5 Dead in Wrong-way Crash on Lodge

[Meddle]

What in the world of twisted logic are you saying?

You do understand that the vehicle would be going the wrong way BECAUSE THE DRIVER WAS DRUNK. If the person was sober they would make better decisions,

There's no reason at all to believe that. I personally know of several cases of wrong way drivers causing fatal accidents that absolutely were not under the influence of anything. It happens quite often.

[Detwa]

You're telling me that this POS right here doesn't deserve to get at least 10 years in prison for this mess? http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/29575788/detail.html And this is her THIRD offense so clearly the handslapping isn't teaching her anything. If no one had stopped her today, she would have killed not only her child but someone else's child too. I'm sick of hearing about people getting multiple DD offenses and still haven't done any time and we wonder why they keep doing it? Start handing out jail sentences and they'll learn quickly. Watching that video really gave me the chills.

[lilpup]

Live in metro Detroit long enough, and at some point you're going to have to drunk-drive. Be safe out there...

utter bullshit

[Meddle]

You're telling me that this POS right here doesn't deserve to get at least 10 years in prison for this mess?

No, not at all. Maybe 10 months, then home confinement for some time with random inspections to make sure no alcohol is available to her. The car should be forfeited and the children taken away by the courts. But since she didn't hit anybody or anything and no one was hurt, we don't meed to use a prison bed for her in place of a violent offender.

[iheartthed]

It's true. For 10 years, I've never had to drive a car home from a bar or party. I've been close enough to walk, take a train, or take a cab. When I go back home for the holidays and meet up with my high school friends at a bar, I think they are lunatics for getting in a car. Sure they may be way under the legal limit, but it just seems strange and irresponsible that you'd get in a car even after consuming one drink

A while back one of my friends, who is originally from Westchester County in suburban New York, said that living in Westchester he was "forced" to learn how to "drive drunk" in order to have a social life. He told us this a couple of years after he had moved into the city [[he doesn't even own a car anymore). He probably hasn't operated a car after drinking alcohol in years, but when he lived in the suburbs he chose to do it regularly.

Now, Westchester County isn't as convenient as living in New York, but it has a hell of a lot more transit options than most anything you can find in Metro Detroit. So if some kid living in Westchester felt like he had to make that decision, then imagine how many kids in Metro Detroit are making the decision between having a social life and driving under the influence?

I'm a 20-something and I know very few people in my age group who haven't operated a vehicle after consuming alcohol. I am not condoning it at all, but it is reality. People do make this decision on a regular basis. So, putting it nicely, you're being naive if you think that lack of mass transit options has no effect on how many people choose to drive after consuming alcohol.

[Pam]

you're being naive if you think that lack of mass transit options has no effect on how many people choose to drive after consuming alcohol.

I don't think anybody said it has no effect. The issue is using that as some sort of excuse. It's still not acceptable.

[Scottathew]

So, putting it nicely, you're being naive if you think that lack of mass transit options has no effect on how many people choose to drive after consuming alcohol.

It has an effect, but drunk driving is still inexcusable.

The problem is, as is reflected on this board, that a surprising amount of people think that it is, for various reasons, OK to drive drunk.

[iheartthed]

I don't think anybody said it has no effect.

Actually, someone did...

For anyone who is under the misconception that Mass Transit somehow eliminates or reduces drunk driving... reality check... just Google "Chicago Drunk Drivers".... you get page after page of Chicago area lawyers that specialize in drunk driving cases.... sorry but mass transit is not the panacea that some may think....

The issue is using that as some sort of excuse. It's still not acceptable.

But what is the objective? Are we having a discussion about how to save lives or are we debating the best way to shame people?

[rjk]

A while back one of my friends, who is originally from Westchester County in suburban New York, said that living in Westchester he was "forced" to learn how to "drive drunk" in order to have a social life. He told us this a couple of years after he had moved into the city [[he doesn't even own a car anymore). He probably hasn't operated a car after drinking alcohol in years, but when he lived in the suburbs he chose to do it regularly.

Now, Westchester County isn't as convenient as living in New York, but it has a hell of a lot more transit options than most anything you can find in Metro Detroit. So if some kid living in Westchester felt like he had to make that decision, then imagine how many kids in Metro Detroit are making the decision between having a social life and driving under the influence?

I'm a 20-something and I know very few people in my age group who haven't operated a vehicle after consuming alcohol. I am not condoning it at all, but it is reality. People do make this decision on a regular basis. So, putting it nicely, you're being naive if you think that lack of mass transit options has no effect on how many people choose to drive after consuming alcohol.

I think the bigger problem might be that there are people that think they have to have DUI level alcohol in their system to have a social life.

Also they're dumb as a carrot if they know they're going to be over .08 and drive a car with all problems they'll be dealing with if they get pulled over.

[iheartthed]

It has an effect, but drunk driving is still inexcusable.

The problem is, as is reflected on this board, that a surprising amount of people think that it is, for various reasons, OK to drive drunk.

Well, two things: 1) some people are having a debate about what "drunk" really means [[I'm not involved in that part of the discussion but I can respect the merit of the debate), and 2) there is a discussion about how it is hard to abide by this arbitrarily defined "drunk" limit [[or maybe the irony of this limit) when drunk driving at its roots is a problem caused by the state's policies.

[Detwa]

I think drunk driving is a matter of morality, not resources. A drunk could just as easily call a cab or a friend, if they were at all concerned about being responsible. Mass transit won't make an irresponsible careless drunk suddenly decide to make a wise decision. That's like someone complaining that they wouldn't have gotten pregnant if the store had more affordable condoms.

[iheartthed]

I think drunk driving is a matter of morality, not resources. A drunk could just as easily call a cab or a friend, if they were at all concerned about being responsible. Mass transit won't make an irresponsible careless drunk suddenly decide to make a wise decision. That's like someone complaining that they wouldn't have gotten pregnant if the store had more affordable condoms.

G-d forbid you ever are confronted with the ill effects of drunk driving, but if that ever does happen I highly doubt morality will save your life. But giving that potential drunk driver a convenient option to risking lives by driving home just might.

[Scottathew]

Well, two things: 1) some people are having a debate about what "drunk" really means [[I'm not involved in that part of the discussion but I can respect the merit of the debate), and 2) there is a discussion about how it is hard to abide by this arbitrarily defined "drunk" limit [[or maybe the irony of this limit) when drunk driving at its roots is a problem caused by the state's policies.

Allow me to redefine: It's inexcusable to drive while under the influence of alcohol.

If you can't figure out how you're going to get home, then don't drink. That simple.

Let's stop killing people with our cars already.

[kryptonite]

The driver has been identified, he was visting from Ukraine.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/29580160/detail.html

[Detwa]

G-d forbid you ever are confronted with the ill effects of drunk driving, but if that ever does happen I highly doubt morality will save your life. But giving that potential drunk driver a convenient option to risking lives by driving home just might.

they have options now! Walk, call a cab, call a friend, all are options right now. But drunk drivers don't care to use options because they think they can handle it and they don't care about society, they just want to do what they want to do. Which is why they're drunk in the first place, because they cna't even recognize when they've had enough to drink and its time to stop. I can't believe some of you really think that having mass transit is going to stop drunk drivers. I'm sure they will spend all of their money in the bar and then wont' be able to afford the system anyway.

[Meddle]

The driver has been identified, he was visting from Ukraine.

But no mention of alcohol, so I'm not sure where this conversation came from.

What side of the road do they drive on over there?

[Islandman]

No one said having mass transit will stop drunk drivers, it will give people more options.

Is that concept so hard for you to grasp?!?

Fact: People are going to drink and drive. Period. No matter how anyone feels about it morally, it's going to happen. No one is saying it's OK.

Love your drunks don't care about society line, pretty funy.

[iheartthed]

I can't believe some of you really think that having mass transit is going to stop drunk drivers.

I think those of us who think this have actually lived in places with mass transit options know that it does make a difference.

[Islandman]

But no mention of alcohol, so I'm not sure where this conversation came from.

What side of the road do they drive on over there?

Same as us, so not a factor.

[kryptonite]

But no mention of alcohol, so I'm not sure where this conversation came from.

What side of the road do they drive on over there?

Ukraine drives on the right.

[Islandman]

Sorry for the crosspost, but I really hope that all of the people that want to do something positive about drunk driving sign this petition:

http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthr...ght-we-won-LAX

I'm sure most of the people leaving this establishment are driving home drunk, and more than few of them are also packing heat.

[Detwa]

I think those of us who think this have actually lived in places with mass transit options know that it does make a difference.

I'm from Chicago - they have mass transit, always have, between 24 hour buses and the L, in addition to a huge taxi cab industry. They have a huge drunken driver problem. Can't find stats but I can tell you from personal knowledge that its as worse if not moreso than here. I see stats that show that Illinois fatality rates from DUI are higher than MI. So that kills your theory right there.

http://www.dui.com/dui-library/illinois/statistics/illinois-dui-statistics-for-2009
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html
http://www.edgarsnyder.com/drunk-driving/statistics.html

Latest data is for 2009. I could go on but it would be redundant. Every chart I found shows Illinois at least 25% higher than Michigan, and I'm willing to be that's attributable to Chicago.

[Detroitnerd]

I'm from Chicago - they have mass transit, always have, between 24 hour buses and the L, in addition to a huge taxi cab industry. They have a huge drunken driver problem. Can't find stats but I can tell you from personal knowledge that its as worse if not moreso than here. I see stats that show that Illinois fatality rates from DUI are higher than MI. So that kills your theory right there.

I'd like to add something. I didn't drive drunk when I lived in New York. I didn't drive drunk because ... I didn't have a car. I didn't need one.

Let's see you poke a hole in that...

[downtownguy]

There is another possible explanation as to how the driver entered NB Lodge.

If the driver had turned right onto NB Telegraph from one of the Michigan Left turnarounds in the vicinty of the Lowe's/Toys R Us shopping center, he could have driven the wrong way on NB Telgraph a short distance to the Lodge exit ramp and if he entered the ramp the wrong way, that would have had him headed in the wrong direction on the Lodge.

You would think with the proliferaton of traffic cameras on the expressways, that a simple review of the tapes would show where the driver entered the freeway and how he got going the wrong way.

Something no one's mentioned here is that he may entered the freeway the right way and turned around. About 12 years ago I was driving north on I-75 mid-day about a mile from I-696 in the middle lane when a driver went whizzing by me on the right. He had a crazed look on his face that I remember distinctly today. I felt he was going to cause an accident but when I saw him move to the right I figured he would go onto I-696 and it would be someone else's problem. However, as I watched him, he pulled on the shoulder between 75 and the 696 ramp. Again, good, at least I'll pass him. But then he pulls across three lanes of traffic and starts driving the wrong way in the left. lane. This time he whizzed by on the left. I cringed expecting hear the sound of metal crashing, but it didn't happen. I had one of those big cell phones of the day under my seat and called 9-1-1. First couple of times, the call didn't go through. On the third attempt, the state policed answered with a question: "Wrong way driver on 75?" "Yep," I said. "Got it" said the state cop and hung up. I was so shaken by that and couldn't get the image of how bad the crash might have been behind me that I called the state police the next day to see what happened, but nobody could find any report of an accident. I figured the guy was seriously deranged and/or suicidal and still wonder to this day what happened.

[Gannon]

I'm from Chicago - they have mass transit, always have, between 24 hour buses and the L, in addition to a huge taxi cab industry. They have a huge drunken driver problem. Can't find stats but I can tell you from personal knowledge that its as worse if not moreso than here. I see stats that show that Illinois fatality rates from DUI are higher than MI. So that kills your theory right there.

http://www.dui.com/dui-library/illinois/statistics/illinois-dui-statistics-for-2009
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html
http://www.edgarsnyder.com/drunk-driving/statistics.html

Latest data is for 2009. I could go on but it would be redundant. Every chart I found shows Illinois at least 25% higher than Michigan, and I'm willing to be that's attributable to Chicago.

Yeah, but you have no idea how much WORSE it'd be without the El...seriously. I mean, damnit, Chicago has a much more dense population...in more ways than the obvious. Of course their numbers would be greater than ours. It doesn't "blow" any theory...you just have trouble with logic!

Without reasonable alternatives, how can anyone impaired be punished for merely doing the unreasonable?! How many of you make your best decisions while drinking?! Anyone of you judges with such clarity on this issue...makes me think you've never had a drink!


I've known my share of alcohol addicts in my life...along with other substances and behaviors. The moment you take the sting and stink out of "polite society's" reactions, when that weight is lifted...then they can see the light. As long as y'all pile on the pressure and penalties, this problem will remain. They require loving treatment and curing, not banishment and faux-rage.

People need to realize that everyone has something that can distract and derail them from a fully productive life...for some, it is alcohol. Easy to spot, many times, and even easier to point an accusing finger at...by those devoid of empathy and/or sympathy. For others, their troubles are possibly tougher to spot...those with eating disorders, sexual deviance, shopping issues...and while I am not equating the consequences of their actions with the potential of death of innocents, the approach and treatment and cure is exactly the same.

Exactly.

I've known a person who had a considerable drinking problem...and after well over a year of loving acceptance and positive encouragement for better behavior and healing of past ills...they just noticed the other day they hadn't been 'drunk' more than five times in sixteen months! Every time they got down on themselves for having even one more than prudent, I reminded them they hadn't gone six DAYS without being drunk five times before we tried this approach. I've seen it work too many times...after a lifetime of watching those in AA struggle and largely fail.

<sigh>

For so many, if not all, the 'getting down' on themselves is merely an echo of how everyone else seems to treat them...only amplified by the boundaries of their psyche...when that looped reaction is shunted, it opens up a path to where they can imagine themselves doing the better thing...instead of merely replacing one addiction with another [[or simply collecting them in private).


The prudes of the world perpetuate the very behavior they despise...by shunning those who stumble and fall. When indeed we should be helping everyone back up instead...


Sincerely,
John