A TOUGH new driving law comes into force in Minnesota today, stopping some drivers from unlocking or starting their cars, even with a key, unless they pass a breath test.
The clampdown targets repeat drink-drivers and expands the use of ignition interlock devices, which act like breathalysers built into the car.
Some drivers say they support the move, arguing that more needs to be done to keep repeat offenders off the roads[/caption]
It also increases penalties for anyone caught trying to bypass them.
Tragedy behind the law
The law follows a horrific crash at Park Tavern in St. Louis Park, where Steven Bailey, who had five previous DWI convictions, ploughed his vehicle into a crowded patio.
The crash killed Kristina Folkerts and Gabe Harvey and left a dozen others injured.
One of the survivors, Tegan D’Albani, was severely wounded and spent 40 days in hospital undergoing multiple surgeries.
Speaking in court before Bailey was sentenced to 30 years in prison, she said: “I feel guilty that I was alive and that Gabe had passed away.
“I felt guilty that I was allowed to be a mother and Kristina could not.”
At the time of the crash, Bailey did not have an ignition interlock device fitted in his vehicle, a point that sparked outrage and prompted action from lawmakers across party lines.
New rules for repeat offenders
The new law stretches the lookback period for previous DWI offences from 10 to 20 years.
That means if a driver has had a DWI conviction in the last two decades and is caught again, they must use an interlock device for at least two years.
Repeat offenders will face even longer requirements.
Those caught twice must use the breath-test system for six years, and anyone racking up three or more offences will be stuck with the device for a full decade.
Tampering with or trying to drive without an ignition interlock device will now also carry stiffer punishments.
D’Albani welcomed the changes, saying: “I’m thankful for the new bill that will increase the time a person is required to have an interlock.
“It’s not the perfect answer to stop drunk driving, but it at least is a step in the right direction.”
Similar crackdowns across the US
The Minnesota law is part of a wider trend of states getting tougher on dangerous driving.
Just last month in Texas, a new law was introduced requiring convicted drink-drivers to have their vehicles fitted with tamper-proof tracking and breath-test systems for up to five years.
In Florida, changes to road safety rules now mean drivers caught texting behind the wheel can lose their licence after a second offence.
Police there say distracted driving is becoming as deadly as drink-driving – and they’re treating it with the same urgency.
Meanwhile in California, lawmakers have introduced “zero-tolerance zones” around schools, where any form of dangerous driving – including speeding, phone use or even rolling through a stop sign – carries double the usual fines.
In Minnesota, the changes are already sending shockwaves through the driving community.
Some drivers say they support the move, arguing that more needs to be done to keep repeat offenders off the roads.
Others, however, say the rules are too strict and punish people trying to rebuild their lives.
But for many of the families affected by drink-driving tragedies, the new law offers at least some peace of mind.
Kristina Folkerts’ sister told reporters after Bailey’s sentencing: “No law can bring her back.
“But maybe this will stop someone else from being taken.”
How to fight a speeding ticket
According to a legally reviewed post, there are five effective strategies to fighting a speeding ticket if it was wrongfully issued.
- If pulled over and issued a ticket, drivers can argue or dispute a driver’s personal opinion. When issuing a speeding ticket, an officer is required to write their opinion and come to an “objective” conclusion. If the ticket was written based on that judgment, it can be contested. An example would be if you were going 75 mph in a 65 mph zone because others were traveling at the same speed, you could argue that it would be more dangerous to travel at 65 mph.
- You can dispute the officer’s presentation of evidence. If you were ticketed for something like running a stop sign or making an illegal u-turn, you can’t contest that if an officer saw you, but you can call things into court like eyewitnesses, diagrams, or photos.
- Argue that the ticket was issued by a “mistake of fact.” This is tricky, but a “mistake of fact” is a mistake made by a driver about a situation that was beyond their control, or if a driver legitimately did not know they were violating the law. For example, you were driving in two lanes because the lane markers were so worn down that you could not see them.
- You could say circumstances justified your driving. You could say you were speeding to pass a possibly drunk driver, or avoiding an accident by rapidly changing lanes. However, the argument won’t work if there’s proof you continued to speed after passing.
- Similar to the above, it could be argued that speeding was necessary to avoid harm. The key is to argue that if you weren’t speeding, you or someone else could have been harmed.
- Consult a traffic attorney, if all else fails. Many have free consultations to decide whether or not there’s a case.
Source: FindLaw
It also increases penalties for anyone caught trying to bypass them[/caption]
