Fewer Deaths Due to Drunken Driving in Wisconsin

Patrick McIlheran provides some interesting numbers on the scourge of drunken driving in Wisconsin.

The problem isn't getting worse. In fact, the situation has improved.

This year, we all stood a much lower chance of dying in a car crash.

"The total body count has dramatically dropped from last year," said, bluntly, Dennis Hughes, chief of safety programs for the Wisconsin State Patrol Bureau of Transportation Safety. As of Monday morning, 587 people had died in the state this year in car crashes. By Dec. 29 of last year, that number was 735. Drivers win; reaper loses.

This extends a decades-long streak, nationally and in Wisconsin. Your odds of dying in a crash are much lower today than they were only 25 years ago. What's more, your odds of dying in a car crash that involves a drunken driver are much lower, too. You knew that, right?

You're forgiven if you didn't. From fatal repeat offenders to talk of roadblocks and Breathalyzer ignitions, one is left with the sense that drunken driving is a worsening problem.

It isn't. Since what Hughes called the "watershed year" of 1981, in which Wisconsin lawmakers got harsh, "the numbers have come down pretty dramatically," he said. In 1982, for instance, 418 people died in Wisconsin car crashes involving at least one person whose blood-alcohol level was above 0.08%, now the legal limit. Last year, the number was 313.

That's a drop of 25%. If you take into account that people are driving more, Wisconsin's rate of drunken driving fatalities per mile driven is down about 60%. National figures show a similar change: a sharp and steady drop from the 1980s to the late 1990s, then a much slower rate of decline since then.

McIlheran notes that it's important to be aware of the reality.

This matters because some of the public policy talk is edging toward panic. Wisconsin's punishments of drunken drivers are comparatively light; some lawmakers want to toughen them. This is reasonable. More of Wisconsin traffic deaths involve booze than in other states; some lawmakers are demanding that police set up checkpoints at which drivers would be stopped, sniffed and, if necessary, clapped in irons. This is a non-sequitur.

Quite aside from whether sobriety checkpoints actually catch many drunks for all the police time they use, there's the matter of whether it's reasonable, constitutional or wise to make everyone on a road a suspect. Civil libertarians note there's that little thing called the Fourth Amendment: Once you give the state the power to stop anyone, any time, it's unlikely to confine its inspections to alcohol.

...We're properly cautious about giving the feds search-and-seizure power in the emerging threat of terrorism. You'd think we could take a deep breath before demanding that everyone exhale one into the tube to fight the diminishing threat of roadway drunks.

McIlheran isn't advocating going easy on drunken drivers. He's not being an apologist for reckless, irresponsible, and sometimes deadly behavior. He's merely offering perspective.

I don't think everyone behind the wheel should become a suspect. I do think that punishment for drunken drivers, especially for repeat offenders, should be harsh.

Getting drunks off the roads and keeping them off the roads shouldn't require sober, responsible drivers to be treated as potential drunks.

Resources should be used to deal with hazardous drivers, not wasted on those posing no threat to the safety of the public.

While there's no reason to panic, there is reason to get tougher with convicted offenders. The current leniency in Wisconsin is inexcusable.

Drunks should be targeted, not law-abiding citizens.