HIGHLIGHTS OF YEAR 2005 CALIFORNIA DUI MIS REPORT

Alcohol-involved traffic fatalities rose by 2.0% in 2003, continuing a
reversal in trend that started in 1999 after well over a decade of
continuous decline.

DUI arrests increased by 3.7% in 2003, following an increase of 0.3% in 2002, representing the first consecutive years of increases in California DUI arrests in almost two decades.

The number of persons injured in alcohol-involved crashes fell by 2.2%
in 2003, following increases of 0.7% in 2002, 2.7% in 2001 and 3.8% in
2000 (which was the first such increase in 14 years).

14.8% of all 2002 DUI arrests in California were associated with a reported traffic crash, compared to 14.1% in 2001, 13.5% in 2000, 12.5% in 1999, 12.8% in 1998, 12.3% in 1997, 12.6% in 1996, 12.4% in 1995, 13.2% in 1994 and 13.1% in 1993. 42.8% of these crashes involved an injury or fatality.

The average blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of a convicted DUI
offender, as reported by law enforcement on APS forms, was .162% in 2002,
down slightly from the last several years, yet more than double the
California illegal per se BAC limit of .08%.

Among 2003 DUI arrestees, Hispanics (44.2%) again constituted the largest racial/ethnic group, as they have each year since 1992 (with the exception of 1999). Hispanics, however, continued to be arrested at a rate substantially higher than their estimated percentage of California

Appeals Court Reverses DWI Conviction
By Andrew DeMillo, The Associated Press

LITTLE ROCK — The Arkansas Court of Appeals on Wednesday reversed the
drunken-driving conviction of a Washington County man who turned on his
car’s engine using a remote device.

Judges ruled that there wasn’t enough evidence to convict Charles
Franklin Rogers, who was found asleep in his car by Fayetteville officers
in January 2004. Rogers was convicted by a Washington County Circuit
Court of driving while intoxicated.

Deputy Washington County Prosecuting Attorney Charles Duell said
there’s a good chance the Arkansas Attorney General’s Office will appeal
the ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court.

“I knew that it was a new issue that hadn’t been heard down there and
I knew it was going to be close, but I was surprised that it was
reversed,” Duell said Wednesday.

Duell was encouraged by strong dissent from two justices on the
appeals court. The majority on the court seemed to believe that the keys
were what was primarily at issue, Duell said. The dissenting justices and
prosecutors took the position that Rogers’ control and management of the
vehicle was the critical issue.

Rogers’ vehicle’s engine was running, exhaust was coming from the
tailpipe, and its headlights and taillights were on, the court’s decision
said. Police said Rogers’ foot appeared to be on the brake pedal.

Rogers had testified that he was driven back to his car by a friend
and started the engine of his vehicle by pressing a remote-start button.
Rogers testified that once he entered his car, the keys were never in the
ignition but rather on the floorboard.

During his trial, Rogers had the electronics technician who installed
the remote start feature say there was no way Rogers could drive the
vehicle without putting the keys in the ignition.

The remote start, the technician said, only turns on the headlights,
taillights and accessories such as the radio and heater.

Duell said law enforcement officials are concerned drunken drivers
could start taking advantage of technology, and what could be considered
a loophole in the law regarding whether the keys have to be in the
ignition for the driver to be in control of a car, to beat
drunken-driving charges.

In the majority opinion, Judge John B. Robbins wrote that prosecutors
failed to prove that Rogers was in actual control of the vehicle when
police found him.

“The trial court did not find that the keys were in the ignition, nor
did any evidence show that the keys were in the ignition,” Robbins
wrote.

The decision said the judges “are powerless to declare an act to come
within the criminal laws by implication.”

Robbins was joined by Judges Terry Crabtree, Karen R. Baker and Andree
Layton Roaf. Judges Sam Bird and Wendell L. Griffen dissented.

Griffen, in his dissent, said that Rogers posed just as much of a
“menace” to the public as a drunken person passed out behind the wheel
with the keys in the ignition.

“Drunk drivers are, by definition, drunk starters, whether they start
their vehicles by auto-start or by conventional means,” Griffen wrote. “A
driver who chooses to enjoy the benefits of auto-start remote technology
has no right to expect an exemption from prosecution for DWI when he
chooses to become legally intoxicated, start his engine, and get behind
the wheel of his vehicle.”

Duell said Rogers was convicted previously of driving while
intoxicated.

The Morning News’ Ron Wood contributed to this report.

Source: http://www.nwaonline.net/

Group Wants Names of DUI Offenders
Published by Media

Oct. 8, 2003 11:25 AM

Associated Press

A coalition of law enforcement and traffic safety advocates wants the
Arizona Legislature to pass a law requiring drunken drivers to pay to
have their names published in the local newspaper.

The group plans to push for the law during the next regular
legislative session, which begins in January.

Some lawmakers said they welcome any proposal that helps encourage
people to think twice before getting behind the wheel after drinking too
much.

“I want to get those buggers off the streets,” said Sen. Marilyn
Jarrett, R-Mesa, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

But others said using the state’s power to force defendants to pay
publishing costs could create an inappropriate commercial relationship
with newspapers.

“If newspapers are publishing the information as a (public) service,
that’s fine,” said House Speaker Pro Tem Bob Robson, R-Chandler. “But
when that becomes an advertisement, it changes the journalistic mission
of a newspaper.”

Some civil libertarians also said they are concerned that publishing
lists of misdemeanor convictions are an undue invasion of a defendant’s
privacy.

Pamela Sutherland, legal director of the Arizona chapter of the
American Civil Liberties Union, said the Internet means media lists
receive much wider attention.

“I think you can see problems arising, for example, if you have
someone wrongly convicted for DUI and wasn’t drunk, who then winds up
having his or her name and image spread all over the state of Arizona,”
Sutherland said.

Arizona DUI Deaths Rose Last Year

Bob Golfen The Arizona Republic Sept. 14, 2006 07:35 PM

Despite intensified police efforts and public-awareness campaigns,
alcohol-related traffic deaths rose significantly last year in Arizona,
with DUI fatalities increasing 13 percent in 2005 compared with 2004, new
federal statistics show.

Drunken driving was blamed in more than one-third of all traffic
deaths statewide, with 49 more people killed in alcohol-related crashes
during 2005 than in 2004.

Arizona came in No. 6 among the states with the largest increases in
alcohol-related fatalities. The nationwide trend was a slight decrease in
the numbers killed, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. advertisement

“It’s disappointing that we’re not making progress,” said Mike
Hegarty, deputy director of the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety.
“It’s still disappointing that so many people are making the wrong
decision to get behind the wheel when they’ve had too much to drink, and
it’s costing themselves or someone else their lives.”

The total number of people killed in all Arizona highway crashes
during 2005 was 1,177, a slight increase over 2004, when 1,151 people
died. Of those killed in 2005, 492 died in crashes where alcohol was a
related factor, and 434 of those were killed in crashes where a driver
was legally drunk, with a blood-alcohol level higher than .08
percent.

Aggravated DUI, when the blood-alcohol level is higher than .15
percent, was implicated in 309 of the deaths.

The driver who killed Judy Meyers’ son, Paul, in April had a
blood-alcohol level of .21 percent, according to police, when he
broadsided Paul’s car at a Scottsdale intersection while running a red
light at high speed. Paul Meyers, 29, died of massive head trauma.

The 27-year-old drunken driver, William Ward, was sentenced to 12
years in prison.

The criminal proceedings were an added emotional drain after her son’s
death, Meyers said.

“I felt no hatred toward the person when I saw him in court,” she
said. “But two things kept going through my mind. I kept saying to
myself, how many families are going to have to go through what we are
going through?

“And I kept thinking, when will the madness stop? The madness being
driving drunk.”

Chuck Heeman, the Arizona executive director of Mothers Against Drunk
Driving, said DUI laws need to be toughened in the state to combat
drunken driving and lower the death toll.

“There’s really no fear for the drunk driver when they’re out on the
road,” Heeman said. “People don’t take drunk driving seriously. They
don’t understand the ramifications of it.”

Too often, drunken drivers get off with a light penalty, he said, and
judges’ hands are tied by unsubstantial state penalties mandated for
drunken driving. This frustrates police officers who work hard to catch
DUI offenders, he said.

Law enforcement agencies statewide have boosted DUI enforcement in
recent years, Hegarty said. DUI task forces frequently target areas with
saturation patrols, rotating from place to place, he said, with a special
emphasis on enforcement around holidays.

“We’re trying to be much more proactive, getting a lot more DUI task
forces out there,” he said.

During 2005, the special task forces made more than 6,500 DUI arrests,
he added, not including the arrests made by regular police patrols.

Underage drinking is blamed for some of the increase in deaths, said
Yvette Lopez, spokeswoman for AAA Arizona.

“I volunteer with MADD as well, and we have seen quite an increase in
underage drinking,” Lopez said. The director of the Governor’s Office of
Highway Safety, Richard Fimbres, agreed that young DUI offenders have a
major impact on the death rate.

“We’re seeing way more young people who have been drinking and are
impaired with other substances,” Fimbres said. Although people killed in
drunken-driving accidents most often die at the hands of strangers, death
can also come from someone close to the victim.

For 20-year-old Lindsey Taft, it was a guy she has just started
dating, a motorcyclist who brought her to a party in August 2003, said
her mother, Robin Williams of Chandler. Police say both were drunk when
they started home.

The driver lost control of the bike while rounding a curve in
Ahwatukee, and they crashed at the entrance of a golf course. He
survived, she was killed. According to police, the driver’s blood alcohol
registered .165 percent, more than twice the legal limit.

“It’s just that it’s such a stupid thing, so preventable,” Williams
said of drunken-driving deaths. “You hear about it every day on the news,
but I don’t think it sinks in anymore.”

Source: http://www.azcentral.com

AZ Drunk Driving Deaths Up 13%

By Som Lisaius, KOLD News 13

Drunk driving is blamed in more than one-third of all the traffic
deaths statewide last year. It’s a startling statistic that’s landed
Arizona among the worst in the nation for fatal DUIs.

Despite increased patrols, DUI checkpoints and stiffer penalties,
Arizona’s alcohol-related traffic deaths jumped 13 percent last year.
That’s the sixth largest increase nationwide, with 492 people losing
their lives because somebody decided to drive drunk.

“The first thing that comes to mind when I hear those numbers is the
fact that there’s that many people out there suffering.”

Theresa Babich knows this all too well based on something that
happened four years ago. “29 hours after I got home from my honeymoon, my
husband was hit on his motorcycle on his way to work buy a drunk
driver.”

Miraculously her husband survived but is permanently disabled. The
experience altered both of their lives significantly. As Babich became a
victim’s advocate for Mother’s Against Drunk Driving.

“People look at it as an accident–not as a crash,” Babich says of
alcohol-related collisions. “There’s no accident getting behind the wheel
when you’re impaired.”

Making matters worse, Babich says is an amendment to state law that
cuts what used to be an all-day defensive-driving class to four and a
half hours starting this Sunday. The class still costs about 130 bucks
and is said to convey all the same information. Babich isn’t so sure.

“Cutting down that time to only half a day, we’ve gone out and trained
those teachers of the defensive driving classes to talk about DUIs and
how they can affect folks–so what part of their course are they gonna
cut.”

Sanctions aside, Babich says drunk driving is an individual’s choice.
Maybe you’ve gotten away with it and nobody you know has ever been hurt.
But the statistics aren’t in your favor. And it only takes one time to
change everything forever.

Wondering why you should care about these statistics? again more than
one third of all traffic fatalities in Arizona last year were alcohol
related. But of those people who died, nearly have of them were innocent
victims who weren’t even drunk.

Source: http://www.kold.com

Repeat DUI Convictions Revoking Their “Drinking ”

This is an email I received.

———————————————————————-

My dynamic 15 year old daughter was killed by a drunk driver this last
October 5th. What happened to her is so unfair! It shouldn’t happen to
anybody else! Visit our homepage memorial to her at:

I am telling my story to everyone that is interested in getting drunk
drivers off the road. I would welcome feed-back.

Thank you for listening.

———————————————————————-

Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 10:23:00 -0700 (MST)
X-Sender: [email protected]
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: [email protected]
From: [email protected] (robert snell)
Subject: Drunk Drivers

I visited your web site and found a lot of useful information. Thank
you!

My daughter was killed by a drunk driver who had 3 prior DUI
convictions. I would like to stop drivers from driving drunk before they
kill someone. I have been tossing out the following proposal in all
directions. Rep. Leslie Lewis of Oregon liked it and has developed a bill
to be presented to the full House of Representatives this week. It will
then go to committee. I’m hoping other states will follow. See what you
think… (Sorry this is long)

Repeat DUI Convictions – Revoking Their “Drinking “Privileges”

There are age limits for both the privilege to drive, and for the
privilege to drink alcohol. Upon a DUI conviction, the privilege to drive
is sometimes revoked. INSTEAD SHOULDN’T IT BE THE PRIVILEGE TO DRINK THAT
SHOULD BE REVOKED?

PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Upon conviction of a (first?) DUI offense the offender’s driver’s
license is confiscated and destroyed. A new color-coded (maybe orange)
“limited” license, indicating the “restrict alcohol” status, is issued
for the usual fee from DMV. (The prohibition is also be put into the
magnetic stripe on the card.) With no further driving or drinking
violations, the license can be exchanged for an unlimited license after
(1) year’s time. (?) Alcohol abuse schooling, fines and other current
consequences to also remain. (with the exception of driver license
revocation).

Upon conviction of a (second?) DUI offense the offender’s driver’s
license is confiscated and destroyed and a “color-coded” limited license
is once again issued with the 2nd conviction noted on the magnetic stripe
or in DMV records. The limited license status is mandatory for (5) year’s
time. (Mandatory days in jail, fines, schooling, & other current
consequences also to remain)

Upon conviction of a (third?) DUI offense the limited license is
mandatory for (10) year’s time … in addition to the other current
consequences.

Upon conviction of a fourth DUI offense, current laws should remain
and move the offense to being a felony with prison time mandatory upon
conviction.

IN ADDITION:
Anyone (clerk/friend, etc.) selling/giving alcohol to a limited license
holder, is subject to a mandatory fine ($500?), with 30 day suspension of
their business/professional/drivers license, and absolute, prima-facie
civil liability for actions subsequent to drinking.”

“Rights” Have Conditions
Every person is accountable for their own “right to drink and/or
disperse alcohol” responsibly. Failure to treat this “right” responsibly
has consequences. The person’s “right” is to be taken away when the
failure to act responsibly endangers others.

Time to Mature
Time and life’s experiences can change a person. This law can address
that. Drinking priviliges can be withheld for as long as necessary. It
won’t hurt the person’s ability to provide for himself and his family.
But it can also be used to just give this person more time to mature.

HOW IT WORKS
EVERYONE “CARDED”
Currently a portion of the population is “carded” to ensure that they
canlegally drink. Under this proposal everyone would be “carded”.

BARS/RESTAURANTS
At the bar you’d lay your drivers license on the table/bar if wanting to
be served alcohol, to enable the server to verify that they can legally
serve you. (Or another DMV card .. in lieu of a driver’s license if the
person does not drive .. so that the Dept. of Motor Vehicles controls all
ID) A limited license would be colored and easily identifiable to the
server at a glance. Fewer minors would get served with everyone showing
their ID’s. After customers become accustomed to having their card ready
along with their money, service should not be slowed down to any large
degree. Non alcoholic drinks do not require “carding”. Limited license
holders can still go to bars and socialize. Bar owners are not required
to “turn them in” or “turn them away”….they only “turn them down”. (for
alcohol)

SUPERMARKETS
At the supermarket, or race track etc., sometimes one person gets the
drinks to take back to others. The people produce their drivers license’s
along with their money. The server/clerk is liable only for who they sell
alcohol to. The customers buying the alcohol takes on the liability for
who they supply the alcohol to.

MONTANA RESTRICTION
Out-of-state tourists or visitors would continue to be served as always.
If they aren’t in the state long enough to need a Montana license, they
are not a part of the larger problem. (Smaller more populated neighboring
states may have a problem here .. but Montana doesn’t.)

ENFORCEMENT
Enforcement is when a person with a “limited” license is observed
driving erratically .. and stopped for another DUI offense. The “source”
of the alcohol is a matter of legal concern. As for the DUI offender, he
is now faced with an additional DUI conviction which has more
consequences. (i.e. jail time, fines, and longer restrictions).

SAVE MONEY
Everything needed to legislate and enforce this is already in place and
being done under other laws .. i.e. for revoking licenses and restricting
alcohol to minors. There is no need for more police. No need for more
jails. Instead of costing money, this proposal would likely save “tons”
of money!

ABILITY TO ENFORCE STRICT FELONY CONVICTIONS
And then we can be strict with enforcing the felony DUI convictions!
Everyone is frustrated when a fourth DUI felony conviction cannot be
enforced due to not having enough prisons to house the huge number of
convictions. And a fourth DUI conviction should be a felony! We know that
a person is not caught every time they drive drunk. A person having four
convictions is a danger to himself and others and the law should not be
lenient.

WHY WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT

Revoking drivers licenses doesn’t stop them
ABC Prime Time did a sting operation in Buffalo, New York to show a
judge that revoking drivers licenses wasn’t stopping the offenders from
driving. They sent notices to 40 offenders telling them that they had won
a prize and only needed to pick it up at a specified location and time.
They put the location next to a bus station so that everyone could get
there using public transportation. All the recipients drove themselves to
the site and was arrested for driving without a drivers license. The
chances of being caught driving without a license was not enough to deter
any of the offenders, even when making a sober decision.

Drinking overrides better judgment
Jail time and revoking driver’s licenses rely on the punishment being an
incentive not to drive AFTER DRINKING. It doesn’t take into consideration
that the repeat offender has already proven that drinking alcohol
overrides his/her ability to make a rational decision about driving, no
matter how strict and certain is the punishment. The repeat offender has
proven that their “privilege to drink” is an ongoing danger to others.
Drinking should no longer be a “choice.”

Can’t enforce “no driving”
How do you enforce a revoked drivers license? What prevents the person
from driving in spite of the revoked license? There’s innovative products
on the market … Breathalyzers that won’t allow a car to operate,
devices that require a valid driver’s license for the car to operate, or
medication to make a person sick if they drink and all good ideas. But
they are expensive and/or hard to put into effect. There is the problem
of having enough for all the offenders. We need to reduce the NUMBER of
people reaching the point that these other devices or prison are
necessary.

Dispersing Alcohol Responsibly
The revoking of “drinking privileges” would stop the problem right at
the source .. preventing alcohol from becoming a factor a second time
through the “carding” done at the bars and stores .. with the “liability
of not doing it” as the incentive. I can’t visualize that many people
would willingly shoulder the liability of supplying alcohol to a repeat
DUI offender. A repeat conviction make them such a large risk.
(Convictions would indicate the person probably has driven drunk before,
as people aren’t caught every time.) It may not stop everybody, but it
will stop so many more than are stopped now.

WHY THIS WORKS BETTER IT’S A WIN/WIN PROPOSAL

Benefits to the Dept. of Corrections
Relief for our courts and prison systems
There are some 500 drunken drivers now facing felony charges under a
1995 Montana law. In Lake County alone, almost one third of felony
prosecutions are now for fourth-offense-drunken-driving violations.
Strict DUI laws are cut back for lack of room in the prisons to house the
number of felonies under the DUI laws. If DUI offenders are stopped from
drinking at their first or second conviction, perhaps we can stop
clogging the court & prison system with these people. Then prison
terms can be an enforceable and “certain” consequence of a fourth DUI
conviction.

Benefit to the innocent victims
Preventing lives from being endangered
And we need to take away the DUI offender’s “choice” to drink BEFORE
lives are lost.

Benefits to the State
Huge Savings
The present cost of prosecuting and incarcerating DUI offenders is
substantial. In order to enforce and prosecute the current strict laws,
we need more police and more prisons. Revoking DRINKING PRIVILEGES is not
an expensive OR time consuming solution. We don’t need more police or
more prisons. All the ingredients are already in place.

Benefits to the Bar/Servers
Fewer “judgement” calls
The bar/server benefits, as they are “at risk” for suits in fatal
accidents
for having served the drinks and letting the person leave drunk.
Much
better if the bar can “card” everyone and thus know who has DUI
convictions.
The bar is saved from making the judgment calls without knowing the
facts.
Law behind them in saying “no”

Current laws now make servers liable even though the definition of
intoxicated is a little subjective if they aren’t able to test the
customer. And they come off looking like the “bad guy” when they are
required to draw a random line in determining when a customer has had to
much. Denying someone service is easier to do if you have the law behind
you. And the only “bad guy” is the one that is ultimately responsible for
the color coding .. the drinking driver! Only loss is “liabilities.” Even
if the bar or store does lose a little business, it is only from the
people that are the biggest liabilities to them.

Benefits to the drinker & his family
Which is needed?

A person may need his driver’s license to get to work. A driver’s
license can only realistically be revoked for a short length of time.
Self-esteem, family responsibilities, and family economics all may suffer
without the ability to drive.

In contrast, the absence of alcohol in this person’s life would tend
to boost self esteem, family responsibilities and family economics over
time. And although there are reasons that a person may need to drive
there are no reasons that a person needs to drink alcohol. It is not a
privilege you need to return to the person.

SOME WILL FIND WAYS!
There will probably be some that will serve the DUI offender anyway,
just as there are some that will serve minors in spite of the law. That
is their option …. but they are taking a risk by doing so. And if the
repeat DUI offender wants to move to a more liberal state where he will
be allowed to drink, that is his or her option.

———————————————————————-

My dynamic 15 year old daughter was killed by a drunk driver this last
October 5th. What happened to her is so unfair! It shouldn’t happen to
anybody else! Visit our homepage memorial to her at:

I am telling my story to everyone that is interested in getting drunk
drivers off the road. I would welcome feed-back.

Thank you for listening.

Sharon Snell (Tiffany’s mom)
e-mail : [email protected]

Go Gaget Go…………………….

By Rosanne Skirble Washington, D.C. 21 July 2006

Candice Lightner says grieving is the beginning, middle and rest of
her life. "My daughter Carrie was 13 and she was killed by a multiple
repeat offender, (a) hit and run drunk driver. And that started the whole
movement. I was so angry."

That anger motivated the 34-year-old divorced mother of three to take
a stand. She quit her job as a real estate agent and immersed herself
into organizing a fight to save lives. In 1980, the year Carrie was
killed by a drunk driver, 27,000 people died in alcohol-related crashes.
Lightner called her new group Mothers Against Drunk Driving, also known
by its acronym, MADD.

"Our strategy basically was to
deal with the issue on the local, state and national level," she says.
"On the local level we would ask city councils to implement task forces
in order to deal with the problem on the local level. At the state level
we would look at legislation and we would look at
state-governor-appointed task forces to deal with it at the state level.
And at the national level, of course, we looked at it in terms of the
Presidential task force."

Within two years, a
presidential commission addressed the problem and recommended that the
drinking age be raised to 21. By 1987 all states had complied.

Lightner also fought to criminalize driving drunk. "My belief was
[that] we needed to have judges and law enforcement and everybody else
say that this behavior is not acceptable. It is not tolerable. We are
going to do something about it. Then maybe the public would pick up on
the fact that this is a crime and it is a serious crime."

During Candice Lightner’s first press conference in August 1980
launching MADD, her daughters Carrie and Serena’s friends picket the
State capitol in Sacramento MADD lobbied for tougher laws and harsher
penalties and got them. For the five years between 1980 and 1985 that
Lightner ran the organization, 500 new laws were passed across the
country to address the drunk-driving issue. "I learned that you really
can make a difference, that you really can change attitudes, you can
change laws, you can become involved and immersed in something and have a
positive impact."

In the 25 years since MADD was founded,
alcohol traffic fatalities in the United States have been cut by 40
percent. The organization, now with 600 chapters across the country,
estimates that over the past quarter century, it has saved more than
300,000 lives.

When Lightner left MADD, she worked with struggling non-profits and
picked up the pieces of her home life. "I get calls all the time from
people who want to start a movement, who have had some tragedy that
happened to them or a friend or whatever, and there are a number of
groups… that exist that I helped in the beginning and
that I was happy to do. And, I always tell them: ‘It is really important
that while you are doing this you still are able to take care of your
family, really maintain your life.’"

Lightner followed her
own advice. She needed time to grieve and be with her children. Today she
sells houses in Virginia. People often ask her how she could go from the
head of a national organization to a job as a real estate agent. "I help
people make the biggest investment decision of their lives," she says,
"There is nothing that makes me feel better than to find the home of
their dreams, that they truly love and that I know that they are going to
do well, make money and live and be happy. And, to me that is making a
difference. It is not saving a life, but it is helping people with the
biggest investment in their future. So on the upside, I truly believe
that whatever it is that you do, if you look at it a certain way, it is
going to help or benefit or do something good for somebody."

Candice Lightner says over the years the pain of her daughter’s death
has lessened but that it never goes away. The impassioned activist
against drunk driving and founder of MADD says, "It is a lot easier to
deal with anger and rage than with heartache."

Source: http://www.voanews.com

Justices OK benefits for trucker hurt in DWI crash
Thursday, July 20, 2006 BY ROBERT SCHWANEBERG Star-Ledger Staff

A drunken truck driver who fell asleep at the wheel can collect
workers’ compensation benefits for the injuries he suffered when his
tractor-trailer went off the road, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled
yesterday.

The high court reaffirmed a 70-year-old rule that intoxication must be
the “sole cause” of an acci dent in order to deprive an employee of
workers’ compensation benefits.

The justices unanimously agreed with two lower courts that the truck
driver’s arduous schedule and lack of sleep “could have caused anyone,
even someone who was not intoxicated, to fall asleep or even just ‘drift
off’ for long enough to lose control.”

The ruling outraged the lawyer for the trucker’s employer, High Bridge
Stone.

“This is a guy who was home all weekend and he came to work drunk,”
Bridgewater lawyer Robert Golden said. “In my view, the Legislature needs
to take a very strong look at this.”

The ruling allows James Tlu mac, 53, formerly of Lebanon, to collect
workers’ compensation benefits for the injuries he suffered in 2004. The
amount of benefits will be determined at a future hearing.

“We’re extremely pleased with the decision,” said Somerville lawyer
Craig Voorhees, who argued the case for Tlumac. He added that Tlumac, who
has moved to Pennsylvania, is “totally disabled.”

“This was his only real avenue to secure medical treatment,” Voorhees
said. “We’re glad the court did the right thing.”

Golden called the ruling “an unfortunate extension of a trend that
relieves individuals for responsibility for their own actions.”

According to the ruling by Jus tice John Wallace Jr., Tlumac had
worked 12 days in a row before hav ing a free weekend, which he spent
roofing his house. As usual on weekends, he drank beer, typically 10 a
day, according to an appeals court ruling.

At 3:15 a.m. Monday, March 1, 2004, he reported for work and inspected
his flatbed tractor-trailer, loaded with 77,000 pounds of Bel gian block
destined for Virginia. He had gone about 30 miles south on Route 31 when
his truck went off the road in Hopewell Township and struck a utility
pole and tree.

A police officer who arrived at the scene at 4:14 a.m. found Tlu mac
disoriented with head injuries. At the hospital, a blood sample taken at
5:28 a.m. showed a blood- alcohol content of 0.087 percent. The law
lowering the legal limit to 0.080 percent had taken effect five weeks
earlier.

Tlumac pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated and had his license
suspended for three months, Voorhees said. He said the motor vehicle laws
punish drunken drivers, while the workers’ compensa tion law pays
benefits to workers injured on the job.

In yesterday’s decision, Wallace said a worker injured on the job is
generally entitled to collect benefits “regardless of fault.” Although
there are exceptions for drunken ness and intentionally self-inflicted
injuries, “the Legislature intended workers’ compensation benefits to be
denied only if intoxication was the sole cause of an employee’s
work-related injuries,” he wrote. He added that state courts have
interpreted the law that way for seven decades.

Wallace acknowledged that rule “may no longer comport with cur rent
policies aimed at deterring the dangers of drinking and driving.
Nevertheless, any change in that interpretation must come from the
Legislature.”

Robert Schwaneberg covers legal issues. He may be reached at rschwa
[email protected] or (609) 989-0324.

Source: http://www.nj.com

Measuring the Chances of DUI Arrest

In a project to measure the probability of getting arrested for
driving under the influence of intoxicants as it relates to blood alcohol
concentration, the Midwest Research Institute of Kansas City, MO, has
explored public awareness about the extent to which DUI laws are enforced. Once discerned, this
information could be useful to increase public awareness, help the police
force in locating drunk drivers, aid in the evaluation of possible DUI
candidates, and help provide quantification of intoxicated drivers on
public roads.

Alcohol Safety Action Projects (ASAP), a workshop funded by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), conducted interviews of thousands of people
in order to ascertain the level of public understanding of DUI law
enforcement. Interviewees were asked several questions, including what
they speculated the possibility was that they may be stopped by the
police after having had several drinks.

Unfortunately, the question does not have an accurate answer,
especially if the intoxication level, or blood alcohol content (BAC), is
not designated. While general ideas of such probabilities do exist,
in-depth research had not been previously carried out on this topic.
Estimates from previous reports calculate that for a 10-mile ride with a
BAC above
0.10% the probability of arrest would be about one in 670, while the
Midwest Research Institute states in their recent report that in fact
that chances are about one in 200.

After measuring this probability of a DUI arrest under controlled
conditions of patrolling and traffic counts, then one can also assess how
many drivers would possess a set BAC range. A random survey of volunteer
motorists driving in the same patrol area provided the outcome of BAC in drivers
who were not arrested, while police records gave the BAC distribution of
those who were arrested. Once this probability can be firmly established,
then communities without ASAPs could avoid expensive roadside surveys and
also be convinced of the value of ASAPs in their communities.

This information could greatly assist police patrols with managing DUI
patrols as it would offer a fixed standard to use in ascertaining the
performance of his unit. More importantly, precise calculation of the
probabilities of being arrested for DUI will aid in garnering the trust
and confidence of the public in carrying out future public education
campaigns against drunk driving.

See the entire study from “Injury Prevention Online” (2000;6:158-161),
entitled “Probability of arrest while driving under the influence
of alcohol“.