Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 13 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Prevent drunk driving
Published Friday, April 25, 2008
Apparently, drunken driving rates are the worst in the Upper Midwest. Wisconsin leads all states, followed by North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska and South Dakota.
A full 23.5 percent of Minnesotans over the age of 18 reported driving while under the influence of alcohol at least once between 2004 and 2006, according to a government report.
Why is this? Allow us to speculate on some reasons:
Much of life in Minnesota revolves around drinking alcohol and in large quantities. Many parts of the country have problems with various forms of drugs, but in the Midwest, historically, the drug of choice has been alcohol. This hasn’t changed in many generations of Midwesterners.
It’s cold, too. It’s hard to get around in the winter without cars.
In the warm months, people in the Upper Midwest get out of the house and to the lakes, cabins, campgrounds, parks, boats or what have you. Drinking is a large part of the summer culture. So is driving. And they often cross paths.
In a place like New England, people think a 20-minute drive is long. In the Upper Midwest, they think a one-hour drive is short. And that’s when they are sober. So when they are drunk, they figure a quick 10-minute ride home from the bar won’t hurt anyone. Of course, they would be wrong.
And the population of the Upper Midwest is largely white. Blacks generally drink at lower rates and at less hazardous rates than whites.
Plus, though there are many church organizations in the Upper Midwest, they aren’t as outspoken — or some might say preachy — as they are in the Bible Belt states, where religious organizations call for temperance.
But here’s the kicker: In the Upper Midwest, we don’t think we are unlike the rest of the country when in fact we are different. We tend to think cops busting drunken drivers is the only solution.
We are less likely to employ a measure such as a free drunk bus to bring people home from the bars because, gasp, that would supposedly look bad or somehow admit that people drink. In many places across the country, however, public transportation provides that service.
It’s easier to prevent people from driving than it is to prevent them from drinking. So preventing driving after drinking is where solutions exist.
Comments
The Daily Journal is happy to host community conversations about news and life in Fergus Falls and the surrounding area. As hosts, we expect guests will show respect for each other. That means we don't threaten or defame each other, and we keep conversations free of personal attacks. Witty is great. Abusive is not. If you think a post violates these standards, don't escalate the situation. Instead, flag the comment to alert us. We'll take action if necessary. It's not hard. This should be a place where people want to read and contribute -- a place for spirited exchanges of opinion. So those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post at all.Posted by Mel (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Utah has the lowest rate, hats off to the Mormons
Posted by bucksteel (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Utah has the highest rate of polygamy as well - is there a correlation?
Posted by SallyRay (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LOL bucksteel!!!
Posted by eripsni (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Start charging those who drive drunk with attempted murder and give them the sentence to go with it. I'm tired of people getting a fine and a stayed sentence for driving drunk...until they kill someone innocent...
Posted by thethinker (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The FFDJ's speculations are a bit senseless.
1) We are mostly white people and we drink more? Oh? I Never thought alcohol had a race-driven element to it. Must be the caucasian "beer" genome in our DNA.
2) Churches in other parts of the nation advocate temperance? I'd give you a little bit on that one as I know of several "dry" counties throughout the south but I am certain our own clergy also denounce drinking and driving as vociferously as their southern brethren.
3) Cops busting drunk drivers is the only solution we can come up with? NO. As a matter of fact I would say we are more likely to say the cops are overzealous in their pursuit of DUI's (road blocks, for example, which are a violation of the constitution - but I digress...)
4) The drunk bus as a viable solution? If the bars were closer together that may work but I don't think it is feasable when you have 1 bar in every little town, the towns are several miles apart, and not that many people are getting that blitzed.
I think we midwesterners are just more honest than the rest of the nation. People drink everywhere - not just up here in the north.
Posted by bucksteel (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We in MN, WI, ND, SD and Iowa are more honest - when you ask us if we have ever driven while drunk, we say "heck yeah". But if you ask us where we caught all those walleyes, or how we make that tender-crust apple pie, we may fib just a bit.
Posted by FungusAmugus (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
From what I have noticed down in the southern section of the nation DUI's are not really aggresively pursued unless the driver is overly intoxicated, Minnesota uses DUI's as a major source of revenue, issuing more lower level alcohol citations, oviously raising the total ammount of citations, not necessarily meaning that minnesotans drink and drive more often, just they are being more aggresivly pursued.
Posted by FungusAmugus (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Obviously, agressively, I know !!!
Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 8:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Testing....1....2...3.....ha.
Posted by tippy98c (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 11:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe they should make it illegal to drive sober past a certain time. That would cut down on the innocent bystander exposure.
Posted by rodentboy (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 12:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Blacks generally drink at lower rates and at less hazardous rates than whites"
go by the axel nelson building at 10:00 in the morning on a warm day. regardless why is the FFDJ making racial staements?
Posted by Zeglamancer (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 6:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by thethinker (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The FFDJ's speculations are a bit senseless.
1) We are mostly white people and we drink more? Oh? I Never thought alcohol had a race-driven element to it. Must be the caucasian "beer" genome in our DNA.
I got to here, and laughed. Statistics are statistics and have _absolutely nothing_ to do with racism. True factual statistics are nothing more than exactly that, factual statistics.... That reminds me of that news story I read on www.luelinks.net, 2 black kids got caught stealing apples in some grocery store. When the manager catches them one of them has the audacity to say "Aint this some racist bull****." It doesnt make you racist when you identify people by skin color. Its natural human instinct to categorize things. I mean we've classified every living animal on this planet that we've found. It IS racist to sit and nitpick/overemphasize on the race, but just saying "blacks" and "whites" when refering to statistically proven facts...
Seriously dude are you one of those jobless hippie douchebags who just sits around bitching and complaining about the dumbest most pointless stuff that really doesn't need to be whined about?
Posted by thethinker (anonymous) on April 29, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Zeg - so instead of a lively debate you retreat into debasing slurs, obtuse inferrences, and frivolous insults? Well, I'll be crossing you off the list of reasonable opinions.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)