Andrew Cuomo Could (Still) Save Thousands of Lives With One Phone Call

On Monday Andrew Cuomo hailed DMV rule changes that have resulted in license sanctions for recidivist drunk drivers. The governor, who spearheaded the reforms himself, could also use the power of his office to take driving privileges from motorists who habitually commit other deadly violations, like speeding, which kill and injure thousands of New Yorkers every year.

Governor Cuomo has the power to take driving privileges away from chronic reckless drivers, whether or not they drive drunk. Photo: Families for Safe Streets
Governor Cuomo has the power to take driving privileges away from chronic reckless drivers, whether or not they drive drunk. Photo: Families for Safe Streets

In 2012 Cuomo oversaw an update to DMV rules to target the worst drunk driving offenders. Now the DMV permanently revokes licenses from people who have five or more DWI convictions in a lifetime, or three or more DWI convictions in 25 years plus other offenses, such as a fatal crash or the accumulation of 20 or more license points.

As lenient as those standards are, they used to be worse. In the past, repeat drunk drivers whose licenses were suspended or revoked could regain driving privileges in weeks by completing an education program, and drivers with multiple DWI convictions did not permanently lose their licenses unless they were convicted for two DWI crashes resulting in injury.

A Cuomo press release said the reforms have taken more than 8,000 dangerous drivers off the roads in the three years since they took effect. “Impaired and irresponsible driving far too often results in needless tragedy and ramifications that can last a lifetime,” Cuomo said. “These tough regulations have taken chronically dangerous drivers off the roads and helped make this a safer state.”

The updated DMV rules are an improvement, but they don’t do enough to keep reckless drivers from harming people. Four DWI convictions doesn’t mean a person drove drunk four times. It means that person was caught, arrested, and convicted four times. By allowing repeat DWI offenders to keep driving, the DMV is playing Russian roulette with New Yorkers’ lives.

In addition, Cuomo’s DMV reforms don’t address behaviors that cause as many or more serious crashes than drunk driving. In 2013, alcohol contributed to 132 deadly collisions and 4,097 injury crashes in New York State, according to the DMV. By way of comparison, unsafe speed was determined to be a factor in 313 fatal crashes and 12,613 injury crashes, failure to yield in 165 fatal crashes and 21,355 injury crashes, and driver distraction in 127 fatal crashes and 25,098 injury crashes.

In New York City, alcohol was identified as a factor in 15 fatal and 996 injury crashes in 2013, speeding in 69 fatal crashes and 2,933 injury crashes, failure to yield in 52 fatal crashes and 6,369 injury crashes, and distracted driving in 49 fatal crashes and 10,270 injury crashes.

Though their actions harm many more people than drunk drivers, motorists who hurt and kill others while speeding or failing to yield are usually not penalized in any way, and investigators rarely subpoena cell phone records after a crash to determine whether a driver was distracted.

As we reported in 2013, the DMV rule changes ordered by Cuomo are not as comprehensive as policies proposed under “Charlotte’s Law,” which would permanently revoke licenses of people convicted of any of the following offenses three or more times in 25 years: DUI or DWI, careless driving that injures a pedestrian or cyclist, or vehicular manslaughter. Under Charlotte’s Law, someone caught driving after a permanent license revocation, regardless of the reason for the traffic stop, would be subject to a felony charge and a jail sentence of up to four years.

Charlotte’s Law was named after Charlotte Gallo, a Schenectady pedestrian who in 2010 was killed by a driver who reportedly had 23 prior citations for traffic offenses and had been involved in 10 crashes. It was first introduced in 2012, months before Cuomo announced his slate of DMV rule updates. State lawmakers have failed to pass the bill, which stalled in the Assembly and Senate transportation committees in the 2015 legislative session. It was sponsored this year by Assembly Member James Tedisco and Senator Hugh T. Farley, both Republicans from Schenectady.

Prodding state legislators to improve traffic safety is usually a Sisyphean task. But Cuomo has already demonstrated he doesn’t need the legislature to strengthen regulations against serial deadly driving. With one phone call, he could direct the DMV to ramp up sanctions against all motorists who repeatedly put lives at risk.

  • Gepap

    The final statement is utterly uncorroborated. The extent to which an agency can create administratively imposed penalties on a party are limited to whatever agency-leeway the State Legislature gives them in the underlying state law. For example, no agency can create a felony charge by itself, period.

  • D’BlahZero

    I find this staggering. “DMV permanently revokes licenses from people who have five or more DWI convictions in a lifetime, or three or more DWI convictions in 25 years plus other offenses, such as a fatal crash or the accumulation of 20 or more license points.” I find little solace in the notion that these are the ‘new and improved’ standards; “tough” according to Gov. Muscle Car.

    Also, it’s a stretch to say that this change has resulted in keeping “8,000 dangerous drivers off the roads…”

    Does anyone think the lack of a license prevents a person with five (5) DWI *convictions* from driving?!

  • bolwerk

    Heh, does anyone doubt that Andy Cuomo is a dangerous driver himself?

  • Joe R.

    Licenses should be revoked permanently after the first DWI, or first crash involving a death or serious injury (unless it’s proven the driver wasn’t at fault). Driving without a license should result in confiscation of the vehicle. Maybe if we did both these things we would be keeping a few million dangerous drivers off the roads, not just 8,000. From my perspective, I’d say more people can’t drive well than can.

  • panman54

    andyboy IS the government, he said so himself. He also follows in his bosses footsteps, a phone and a pen is all he needs. His “emergency” BS regulations only look good on paper and win him votes from groups like MADD. Just like his safeact, in the real world, they do nothing.

  • Will

    Totally stupid dmv laws that are illegal retroactive life ruiners. This is far worse than his common core nonsense

  • Joe R.

    How so? Driving is a privilege. If you’re stupid enough to drive drunk, as far as I’m concerned you should have your license revoked for good the first time. This law at least gives you four chances to straighten out.

  • mikep

    The numbers do not make sense. You will keep taking more and more from people with DWI’s but then there is more deaths and injury’s with failure to yield and distracted driving then alcohol related accidents. But car makers keep adding more distractions into the cars anymore with touch screens and Wi-Fi enabled. But when DADSS is trying to help prevent drunk driving all together and states wont help inforce this. Why not stop letting people drive drunk in the first place and help stop the problem before it happens. This will save the life of the driver and his or hers future of holding a decent job and keep there family together, While preventing the accident and unwanted deaths. People need to drive for work and live a predictive life. I truly believe that we need to stop the problem before it happens.

  • mikep

    These laws have punish a lot of people that have changed and moved on with there life. 25 to life look back is not right and does not give may people a chance seeing the laws weren’t in affect back when they were charged. It was a different way of life and mind set just 20 years ago. So why punish a person for that. I beleave these people would have gave it a much greater though if laws were like this back then. it was more a slap on the hand back then.

  • Joe R.

    The problem is literally everyone is against DADSS. The car makers don’t want it since it’s an extra cost they really can’t pass on to their customers because it’s not a “feature”. A lot of drivers will complain it infringes on their “rights”, or put another way they want to be able to drive home after getting stoned. The police/courts/lawyers/judges don’t want because it’ll mean a lot less business for them. Ditto for hospitals and emergency services who won’t make a bundle putting victims of drunk drivers back together again. On top of all that, you have all the existing cars which would either need to be scrapped, or have DADSS installed. Again, that won’t go over big with people.

    Permanent license revocation for the first DWI offense, along with mandatory forfeiture of your automobile if you’re caught driving unlicensed, is likely to get a bit more support. Maybe not from drivers, but it’ll keep the police and courts busy. Since I don’t expect anyone who drives drunk will not drive once their license is revoked, the state will make lots of money seizing and auctioning off cars of unlicensed drivers. The seizure/forfeiture part is what will ultimately keep drunk drivers off the roads. Most people can’t afford to keep replacing their cars every time they get caught driving with no license.

    I’m not saying I’d be against DADSS. Rather, I’m saying that in general we tend to choose solutions where more people make more money. DADSS is mostly a money-losing proposition for everyone, even if I agree it’ll save lives.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

How Cuomo Could Expand DWI Effort to Target All Serial Dangerous Drivers

|
Governor Cuomo announced Monday that new DMV drivers license rules have taken thousands of dangerous motorists off New York State roads. The changes set an important precedent by mandating the permanent revocation of driving privileges for the worst drunk driving offenders. But since the new policies apply only to DWI violations, the state is still allowing […]

DiNapoli: Most New York DWI Offenders Ditching Ignition Interlocks

|
Ignition interlock devices, intended to prevent cars from starting if alcohol is detected in a driver’s breath, can be an effective tool to curb drunk driving. Governor Andrew Cuomo’s DMV rule reforms include an interlock requirement for drivers who are issued restricted licenses after multiple DWI convictions. In 2009 the state legislature passed Leandra’s Law, which among other things mandates six […]

Cuomo’s State of the State: More Highways, Less Dangerous Driving

|
If you were expecting Governor Cuomo’s transportation policy to match up with his socially progressive yet fiscally conservative reputation, he didn’t deliver during today’s State of the State address, which featured a ringing endorsement of a multi-billion dollar highway across rural areas near the Canadian border. While the governor’s focus on expensive highway projects, not […]