amy brings up the culture issue; which has multiple sides. I live in Minneapolis, where there are very few neighborhood bars, when compared to St Paul, for instance. So when the guys in the neighborhood want to meet for a beer, we have to get in a car. Half the time, we go to St Paul. The suburbs are worse, I think. Good luck walking to a watering hole out there.
Enforce the existing law that makes it illegal to serve a drunk person more alcohol.
I forgot to add - that bars and restaurants are actually advised against breathalizers by some MN bar/restaurant training group. When I was a bartender we had a MN association come in to do our underage drinking policy training and MN drinking laws training. It was this group - I cannot remember the name of - that told the owners to not have those breathalizers in the bar.
To Take a bit from Rebecca: "also, i think it would be interesting to make breathalizers available in bars. i think a lot of people would be really shocked about the risks they are taking."
This was actually done once - it was something you could put a quarter in and blow and see where you were. Unfortunately in so many bars - it became a game to see who could blow the highest - and rather than a good service - became a game and a severe liability for the bars that put them in.
There is also alot of talk about having public transportation options - but in so many places - I am from Detroit Lakes for example - we are too small to have anything but a cab service. There are smaller communities nearby that have no options for cab transportation.
The scariest part of it - my boss went to a defensive driving course recently - where he was told that 1/4th of the drivers after 11pm are driving intoxicated. That being the case - are the current laws working? NO. Are these 25% of the drivers taking the law seriously and feel it as an actual threat? It is obvious they aren't.
I enjoy having the freedom to go to the bar and have a beer/drink and drive myself home. I do keep a close watch on how much I have and am very smart about when I do and do not drive. But until we can get a statewide enforcement of the laws, no ways to get the punishments lowered by high priced lawyers, ("Sure he blew a .16 and was driving - but he's a good family man!" - don't care, you chose to endanger the lives of others.) and create a system that required the offender to go through treatment/therapy optoins - we won't see significant changes.
I was in Hungary a year and a half ago - and while it was extreme compared to where we are here in MN - they have a not a drop law. If you are the driver - and you are pulled over - you cannot have a drop of alcohol in your system. And they have MUCH steeper penalties - loss of license on first offence. While I don't want to go that far - as I feel 1 glass of wine with a meal shouldn't be an issue - we have to do something different.
Scofflaws who repeatedly drink and drive are enabled by a system that does not take away vehicles routinely. Vehicle owners should have an obligation to keep their vehicles out of the hands of people known to drink and drive. Just like owning a gun, by owning a vahicle you have responsibilities to the rest of us. Take those vehicles, and you will send a message to the enablers that they cannot ignore. I know this will be seen as a sort of "regressive tax", and great hue and cry will be raised claiming that poor people need their cars to keep their jobs. We can other ways to deal with that.
i just need to repeat what has already been mentioned here. there are laws about drinking and driving. there really should be laws about bar drinking hours and public transportation hours. it is INSANE that public transportation can shut down while people are out drinking. duh! make it easier for people to get home without thinking about driving their cars! all public transportation need to be in service way later, if not 24/7, and not just on the weekends.
also, i think it would be interesting to make breathalizers available in bars. i think a lot of people would be really shocked about the risks they are taking.
So many things to say, but first and foremost, there needs to be a way to stop high priced lawyers frm getting people out of DWI's. Second, right now each county in the state has different sentencing rates if you will for DWI's, so the state laws need to be enforced equally in the court system. Cops are doing their job with stopping drunk drivers and issuing the appropriate citations and arresting DWI offenders but when the offenders get into the court system, each county has different stats for how many offenders actually get the maximum sentence. Big problem. This is how we hear about idiots on the road with 18 DWI's.
Finally, the whole social scenerio around going out for drinks needs to change. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Minnesota the second highest state in the US for binge drinking? Also not good and a big problem. Personal responsibility people, that's what it boils down to.
I believe that Minnesota should invest more in programs like DWI Courts. These courts focus on getting people treatment for their drug and alcohol addictions, which are the underlying issues of repeated drinking and driving offenses. Imposing tougher sanctions like jail or fines just exacerbates the problem because the real issues are not being addressed. There are currently nine DWI Courts in the state and they have shown good success in keeping multple DWI offenders from reoffending once they have completed the court requirements.
1) Improve public transportation / driving alternatives.
2) Increase sanctions.
we need better night public transportation. The light rail only runs until 1 am and bars close at 2. If the light rail ran tell 230 more people would use the train t go down town. Once the university line opens I would guess many college kids would use it if it runs late enough.
Limit bar patrons to 3 "drink tickets" unless they can point to their designated driver.
We could require that all autos licensed in Minnesota have the system installed that won't let you start the car if you blow a .08 or above. It would take some time and money to implement, but I believe it would be a major deterrent when done.
When I was in the Navy, we could call shore patrol if we had a few too many and needed a ride back to the ship, with no penalty or report. They would rather drive us and get us there safely than have to chase us or scrape us (or someone else) off the road. This idea sort of expands the common mindset around "protect and serve."
I really like Damara's idea, too...I think the transit systems get a pretty hefty subsidy. They should be available for the public more often...maybe they would be used more often. Why is it that things that are tried and true in Europe (i.e., working public transit systems) don't work here?
As a woman in her mid-twenties an onslaught of recent bachelorette parties has hit me a little hard. I was astonished, as our group of young women headed into downtown Mpls, to find that we could not take the bus or the light-rail home. Both stop running before "bar-close." I have to wonder at what the reasoning is...to keep their busses/trains cleaner, to keep from having to staff until 3am, etc.? While I find that concept reasonable, I still feel that it would do a greater service to keep intoxicated persons out of the drivers seat and run public transit until the wee hours of the morning - at least on the weekends.
I just wonder....there was a modern parable once, that I heard or read....at any rate, it went something like this: The U.S. spends something like 12 billion a year on the War on Drugs in Colombia. The Columbian drug lords only net about 5 billion a year by smuggling & selling drugs. Wouldn't it just be good sense to combat the problem by paying off the drug lords & being done with it.
I realize that this example has a lot of holes in it, but it got me thinking....what if, instead of the millions & millions we spend in tax payer monies to prevent, catch & process drunk drivers, we open an account with every taxicab agency in the state. If you blow a .08 or greater, you get free cab fare home. (you must have valid ID showing your home address) I wonder how much money we would save.
Naive? Maybe. A fresh idea in an era where we simply throw good money after bad & rarely move the needle on diminishing the crime? Absolutely.
| January 2010 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 | ||||||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock