I was involved in an incident on the 26th of March.

At an intersection where two roads merge, the vehicle on my left crossed into my lane then veered back into his lane.
I observed the vehicle for the next mile and a half as it failed to maintain it's lane, repeatedly crossing the lane separation markings and back to the median grass.

When the vehicle pulled into a gas station I followed and when the driver parked at the opposite angle to the markings I approached him.
I announced that I believed that he was impaired and his demeanor reinforced that impression.

I then made a 911 call requesting a law enforcement response.

The actions of the driver during the wait time only added to my suspicions.
He proceeded into the store where he consumed various items in what appeared to be an attempt to mask his breath.
He then went next door to to a restaurant where he purchased coffee.

When the sheriffs deputy arrived I identified myself and made a statement of my suspicions.
The first deputy requested that I await the arrival of a second while the he approached the suspect.
When the second deputy (a Lieutenant) arrived I explained what I had observed.

Now here is where things enter the Twilight Zone.

He suspect is a known individual.
He was involved in a serious accident in the past that resulted in his being comatose for a year.

He has been stopped by the Lt. for suspected DUI before.
He is known to be unable to operate his vehicle in what is considered a safe manner.
Yet the courts will not revoke his license.
His "MEDICAL CONDITION" is not grounds to take him off the roads.

The Lt. thanked me for my concerns and stated that I was correct to have called it in.

I'm worried that it is going to take a worst case incident before the drivers operators license is revoked.

What would you do?

 

There's not much you can do legally as the legal system has clearly run it's course. You could sue his ins. company and go from there.

In '99 I was rear ended by a guy who was rear ended by a guy who didn't take his meds. He was by definition impaired, cited and fined and sued and he caused a ton of damage to my truck and the caddy that he hit. I have a shoulder injury from that collision.

 

I had a similar situation one time, but on the interstate. Elderly lady was speeding, not staying in her lane. I had to swerve one time so she wouldn't hit me as she passed. Then I slowed to let her get by faster and called 911. They just thanked me for calling and said they didn't think anyone would be able to get there. I was just waiting to see an accident ahead, but she must of turned off (or got lucky).

If I was hit, I deff. would've contacted the police (possibly a second time if needed), got the plate number and any other info I could. Then find out the ins. company and contact them and my own.

My personal opinion is everybody should have some kind of drivers test every so often AND a reaction test. Don't pass, don't drive. There's already too many idiots on the road. Also, impairment is impairment, no matter how you look at it. Whether it's alcohol, drugs (prescriptions are drugs too), or the lack of for some. For some, it boils down to common sense. Apparently the courts don't see it this way.

 

SB, did the guy get arrested? And yes I would have called it in as well.

 

Here in lies the challenge - quantify it, define it, and present it in a debatable fashion in a court of law that can win. There are lawyers that get paid to fight the opposite side, can you overcome that with a definition? I agree - common sense is common sense, but how do you quantify/define it in a way that is universal?

The classic alcohol example. 3 people can have the same amount of alcohol and have 3 different reactions. Those 3 people can have 3 different blood alcohol levels. How can you put a number on it and say "this is the limit" when everyone is different?

I am not arguing SB's post - I agree more action should have been taken to get the guy off the roads.

 

Generally the USA's laws are quite lax regarding holding offending drivers responsible for their actions committed on other drivers. Knowingly driving drunk or drug impaired and taking a life is a much lesser offense than murder---to my mind they're similar enough to be classified and penalized much the same. Over and over we hear of multiple DUI offenders spending time in jail/prison only to be cited again for the same thing once again soon after being released.

I've recently the LAPD Chief suggests allowing illegal immigrants drivers licenses, one excuse being it'll cut down the problem unlicensed drivers create; hit & run accidents, uninsured etc etc----the list is simply laughable if it weren't so potentially tragic. While this is nothing more than a ploy to suck up to the so-called "brown vote" where ever Latin residents, legal, illegal or born citizens forms a (voting) significant part of the population. Yeah, sure---give an illegal a drivers license and see how much that improves their feelings of responsibility when running away is also an option!

For some reason the USA doesn't seem to want to really improve driver safety by making enforcement of laws intended a priority. We've all read of know of instances where bad driving tragically impacts someone and they're subjected to very little real punishment. The impaired driver in this situation should have been retained, tested and evaluated to determine his suitability to be driving or even hold a license at all. Excusing someone with a "medical condition" and allowing them on my streets is just about the most foolish things I've ever heard---of course there is always tomorrow when something else just as dumb and ill-advised is bound to happen all over again!

Glad you're okay Shorebird!!

 

...And many who decry the hazards of someone having a couple drinks and then driving, have no qualms about driving around on 3 hours of sleep jacked up on caffeine and cold meds, stressed out from an overwhelming job and pending divorce.

I should add that there is a real deficiency in driver training, too. New drivers are taught little more than how to aim their vehicle (and maybe parallel park), with no training on how to recover from loss of control or how to perform emergency avoidance maneuvers. To top it off, people get in trouble for learning those very things by goofing off in empty, icy parking lots.

Jason

 

Jason I agree with you 1,000,000%---impaired is impaired regardless how or why it's in effect!

Driver training is also a huge problem too---turning inexperienced new license holders loose on my streets without the benefit of having learned by doing under the watchful eye of a more experienced driver.

In all cases we simply have to have our heads on a swivel and expect the worst mile by mile!

 

Well, it's a "right" to drive, don't ya know? Kids today feel as though their "entitled" to own and drive a car without actually doing anything to earn that car or without learning the proper way to drive it.

It used to be, we were taught that driving was a privilege, not a "right", but it seems that mantra is being pushed to the side in favor of entitlement and so, we have more and more reckless drivers on the road and not enough driving enforcement to keep them in check...

The majority of Idaho license plates still have county designators on them as part of the plate number. Around here it's a joke to poke fun at people from other counties - "4B" drivers make fun of "1B" drivers; "1B" drivers hate "4B" drivers; "2P" drivers are "known for not having insurance"; everyone hates "1M" and "1J" drivers 'cause "they're just plain idiots", etc., etc., etc... The fact is, there are a boatload of inexperienced, inattentive, (insert adjective here), drivers around here and it doesn't matter what county they're from, it's everyone's responsibility to look out for one another and drive safely - I cringe when I think what would happen if some of the folks around here suddenly found themselves on I-5; somewhere between Seattle and Tacoma; with all that traffic whizzing past them...

Also, the inattention problem has gotten significantly worse ever since everyone and their dog got a cell phone... You can always tell when someone is glued to their cell phone instead of watching the road... It makes me wish I had something I could use to jam that cell signal, or maybe cut in to the call and yell at the driver to "hang up the damn phone and DRIVE! idiot..."

 

No he did not!
I'm going to pick up the police report and submit it to the State police for their review.
I've spoken with 4 officers and that is their advice.
The State police has the power to investigate drivers that there are complaints against.
They can order a driver to undergo a driving test in order to access the drivers ability to operate a vehicle.
Should the driver fail the test then his license will then be suspended or even revoked.
It is the same standard as is set for elderly drivers.

 

Its too bad when people drink in drive,some people feel they've been drinking all their lives so why shouldnt they handle driving as well?

But in my mind its not worth risking other peoples lives.Though I will admit when I was 21 I tried to drive with just 1 beer, but I noticed doing things I wouldnt have before so I learned never again. From then on if I went out drinking I would take a taxi.

Anyways its still to bad to hear of the drunk driver and hope they can do something to get him off the road.

 

There seems to be a misunderstanding here .
The driver was NOT DRUNK he has a brain injury!
The injury has resulted in his having difficulty operating a vehicle in a manner that is consistent with what is considered safe.

 

Here in CA they would have pulled that guys license right away. But we do that if your caught riding your bicycle wrong.

I dont know, that whole driving is a privilege, not a right thing is kind of a gray area for me. They force you to pay taxes to build the roads, then tell you how to drive on them, that's IF they will let you drive on their road. And let face it, life is a PITA without a car.

Government is the biggest bulley of them all. "Pay us or ELSE! ...we will lock you away in a tiny cerement box. We'll let you out when you agree to pay us! Want to move away to a different country?! HA! We'll find you!"

 

IMHO it's not that much a gray area at all. In theory only those who drive pay taxes for the roads through the various gasoline, license and general highway use taxes. The gray area is removed when someone deemed to be impaired, whether temporarily or permanently, drives on our roads constituting a danger to others. Impaired drivers who are rendered unable to legally drive are no longer required to contribute to the highway system---in this way it is indeed a privilege. Adding part of what we pay includes a system whereby our roads are kept safer, most notably from impaired drivers!

Tax payers are afforded rights but there are responsibilities too which we so often and conveniently seem to forget. Law abiding drivers don't complain about the system.

Just my $0.02 worth...............

 

I would suggest that if that persons medical condition alone is enough to make his control of a 2,000 pound unguided missile sketchy - then he doesn't need to be driving at any time.