ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — The 13 Minnesota counties with the highest combined totals of alcohol-related traffic deaths and serious injuries will see increased drunken driving patrols.

The Minnesota Department of Public Safety says the patrols will be increased through September.

The 13 counties are Hennepin, Ramsey, Anoka, St. Louis, Dakota, Wright, Olmsted, Rice, Washington, Stearns, Sherburne, Scott and Carver.

DPS’ Office of Traffic Safety says Sherburne County is new to the list, and Itasca County has been taken off the list since last year.

Officers will use electronic message boards and heavy patrols. Ads will also encourage people to avoid driving while impaired.

There were 131 alcohol-related deaths in 2010, a record low. Officials say alcohol-related deaths and injuries are decreasing, but still account for one-third of the state’s total traffic deaths each year.

(© Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Comments (26)
  1. Brian says:

    Extra DWI enforcement is never a bad thing. Go get ’em!

    1. Barney Fife says:

      I’m sure all of the village idiots will disagree. They’ll be on here whining about the “dwi money machine,” “rogue cops who violate people’s rights,” and everthing else. What they don’t know is the money to pay for these projects comes from the federal government. And as far as the “rogue cops,” that’s why the court system is in place. If you think the cops are violating your rights, take it to court and let the judge/jury decide! But the village idiots will be on here nonetheless. Not sure how you can argue against extra DWI enforcement, but you watch…..

      1. Steve McGarrett says:

        Hey Fife, nothing wrong with DWI patrols. But, those federal gubbermint dollars are still tax payer dollars, although not specifically from Minnesota tax payers.

        1. Barney Fife says:

          Yeah I know. But I guess I look at it this way: if there’s a federal grant going to pay for a program to enhance DWI enforcement on the roads that my wife, kids, and I drive on, I’m on board. Especially considering all of the B.S. projects that are funded with tax dollars. This is a pretty worthy cause in my eyes.

          1. Steve McGarrett says:

            I agree it is one of the better ways they can spend the dollars they have.

      2. Raymond says:

        The money from the Feds come from the people in the way of taxs-But I for one am glade anytime we can get one drunken jerk off the road before he or she kills someone.

  2. Nextroundsonme says:

    Cheers, I’l drink and drive to that!

  3. Be honest says:

    The Alcohol – Related traffic statistic is a phony tool used by private and government groups to use for their own reasons. If a person who has consumed even 2 oz. of alcohol is stopped at a red light and is rear ended by a inattentive driver, it becomes a alcohol- related accident even though alcohol had nothing to do with causing the accident.The Alcohol- Caused Accident statistic is real and is the only one that should be used.

    1. Carlos Pervez says:

      2 oz. of alcohol is 3.3 standard drinks using the 0.6 oz definition of standard drink. Per the BAC charts in the Responsible Drinking book, a 130 pound female consuming 3.3 standard drinks over a 2 hour period would have a 0.10 BAC.

    2. MN Cop says:

      Wrong. When I complete a state accident report there is a field that asks what I feel is a factor. Alcohol is one of them. If I don’t fill it in it isn’t part of the statistics you mention…

      1. Carlos Pervez says:

        I’m curious what you think about all the inaccuracies in the Minnesota Driver’s Manual:

        “Things to Know about Alcohol”
        “A 12-ounce beer, a five-ounce glass of wine, a typical mixed drink, and a nine-ounce wine cooler usually contain about the same amount of alcohol. It is important to realize, however, that mixed drinks may contain more than the standard one and a half ounces of alcohol. … If you consume more than one standard drink per hour, your alcohol concentration will increase.”

        First of all, for the mixed drink, I think they mean 1-1/2 oz. of 80 proof (=40% alcohol) liquor, not 1-1/2 oz. of pure alcohol! The latter would be 3 standard drinks — using the definition of one standard drink = 0.5 oz pure alcohol — and 2.5 standard drinks — using the other common definition of one standard drink = 0.6 oz pure alcohol.

        The manual seems to be describing a 0.6 oz. of pure alcohol standard drink (a Budweiser has 5.0% alcohol, 12 oz. * 5% = 0.6 oz of alcohol); likewise if the mixed drink they are describing has 1.5 oz of 80 proof liquor in it, that comes to 0.6 oz of alcohol.

        Anyway, looking at the chart in my Responsible Drinking book (which uses the 0.6 oz alcohol definition of a standard drink), it takes 1.5 hours for a 180 pound male, and 2.5 hours for a 130 pound female to eliminate a standard drink.

        Anyone relying on a 1 drink per hour rule is really going to get into trouble — our 180 pound male drinking one drink/hour will have his BAC increase by 0.01 per hour, so that after 8 hours he will be at the legal limit of 0.08.

        Our 130 pound female drinking 1 drink/hour will have her BAC increase by 0.024 per hour; after 8 hours she will be at 0.191 BAC, or 2.4 times the legal limit!!!

        (I’ve looked at a lot of BAC tables online, and — with appropriate adjustments for those that use the 1 standard drink = 0.5 oz alcohol rule — for the most part estimate even higher BAC levels than the Responsible Drinking book. (Google: “blood alcohol content” tables).

        Seems like the Driver’s Manual is a big revenue-maker — not only for the DMV and the Dept. of Corrections, but also for the funeral industry. Yes, yes I know there are all kinds of qualifications in the Drivers Manual about variations among individuals, but how many healthy young males and females are going to put a big safety margin on the “1 hour rule”?

  4. not-affordable says:

    Everyone seems to know someone who got a DUI,and they outta pay attention to the cost if your caught…unless payin’ 1000$ per beer is woth it…have at ‘er

  5. MrB says:

    Can’t we all just drink and get along! 🙂

  6. Robert says:

    Minnesota needs money for a new home for the VIKQUEENs.

  7. See BS says:

    There is a good reason why the light rail stops running at 11:30pm on Friday and Saturday nights.

    The State of Minnesota wants people to buy their way out of jail, that’s all. Just give MADD $300 and you’ll get your license back.

    1. CJ says:

      Light rail doesn’t stop running at 11:30 ANY day let alone Friday and Saturday. On Weekdays and Sundays the last train leaves downtown after 1am. and MOA after 2am. On Friday and Saturday nights there’s another train that leaves downtown after 2am.

      1. See BS says:

        why not run mass transit for 24 hours on Friday and Saturday Nights? Not everyone can afford a $40 cab ride home, for some that’s all their drinking money.

        DUI is a form of “Stockholm Syndrome” — the Court System uses it to make people go to treatment (liberal bible banging)

        It’s just a cash cow that’s all — lawyers, mental health and county jail union thugs.

        1. @See-BS says:

          So you would like Mass transit to run 24hours a day, would you like it go 4 hours north of the cities also, or because you live in the metro only you have a right to it? If you can’t afford a ride home, try having a personality and making some friends then you can take turns being the sober cab, pathetic you think you’re entitled to $1-$2 rides home 24/7 so you can get smashed.

        2. Carlos Pervez says:

          Treatment = “Liberal Bible Banging”? I thought it was only CONNEDservative goobers that tried to forced their religion down other people’s throats.

    2. CJ says:

      Of course if you’re depending on the busses and/or aren’t leaving from downtown Mpls that’s a whole other story….

      Though there are always plenty of taxis just a phone call away!

    3. @bs says:

      Wow gotta love the guy who brings incorrect facts to the argument, way to do some solid research.

  8. Jack Meahaugh says:

    This will never work

  9. fact is says:

    sure…baby gotta a little smoke…but babies gonna get series o’ vaccines soon,risking tons more health problems

    1. Carlos Pervez says:

      Do you really want to go back to the pre-vaccine era where life expectancy was in the 40’s?

  10. jean says:

    Extra DWI enforcement is never a bad thing. Go get ‘em!, Go get ‘em!…Keep drunk’s and drug’s user of our roads, all for safer driver,,,,