Drunk Driving in the Chicago ‘Burbs
I was in car accident this week. No one was hurt thankfully, but our cars were scraped up badly. Word got around about my accident and one of the first things a few acquaintances asked me was, “Were you drinking?” – my answer was an absolute, “No”. I was startled by the question believing it to be a character attack—but then realized the question was not out of line given how commonplace drunk driving is in suburban Chicago.
I looked up the numbers of drivers arrested for DUI in Cook, DuPage, and Kane Counties. These three counties’ DUI arrests combined amounted to 43% of the state’s DUI arrests between 2004 and 2006. (I do realize that these particular counties have large populations compared to the rest of the state and have not run numbers on DUI arrests compared to population yet.)
Here are the numbers from the 2008 Illinois DUI Fact Book (interesting read, by the way)
Drivers Arrested in Illinois for DUI
Cook County: 15,219 (2004) — 15,258 (2005) — 14,144 (2006)
DuPage County: 5,254 (2004) — 5,166 (2005) — 5,285 (2006)
Kane County: 1,240 (2004) — 1,497 (2005) — 1,702 (2006)
Cook, DuPage, & Kane: 21,713 (2004) – 21,921 (2005) – 21,131 (2006)
% of DUI of state totals: 43% 44% 42%
State-wide: 50,147 (2004) — 50,192 (2005) — 50,109 (2006)
I think the high prevalence of drunk driving in the Chicago suburbs is a by-product of not having reliable or accessible public transportation. (Sure, there are taxis, but I honestly only know one person who actually calls one when he has had a few too many.) Illinois has tough DUI laws like revoking licenses and my favorite—a new law requiring first-time DUI offenders to install a Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device in their cars starting 1 January 2009. A DUI is embarrassing—there are clear stakes at hand. I think if potential drunk drivers had a choice to take public transportation or face a DUI, they would take the public transit.
My question is: where are the “late night” or “all-night” busses that stop at a variety of suburban locations or the inexpensive or free “impaired driver” taxi cab ride? Should the local government offer transportation assistance to those under the influence? Should places that serve liquor band together and create some safe transportation network for their patrons?
Comment by Brandon on 28 December 2008 at 8:09 pm:
No suburbs no problem
Comment by chrism on 28 December 2008 at 9:08 pm:
God forbid that people would like to live away from the hustle and bustle of the city. Better to be packed in like sardines, I guess.
Comment by kitten on 28 December 2008 at 10:49 pm:
Give me a fucking break. The ‘burbs aren’t the problem. Don’t whine about not having public transportation…it’s not available in most of the rest of the state. Do you think every drunk in every bar in every small town south of the Chicago ‘burbs can take advantage of a “give a drunk a ride” program. Hell, no. It’s too bad, because maybe my brother would have made it home alive on Labor Day in 1989.
If you drink don’t drive. Drink at home. Or, conversely, don’t drink. But don’t whine and expect a free ride. It’s not cool.
Comment by Segen on 28 December 2008 at 11:09 pm:
Kitten, it is horrible that anyone would drink and drive in the first place and I hold them responsible for their actions completely. But the fact of the matter is that there ARE people who make the choice to drink and drive and if there is anything the rest of us can do (like getting them home without them personally driving) we should do it. I would rather get someone home safely (bus, taxi, free ride, whatever) than have people get hurt by some senseless person’s drunken driving. I am sorry to hear about your brother.
Comment by kofi the i supprot free taxi rides to work... especially when it rains... ESPECIALLY when it rains on 29 December 2008 at 12:26 am:
But the fact of the matter is that there ARE people who make the choice to shoot up schools and if there is anything the rest of us can do (like get out of the way) we should do it.
But the fact of the matter is that there ARE people who make the choice to beat their wives and if there is anything the rest of us can do (like make dinner for those bastards) we should do it.
But the fact of the matter is that there ARE people who make the choice to drown puppies and if there is anything the rest of us can do (like make puppies float) we should do it.
But the fact of the matter is that there ARE people who make the choice to post sarcastic, caustic responses to ridiculous blog articles and if there is anything the rest of us can do (like thinking before we write blog articles) we should do it.
Comment by Joshua on 29 December 2008 at 2:53 am:
I think having children in the car while driving drunk should be a major aggravating factor in sentencing, and that should be made known. A kid can’t refuse to ride with his drunk dad.
My alcoholic step father used to get really upset with me when I put on a seat belt when he drove drunk because he took it as a sign that I didn’t trust him.
Comment by Brandon on 29 December 2008 at 7:54 am:
Kofi, you’re a jackass. Drunk driving is a very public issue. All of your smartass responses are a) either not particularly common (school shooting, drowning puppies) or b) out of anyone else’s immediate control. We can’t put straight jackets on anyone who might theoretically hit his wife and we have that tricksy Constitution thing that prevents us from taking away all the guns, so people will get shot on occasion. Drunk driving can be mitigated in any number of ways and is extremely common. Suggesting parity with any of those issues is stupid at best.
Comment by Tom Trumpinski on 29 December 2008 at 1:01 pm:
Social intervention (e.g. a sober-rides service) for prevention assumes a rational individual. The mistake that you’re making, Segen, is in assuming that a drunk driver is a rational individual in the first place.
They’re not. The majority of DUI arrests and traffic fatalities are not of suburban kids like your friends out on a lark. The majority are alcoholics. Such individuals cannot be helped with a “rides” program because they see nothing whatsoever wrong with driving while drunk. As a matter of fact, I imagine a lot of them think it’s a great deal of fun to play “chicken” with oncoming cars, drive their Mercury into the front of the bar that they got kicked out of, or bounce their car against the curb repeatedly. (One of these long-term DUI people took her car onto the expressway north of Champaign in an apparent suicide attempt over the holidays and killed a girl your age.)
Let me give you an example of how deep in denial these folks are. The Chicago police department set up a sting operation in the parking lot of traffic court. They would follow drivers who had just lost their license for DUI (some for the second or third time) back to their cars in the parking lot and arrest them when they drove off.
In other words, your plan won’t reduce the number of drunk drivers on the road significantly. We’ve already got “implied consent” in Illinois–if you’re in an accident, you either take a Breathalyzer test or give up your license. In my opinion, the only legal thing that could decrease drunk driving would be to again reduce the alcohol limit, which is probably futile, since those that are causing the majority of the damage are already over the legal limit. (In other words, reducing the limit even more would not be particularly effective and would just make people feel better about things.)
Technologically, you could make the cars smart enough (in a variety of ways) that they simply would not allow a drunk driver to operate them. I believe that there are already ones where your non-drunk reaction time or short-term memory are needed to open your car door. These are, of course, useless if a person’s got a less-drunk friend. I am pretty sure that a car could be equipped with “smart material” on the steering wheel which could analyze the alcohol in a driver’s blood and not allow the car to run if it exceeded a certain amount. (Testing for blood alcohol is pretty low-tech nowadays.)
As long as there’s drunks, you’re going to have fatalities. The things that the government have done so far in Illinois have helped–it’s a lot safer on the roads now than it was thirty years ago. I question whether or not further social or legal intervention can do much more, however.
Comment by kofi the tom nails it on 29 December 2008 at 4:24 pm:
Technologically, you could make the cars smart enough (in a variety of ways) that they simply would not allow a drunk driver to operate them. I believe that there are already ones where your non-drunk reaction time or short-term memory are needed to open your car door. These are, of course, useless if a person’s got a less-drunk friend. I am pretty sure that a car could be equipped with “smart material” on the steering wheel which could analyze the alcohol in a driver’s blood and not allow the car to run if it exceeded a certain amount. (Testing for blood alcohol is pretty low-tech nowadays.)
^^ this is the solution. Specifically the steering wheel part.
Comment by Segen on 29 December 2008 at 6:56 pm:
tom…starting 1 jan 2009 in Illinois all newly convicted drunk drivers must install a Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device in their cars.
Comment by Joshua on 29 December 2008 at 7:08 pm:
Captain obvious time: Tom’s magic steering wheel is overwhelmed by gloves.
However, the driving tech is possible. There is now tech in some mercedes vehicles that alerts drivers who are showing the driving patterns of someone who is starting to fall asleep.
Comment by Joshua on 29 December 2008 at 7:18 pm:
Segen, legal tip. Don’t show startled indignation when faced with “character attacks” by the police :) The rule I always told when giving student rights presentations is always be polite but firm. Sorry about your accident. Glad you’re ok.
I’m not sure what to think of your suggestion. I guess from a policy perspective, we could charge everyone with a DIU another 1000 bucks and have a lot of money to fund public transportation. I would couple that with ever stricter enforcement, and educational campaigns.
As an aside, in some cases there is need for greater prosecutorial discretion. I talked to one prosecutor from cook county who told me about a guy who dropped his car off at an Osco, had his buddies drive him to a Cubs game, got drunk as shit at the Cubs game, his buddies dropped him at his car, he got in, never started the car, sat in the parking lot, threw the keys in the passenger seat, and tried to sleep it off. A cop knocked on his window, under IL law he said you just have to be in control of the car, and there is precedent that sitting with the keys next to you is control. This prosecutor told me that he charged the guy with a DUI. Poor bastard did exactly what he should have in that situation. I guess if he had abandoned personal safety and passed out by a tree with his keys in his pocket he would have been fine. I gave the prosecutor quite a bit of hell over it. I think a little common sense in law enforcement goes a long way.
Comment by Kevin on 29 December 2008 at 7:55 pm:
Josh, I’d assume that Tom meant the car could not run without a BAC test being “taken” from the driver, and therefore gloves would not do anything; the car won’t start w/o a BAC reading. I think Tom nailed this right on the head. Many of those who drive drunk either (1) don’t know that they are too drunk in the first place, or (2) think that it’s ok because they live 5 minutes away and no one is out at 3AM. More public transportation could help, but the more effective plan is to simply make it difficult for drunk folks to start the engine in the first place. I love the new IL law.
Comment by Joshua on 29 December 2008 at 9:01 pm:
Kev, I read it to say he thought the special material could read your bac level from touching your skin, alcohol in your sweat, etc, see below:
“I am pretty sure that a car could be equipped with “smart material” on the steering wheel which could analyze the alcohol in a driver’s blood and not allow the car to run if it exceeded a certain amount.”
Comment by Tom Trumpinski on 29 December 2008 at 9:05 pm:
Segen, Kevin, all a drunk would have to do is have a sober buddy (or hell, some passer-by he pays five bucks to do so) blow into the interlock. Trust me, I can picture them doing so right as we speak.
Josh is right about the gloves. We’d have to be more clever with the tech. Good catch. As I explained above, we need something that monitors the situation every second and does not allow a drunk driver to operate the vehicle, period.
Comment by Kevin on 29 December 2008 at 10:04 pm:
Yeah, but I think there are pretty decent odds that the sober buddy would say “let me drive” instead of letting a drunk friend drive himself. Obviously this wouldn’t be the case in every situation, but I’d like to think that one would not directly enable a friend to take that sort of risk. Hell, maybe liability could be imposed upon the enabling friend, kind of like some jurisdictions hold people liable for giving car keys to someone obviously too drunk to drive (assuming the drunk driver does something stupid)
Comment by Tom Trumpinski on 30 December 2008 at 12:54 am:
In the suburbs, maybe, Kevin, but sure as hell not in the culture that Josh and I grew up in. Police interference in a man’s drinking is seriously looked down upon back home.