DUI

Moderator: Jim DeVito

Liz Powell
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 1:53 pm

DUI

Postby Liz Powell » Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:34 am

I recently learned that there are about 300 DUI convictions per year in Lakewood, according to the Court of Common Pleas. Nationally, the recidivism rate for this crime is among the highest and over 17,000 people died in alcohol-related traffic crashes last year -- an average of 1 person every 30 minutes, according to MADD.

I saw there were many posts on crime and FBI statistics and all the candidates seem to be talking about safety, but no one has addressed this alarming rate of driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs right here in Lakewood. This is a pedestrian community with so many families with young children in this small city of just 5 square miles. I cannot believe that no one is addressing this issue.

Can the candidates please let us know what they will do to reduce this rate of DUIs in our community? Ignition locks, special DUI/drug courts designed to get offenders into treatment, education and prevention programs, better access to treatment services, etc -- what will you do to make it safer for all of us?
Last edited by Liz Powell on Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.


Shawn Juris

Postby Shawn Juris » Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:11 am

Great point. This is certainly something that effects the city. A suggestion was made in previous posts about the possibility of a shuttle service for Lakewood's many bars. Would this be something that the candidates would encourage and help coordinate, (not finance but support)?


Bryan Schwegler
Posts: 963
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 4:23 pm
Location: Lakewood

Postby Bryan Schwegler » Sun Nov 04, 2007 10:46 am

Unfortunately the only solution would be one of two things:

- Close down some of the bars in Lakewood (won't happen)
- Hold bar owners more liable for the behavior of the overly intoxicated customers.

Personally I favor the second option.


Dee Krupp
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:56 am

Postby Dee Krupp » Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:45 pm

Bryan Schwegler wrote:Unfortunately the only solution would be one of two things:

- Close down some of the bars in Lakewood (won't happen)
- Hold bar owners more liable for the behavior of the overly intoxicated customers.

Personally I favor the second option.


And you don't think the drunk drivers should be held liable? The police should sit outside the bars and watch for intoxicated people getting into their cars. I have no sympathy for those people who chose to drink and drive. They can walk, take the bus or take a taxi.


Tim Liston
Posts: 751
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 3:10 pm

Postby Tim Liston » Sun Nov 04, 2007 7:32 pm

As important as DUI is, there is another driving menace that causes MANY more serious crashes, and has far fewer consequenses for the offender – [url=http://www.usatoday.com/educate/college/firstyear/articles/20070128.htm]DWD, “driving while distracted.â€Â


Bobbie Hendrick
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 8:39 pm

Postby Bobbie Hendrick » Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:02 pm

I should think a DWD would be very hard to enforce. A witness would have to see the driver doing one of the distracting activities at the time of the accident. A cell phone or food in the car would not be strong enough evidence to say the driver was using them at the time. It will be a lot of "he said she said," unlike a DWI where you can test the alcohol levels. And that gives us number. Will we accept say, .03 level of distraction, but not .02?

So, how exactly does SB 158 work?


Bryan Schwegler
Posts: 963
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 4:23 pm
Location: Lakewood

Postby Bryan Schwegler » Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:22 pm

Dee Krupp wrote:
Bryan Schwegler wrote:Unfortunately the only solution would be one of two things:

- Close down some of the bars in Lakewood (won't happen)
- Hold bar owners more liable for the behavior of the overly intoxicated customers.

Personally I favor the second option.


And you don't think the drunk drivers should be held liable? The police should sit outside the bars and watch for intoxicated people getting into their cars. I have no sympathy for those people who chose to drink and drive. They can walk, take the bus or take a taxi.


Dee, they already are held accountable, where did I say they shouldn't be?

I think that bar owners are just as complicit in over-serving cheap alcohol when they know people are already beyond intoxicated. They should be held liable for anything that happens. That's not only DUIs but disturbing the piece, littering, etc. Start fining the bar owners. as well.


Tim Liston
Posts: 751
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 3:10 pm

Postby Tim Liston » Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:41 pm

Bobbie…

EXACTLY…

My understanding is that in order to prove DWD, you don’t have to prove that someone was on their cell phone or whatever. You just have to prove that they failed to yield or violated a traffic law, probably because they were inattentive, FOR WHATEVER REASON. Like the guy who ran over and killed three-year-old Johnny Lazor some years ago. Or the guy who very recently ran over Congressman Mike Skindell and busted him up pretty good. Neither driver drunk, but both just as responsible for serious injury. The point is, if you maim or kill someone on the road, you get more than $150 taken out of your bank account. How else can we make it clear that when you drive, you have a responsibility to do so responsibly.


Dee Martinez
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:47 am

Postby Dee Martinez » Sun Nov 04, 2007 10:38 pm

Tim Liston wrote:Bobbie…

EXACTLY…

My understanding is that in order to prove DWD, you don’t have to prove that someone was on their cell phone or whatever. You just have to prove that they failed to yield or violated a traffic law, probably because they were inattentive, FOR WHATEVER REASON. .


If that is the case, arent such violations already covered under standard "failure to control" ordinances? Or is FTC not being enforced?

As for DUI, I saw something shocking a couple of years ago when I went to protest a routine moving violation in RR Municipal Court. The guy in front of me had MULTIPLE dui violations. I forget the number but it was extraordinary. And the woman MAGISTRATE was chatting up and joking with the guy like he was an old acquaintance (which I guess he way, in a way). It reminded me of Otis in the old Andy Griffith show but it wasnt funny at all.

In my book DUI is like assault with a deadly weapon. Its only a matter of chance whether the assault succeeds. Its a potentially violent crime. Why arent these people locked up for long sentences?


Charyn Compeau
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:11 pm

Postby Charyn Compeau » Sun Nov 04, 2007 10:59 pm

Tim -

I would venture to say that any time there is an accident it is the result of someone's inattention. Which then, makes any additional legislation to that effect redundant.

Wouldn't it be more straightforward to simply state the you (I/we) believe that the penalties imposed upon individuals that cause motor vehicle accidents should be more stringent?

Much less to quibble about when it framed that way. It could be a part of a campaign that stresses that "Traffic accidents are a serious crime" or "When you are behind the wheel you are operating dangerous machinery" so on and so on.




Bryan -

I dont understand the idea of holding a bar owner responsible for the patrons actions. Arrest the patrons that are peeing on lawns, driving drunk and causing a disturbance and that would go a long way. Going after a business owner because they happen to have deeper pockets takes a great deal of responsibility off of the person consuming the alcohol.

I do, however, agree wholeheartedly with fining the life out of any bar that serves minors as well as any bar whose level of noise and disturbance (on the bar property) are excessive or cause complaints from the local residents.

That forces each party to be responsible for their own actions and property. Otherwise I would worry that patrons would be quick to blame the bartenders and owners for their own poor judgment both in the bar and on the road.

Just some food for thought and discussion,
Charyn


Ivor Karabatkovic
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:45 am
Contact:

Postby Ivor Karabatkovic » Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:33 am

Charyn,

Maybe this will change your opinion on not holding bar owners responsible.

Drunk Fans

let me quote another article about this case:
[quote]"Mr. Lanzaro, now serving a five-year prison term for vehicular assault, testified that he was already drunk when he bought “four or moreâ€Â


Ivor Karabatkovic
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:45 am
Contact:

Postby Ivor Karabatkovic » Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:41 am

the article is also quick to point out that New Jersey has laws in place for holding alcohol servers accountable. I wonder if Ohio has anything like this... (another quote)

''It's [the lawsuit] based on New Jersey law. You're not permitted to serve alcohol to someone who is legally intoxicated and there's a social host law as well, not just for bar and restaurant owners, but for people who have parties and serve alcohol.''


Tim Liston
Posts: 751
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 3:10 pm

Postby Tim Liston » Mon Nov 05, 2007 5:31 am

Charyn….

I’m not a lawyer and I’m really not that up-to-speed on the issue that SB 158 is intended to address. But in very lay terms, my understanding is that traffic offenses basically fall into two categories, “carelessâ€Â


Dee Martinez
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:47 am

Postby Dee Martinez » Mon Nov 05, 2007 5:50 am

Mr. Liston.

My concern about this bill intensified after reading your interpretation of it.

From your explanation we would quickly evolve into a situation where almost any accident between a motor vehicle and pedestrian or cyclist would result in a virtual presumption of guilt against the driver.
And thats just for the criminal part of it, let alone civil action.
If I back over little Johnny, I have a lot of explaining to do, regardless of what role Johnny had in the accident.
"Distracted driving" appears to be as fuzzy a concept as "careless" driving. Virtually anything could be considered "distracting" if it bolsters someone's legal claim ("she was tapping her steering wheel to the song on the radio!")
The net effect seems to make it a situation where the person driving the car is ALWAYS at fault, regardless of factual evidence.

Very good intentions but you can see the "law of unintended consequences" coming a mile away.


Bryan Schwegler
Posts: 963
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 4:23 pm
Location: Lakewood

Postby Bryan Schwegler » Mon Nov 05, 2007 6:11 am

Charyn Compeau wrote:Bryan -

I dont understand the idea of holding a bar owner responsible for the patrons actions. Arrest the patrons that are peeing on lawns, driving drunk and causing a disturbance and that would go a long way. Going after a business owner because they happen to have deeper pockets takes a great deal of responsibility off of the person consuming the alcohol.


Again, I never said NOT to also fine/arrest/jail the patron. They deserve the harshest punishment fit for their crime. I'm saying hold the bar owners responsible as well. If they knowingly continue to serve someone already severely intoxicated, they should be held just as liable.



Return to “2007 Lakewood Mayoral Election”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests