In response to the State Patrol

Letter to the Reader

In a recent article in the Reader Weekly (March 9) Tim Winker, who writes a column called the "Rear View," complained about what he called the "aggressive driving" of a trooper that apparently passed him on 1-35 at a higher speed in order to initiate a traffic stop. State Troopers are trained and expected to drive in a safe manner and they are also charged with enforcing the traffic laws. It is also impossible for a trooper to catch a speeding car without exceeding the speed limit to do so. That said, if troopers are driving irresponsibly, citizens should report their driving conduct to the State Patrol.

Mr. Winker also accuses Minnesota Troopers of arresting alcohol and drug impaired drivers in order to balance the State Budget. That is patently ridiculous. There were approximately 35.000 drivers arrested for DWI in Minnesota in 2005. If every arrested driver paid a $1000 dollars in fines and fees, the total would be 35 million dollars. Not even a ripple in a State budget of over 15 billion dollars. The DECC expansion proposal is 33.7 million dollars alone.

Nor do DWI arrests come without cost to the Counties and State; there are costs for law enforcement, county city prosecution, court services, probation and rehabilitation and for incarceration of repeat offenders. Local. County and State Government don't make any money on DWI enforcement. The State Patrol does not get any portion of the fine money from traffic fines, 3/8 of the fine collected goes to the County and 5/8 goes to the State General Fund, The State Patrol is funded almost exclusively by the State Transportation Fund and receives very little State General Fund monies.

Impaired drivers do however cost society a great deal of money. In 2004, according to Crash Facts a publication of the Minnesota Office of Traffic Safety, there were 4,841 traffic crashes involving intoxicated drivers, there were: 622 people injured and 177 deaths, and an estimated 287 million dollars in economic cost to the citizens of Minnesota. As District Commander of the State Patrol in Duluth, I expect troopers to arrest impaired drivers in order to reduce the injuries and deaths on our area roadways. I am confident that most area residents have this expectation too.

Captain Kent D. Matthews
Commander, Minnesota State Patrol Duluth District

When I wrote my article lambasting the Minnesota State Patrol for aggressive driving (March 9, 2006), I broke two rules of writing for the public. 1) I wrote the article while I was still angry over a particular incident, and 2) I painted all members of the State Patrol as offenders when it is probably only a few who are exceeding their responsibilities. For this, I must apologize.

However, I must have not been far off because I have had several people tell me that I was correct in my observation, that there are troopers in the State Patrol who exceed the speed limit on local highways without seeming to be on their way to an emergency nor in pursuit. Those troopers are apparently "trolling" for violators by stealth, sneaking up when the supposed scofflaws aren't watching their mirrors. In the meantime they are startling plenty of law abiding drivers who may not be observant of traffic approaching from the rear at a much higher speed.

And it happened again last Monday, just before midnight on London Road. A State Patrol car was traveling well in excess of the posted 30 mph, as well as faster than the general traffic speed of near 40 mph. There was no other car ahead of him on the road, so I doubted that he was in pursuit. When he turned into the parking lot at Perkins and sauntered into the restaurant, I realized he was in pursuit… of dinner.

I have always been under the impression, so informed by friends in the law enforcement community, that when in pursuit, a police, sheriff, state patrol or other such vehicle must have at least flashing lights as a warning to those he is approaching from behind. State law indicates that law enforcement personnel are subject to the same laws as the rest of us unless they are enroute to an emergency call or in pursuit. Minnesota law, Section 169.03, Emergency vehicles; exemptions; application, Subdivision 5, Course of duty, reads: "No driver of any authorized emergency vehicle shall assume any special privilege under this chapter except when such vehicle is operated in response to any emergency call or in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law."

The State Patrol's Mission Statement reads: "The mission of the Minnesota State Patrol is to work together to ensure a safe environment on Minnesota's roadways." In a section on the professionalism of the State Patrol: "We encourage our employees to perform all their duties in a competent manner through continuous training and education, participation in professional associations, and an ongoing display of respect and courtesy." (Italics added.)

By acting like the aggressive drivers they are out to stop, some troopers are causing the entire State Patrol to lose the respect of the people they are sworn to protect, myself included. I should point out that I have no problem with the Duluth Police nor the St. Louis County Sheriff's deputies. They appear to be courteous drivers, and have treated me with respect on the rare occasions that I have spoken with them.

"Drunk driving" vs. "alcohol-related"

In his response to my previous column on the subject, Capt. Kent Matthews cites some statistics from the booklet "Crash Facts 2004." (Available on the Office of Traffic Safety web site: http://www.dps.state.mn.us/ots/. Click on Crash Data.) He states that there were 177 deaths in 2004 caused by intoxicated drivers. That is not what the Crash Facts book says. It says there were 177 "alcohol-related fatalities." According to Crash Facts, "… alcohol at the .01-or-higher level makes the crash alcohol-related. In the absence of test data, if the officer reports that he or she believes the person had been drinking, or was under the influence, the crash is also classified as alcohol-related." (Italics used in the original text.)

That means accidents where the driver showed any amount of alcohol consumption, including those between 0.01 and 0.09 who are not legally impaired (the legal limit in 2004 was still 0.10 BAC), are often cited as "drunk driving" accidents when they are really not. Even the use of cough syrup or mouthwash with an alcohol base can give a positive reading for alcohol, though below the legal limit. And an accident is classified as alcohol-related even if the driver who had consumed alcohol was not at fault.

We have been told for years that "drunk" drivers are responsible for over 50 percent of the fatalities, and in the mid-1980s alcohol-related fatalities in this state did exceed 50 percent. The percentage has been dropping with better education and increased penalties for DWI, so that in Minnesota during 2004 the ratio of "alcohol-related" fatalities had dropped to 31 percent. Accidents caused by drivers whose Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) exceeded the legal limit of 0.10, was more likely in the 20 to 25 percent range, though the Crash facts book does not break down the statistics that far. It does, however, indicate that over half of the 164 fatal crashes recorded as alcohol-related were single vehicle incidents, with one-third of the total (54) classified as "overturned". Only 47 of them (28.7%) involved another motor vehicle. That compares to 252 of all 520 fatal accidents (48.5%) that involved another vehicle.

The total number of persons injured in Minnesota traffic accidents during 2004, from moderate to severe, was 40,073. Of those, 3,622 injuries occurred in alcohol-related crashes, only 9 percent of the total. The percentage of those accidents caused by legally drunk drivers is probably in the five to six percent range.

Even 20 percent of traffic deaths caused by drunk drivers is a poor record, though it appears that most of the fatalities are drunks who only kill themselves. And I certainly do not condone allowing drunks behind the wheel. But a close look at the real statistics gives a different picture than the doom-and-gloom information meted out by safety organizations.