Highlights from the STrib

I. Couple interesting articles/comments in the STrib today…

II. First, under the heading “I-494: The Twin Cities' highway to Hell?”, we have this hugely-insightful comment:

a. “Let's stop subsidizing the MTC and light rail then take the extra $ to fix the roads that people actually use. Traffic ran so much better when the MTC was out on strike that it was amazing. Limit the MTC to profitable routes and provide subsidized cabs for those unable to drive and we would be way ahead. Cars idling in traffic use far more energy than will ever be saved by the buses that clog the roads.”

b. Fact: light rail usage has exceeded expectations to such an extent that they’ve been scrambling to provide longer trains.

c. Fact: subsidizing cabs would be considerably more expensive than a bus system. Like, not even remotely close.

d. Fact: it’s not buses that clog roads and cause idling; there simply aren’t that many buses on the road, and they account for fewer than one in a thousand vehicles, even during rush hour.

e. Yes, cars idling in traffic consume energy, but you’re relating it to a spurious cause. Traffic gridlock is generally caused by two factors: (1) poor design, as this article claims, and (2) sheer volume of traffic, regardless of the type.

f. If you take out mass transit, far more cars will be on the road, and gridlock will shoot up. Pay attention to the traffic patterns around the Metrodome and Target Center—the city/Met rely on the light rail to clear out large numbers of people. Without it, the traffic would lock up hopelessly.

III. And the other, “Minnesota's 'DWI guy' grew weary of the grind,” about a lawyer who left the field due to exhaustion.

a. It’s actually a good article that doesn’t engage in the DWI blame game.

b. The attorney doesn’t take a moral stance on DWI, but says he got tired of the hopelessness—essentially, the fact that drunks will always drink, and drunk drivers will always drink and drive—and our current laws are completely ineffectual. Which they are.

c. “"We need a paradigm shift, not more nibbling around the edges," he said, adding that enhanced penalties "makes everyone feel better, but aren't really fruitful."”

d. I think anyone who works with chronic alcoholics and chronic drunk drivers would agree with that statement—penalizing an alcoholic is remarkably ineffective.

e. His basic idea is that the bars and alcohol industry should take on some of the costs, which I wholeheartedly agree with; the fact—the great fact—is that just over half of all alcohol sales in the US are to alcoholics. The alcohol industry relies on addiction to pay their bills, and they encourage the addiction and dangerous consumption.

f. If they pass the price on in the cost of alcohol, then, really, is that such a bad thing? Would increasing the cost of a drink really be bad for society?

IV. Finally, on the topic of bars taking responsibility—

a. First, the rule is that a bar cannot serve a “visibly” drunk person, emphasis on “visibly.” Opponents of the rule always claim that a bartender can’t tell; but in some cases, they can, and those are the cases that the rule applies to.

b. Secondly, I have on more than one instance been served when I was visibly, unquestionably, drunk. The rule that most bars use in practice is that they’ll serve you as long as you’re not causing problems or passing out. Really. The bar does know in most cases, and there’s nothing wrong with erring on the side of caution.

c. The vast majority of DWIs do not come from the “there were ten people at the table, and we have no idea who drank what!” They come from “there was one person at the end of the bar, and I tallied every drink he had.”

d. It’s best when I was there by myself, visibly drunk, and they could watch me walk out and get into my car…and then I’d go to the same bar the next day, and they’d repeat. The bar definitely knows when it’s a habitual drunk.

e. There’s also a res ipsa loquitur principle at work—when one bar is racking up multiple serious DWIs, it’s a strong indication that the bar itself is not doing everything it can.

f. And last, Isanti County has been doing a pilot program with this for several years that’s been remarkably effective. They don’t threaten any civil or criminal action; they simply report it to the insurance company. *Then* the bar operates on the “let’s be cautious” principle, and DWIs declined substantially.