Bend the Elbow, Go to Jail
Drinking and Driving Is Dumb
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Bomber Drink: There I was, sitting in an Anchorage Airport bar a couple of weeks ago, when two very large guys sat down and ordered Irish car bombs.
This got my attention. Were they planning to board my plane? It turned out that it’s a popular drink, not something that goes boom. The bartender poured Guinness stout into two pint glasses and filled two shot glasses with Baileys Irish Cream and Jameson Irish Whiskey. He dropped the shot glasses into the beers, and they hastily chugged the mixture.
(You apparently must gulp down this potent mixture, or the Baileys will curdle and the thing will taste horrible.)
“You guys aren’t pilots on American Airlines Flight 278, are you?” I asked.
They laughed. It turned out they’d been working at the Prudhoe Bay Alaskan oil facility, on the far North Slope. “We haven’t had a drink in three months,” one told me.
By Barney Brantingham
“I hope you aren’t driving, either,” I said. A sign over the bar warned that on your first DUI, your car will be impounded for a month, but on your second within 10 years of the first, your car will be confiscated forever — even if it’s someone else’s, like your mother’s.
But somehow, some people keep getting their boozy hands on other wheels. Take Lori Phillips, a retired and once highly paid accountant and CEO for an Alaskan oil company. After facing four DUI charges over the years and being convicted twice, the 58-year-old Phillips downed the equivalent of 18 shots of liquor one day, got behind the wheel despite a revoked license, and roared out into rush-hour traffic. She was out on bail from a prior DUI charge.
Result: a woman severely injured and her fiancé killed on the Seward Highway, according to the Anchorage Daily News. Phillips, with a blood- alcohol level four times the legal limit, was unhurt. Last March, a judge sent her to prison for 20 years.
Not that Santa Barbara doesn’t have its share of alkies who risk their lives and those of others. A friend told me of watching a guy crawl on his hands and knees out of an upper State Street bar and drag himself toward his car. He somehow pulled himself up into the driver’s seat, got the vehicle going, and sped off. He apparently didn’t injure anyone and avoided arrest.
In the past year, 519 drivers were busted by Santa Barbara police for DUI, according to Sergeant Mike McGrew. Aside from any jail time, they’re looking at up to $10,000 in wallet pain, including fines, higher insurance rates, time off the job or losing it, and attorney fees.
On the positive side, there were fewer arrests than a year ago, when the total from October 1, 2011, to this month was 570. Maybe we’re learning something.
It’s dumb to drink and drive, but think of the real dummies who know that cops are waiting at a checkpoint somewhere but get loaded anyway. In the past year, Santa Barbara police set up 22 checkpoints, checked 9,889 vehicles, administered 540 sobriety tests, busted 34 drivers for driving under the influence (that’s included in the total I mentioned), and cited 32 drivers for suspended or revoked licenses and 118 for not having any licenses at all.
Last year, checkpoints yielded 27 DUI busts (maybe we’re not learning anything), 28 suspension/revoked citations, and 80 for being unlicensed.
Last Fiesta, Sgt. McGrew was on patrol in City Lot 11 at 1:18 a.m., when a 21-year-old kid going the wrong way almost collided with his patrol car. The kid started to walk away — fast. He didn’t get far. He was on probation for DUI but said he’d downed four large shots of tequila anyway.
Three nights later, another 21-year-old driver smashed into a stone wall on Cliff Drive. The car rolled, skidded down the road, righted itself, and the guy kept driving, leaving his bumper, computer parts, checkbook, and other debris behind, police said.
A few nights later, a guy smashed into the freeway underpass on Cabrillo Boulevard. Bleeding and barefoot, he got combative with officers and denied being the driver. Result: Another DUI.
I could go on and on because this goes on and on. When will we learn?
Any Wednesday: I squirmed in my seat at the Circle Bar B Dinner Theatre Friday night, hoping that actress Leesa Beck, in Muriel Resnik’s comedy Any Wednesday, would somehow escape the clutches of a corporate-raider heel. Not easily done. The 1960s play runs through November 4.
Related Links
Comments
" Look! I'm Wine Connoisseur, I only drink at Wine Tasting...", that's the story I heard but I told them, "Your just a Wino, a Stuck-Up Wino!".
dou4now (anonymous profile)
September 27, 2012 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I prefer to be called a wineux, thank you.
discoboy (anonymous profile)
September 27, 2012 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
People are going to drink...why don't we offer better transportation and at cheaper rates. I'd use 'em!
Muggy (anonymous profile)
September 27, 2012 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Because it is called responsibility...
deniseL (anonymous profile)
September 27, 2012 at 10:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you for a much-needed article Barney, I hope this fosters a good discussion.
I think the most overlooked issue is the simple fact that consuming alcohol diminishes the ability for one to judge their own sobriety. The other point is that even when one is below the legal limit, they can still be dangerous. It's like AIDS: A person can sleep with 100 people a year they meet in bars and not get AIDS, or they can have that one fling with someone who seems straitlaced and get the disease. Answer to that problem: Don't have unprotected sex with strangers. Same analogy per drinking and driving. Even if a person has gone home many times after four drinks and gotten home safely, doesn't guarantee they will always get away with it, and even one drink under the right circumstances can result in a tragedy. Answer: Don't drink and drive.
The problem facing us is that while most of us acknowledge that alcohol, cigarettes, and drugs will always be consumed, and sometimes to an extreme, our culture discourages smoking and drug use. On the other hand, it glamorizes alcohol, and as the first two posters indirectly point out, there is this myth the drinking wine connotes the quality of class and refinement upon the user, when in fact all it does is lower the person's intelligence, affect their judgement, and slow their motor coordination. Add to that the fact that there is a huge vested interest in the making and selling of alcohol. (Comparable to Phillip Morris's motivations)
Racism was accepted by our desensitized mainstream culture until its tragic results could no longer be ignored, (Rosa Parks and Emmit Till come to mind) and sadly, only when the whitewashed veil the alcohol industry has pulled over society's eyes turns crimson from the spilled blood of DWI casualties will our culture collectively ascribe the same taboo to drinking and driving as it does to racism.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 28, 2012 at 3 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Other than the first part of your story, it is a good column.
Nothing would irritate me more than to be in an airport bar and have some stranger interrogate me about my intentions while trying to relax with a drink. Were they dressed in pilot uniforms? If not, why ask such a sarcastic question?
azuresees (anonymous profile)
September 28, 2012 at 6:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
far too many repeat offenders. penalty for first time offenders is not enough of a deterrent. second time dui should lose licence for 10 years plus non neg jail time.
lawdy (anonymous profile)
September 28, 2012 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lawdy: There are different theories for what keeps people out of jail, one of which is dererrence. Obviously that's not enough or else everyone would only be in jail once and never go back.
Bill: Once again, I completely agree with you. Glamorizes alcohol consumption and we have a whole line of bars in the most popular part of this town supporting drinking. People are going to drink, some get drunk, their ability to judge goes out the door and people drive. Some make it home safe, others don't. My point is, if they're going to drink, make a cheaper and safer way for people to not drive. In my opinion, same with drugs...people who are doing them are going to do them anyways, legalize, tax it, make it safe.
Muggy (anonymous profile)
September 28, 2012 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
These police checkpoints are unconstitutional, ineffective and unnecessary.
The limit of .08 is too low.
"A 2009 University of Maryland study found that checkpoints don't have “any impact on public perceptions, driver behaviors or alcohol-related crashes, police citations for impaired driving and public perceptions of alcohol-impaired driving risk.”
ABI stated in a release: "[DUI checkpoints] target moderate drinkers instead of the root cause of today’s drunk driving problem – hard core alcohol abusers.""
So checkpoints take police resources and focus them on a small area and might not even catch the heavy drinkers whereas if they were patrolling the area the heavy drinkers would stick out more than they do going by a checkpoint with thousands of others.
Once again, they are also unconstitutional. Roving patrols are more effective, less costly and constitutional.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 28, 2012 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
With all the technology around, has anyone ever noticed that the car makers or gadget people have not yet created any sort of economical device that would defeat a cars ignition if any alcohol was sensed on the driver? I know there are mounted breathalyzers, and so forth mandated by law, but why not have them put in all cars? Maybe the liquor companies, who are making money hand over fist on all this poor judgement, could some how contribute to this research.
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
September 28, 2012 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bimboteskie: France is implementing something very similiar to what I think you're talking about. Freedom is being taken away from every individual in France because of that. Things that make us feel "safe" harm us because you're slowing giving up your rights. This would never be allowed in the US. We have enough trouble as it is.
Loonpt: I agree with you about the unconstitutionality. When you're stopped, you do not have to answer any questions that were not pertaining to your stop. Unfortunately, most people do not know this. They will always ask you if you've been drinking, if you have weapons in the car...that is none of their business. You have the freedom to do as you please in this country. You're stopped for a broken tail light, that should be it. No need to stop at a checkpoint for NO REASON.
Muggy (anonymous profile)
September 28, 2012 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"The limit of .08 is too low." -Loonpt-
Wrong. A man with a 0.069 slammed into the back of my dad while my dad had been stopped for several seconds waiting to turn. The court determined alcohol played a factor in the crash.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 28, 2012 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My solution: Get rid of all the taxi regulations. If somebody wants a taxi service that they know is legit, they can call one of the more expensive and well known services. Or they can copy down a number they got off a community board or craigslist or maybe a well known service run by other students who want to make some extra money. They can get a ride home at half the cost.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 28, 2012 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bill, the fact is anything can play a roll in an auto accident. It can be a radio, food, drink, music playing, other people in the car. One time I slammed into the back of somebody, many years ago, sober and while looking down reaching for chapstick in my pocket. Should we make chapstick illegal to reduce car accidents, too?
These things all cause accidents, yet they're really only 'illegal' or enforced when they cause reckless driving. Some people drive perfectly safe with a .09 BAC and maybe actually cause them to increase their caution and awareness. Other people allow these distractions to interfere with their driving, and those people simply need to be held responsible for their actions. Cops can give them a reckless driving ticket. Maybe I wouldn't be totally against an alcohol enhancement that can be tagged onto reckless driving that is simply a flag for insurance companies. This would likely increase their premiums tremendously. But to allow the state to set arbitrary limits and extraordinary penalties on people who do no harm to others isn't the best solution, in my book.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 28, 2012 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
At one time, the Navy installed a few breath analyzers at the clubs as a deterrent. It had the opposite effect. Sailors wanted to see how much they could drink and still drive or walk.
passagerider (anonymous profile)
October 2, 2012 at 6:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Three easy solutions that won't be used:
First: change the law from grams to hours. Replace "you can't drive with .08%" with "You can't drive within 12 hours of your last drink"
Second: use roving saturation patrols.
Third: eliminate breath tests and require Blood tests on every case, but blood must be tested on Dual column GC.
DarrylGenis (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2012 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think DG makes valid points.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2012 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)