North Pole driver, passenger face DUI charges
3 months ago | 8971 views | 21 
| 8 
| 
| 
| 8 | |
NORTH POLE, Alaska - Two people from North Pole were charged after the car they were in left the roadway and smashed into a fence at Fort Wainwright.
Alaska State Troopers and Fort Wainwright police responded to the crash late Saturday night.
Troopers say 24-year-old Fauna Roxxan Terrell was driving the car when her passenger, 25-year-old Daniel McKenzie Roberts, reached over and jerked the steering wheel.
Troopers say Terrell lost control of the car and it crashed into a boundary fence at Fort Wainwright. A portion of the fence was destroyed.
Terrell and Roberts were both arrested for driving under the influence. Roberts also was charged with reckless endangerment.
Both were taken to the Fairbanks Correctional Center. Terrell's bail was set at $1,500. Roberts was being held on no bail until arraignment.
Actually, quite a lot of people drive intoxicated, many, many, who are not at all 'hard-core' in any way. It's just that most never get stopped - the number of stops an LEO can make in one night, and the number of LEOs on the road, ensures that the vast majority of DUIs will get away with it the vast majority of the time - until they run off the road and can't get started again, or smash into some pedestrian, or head-on into another motorist.
I'm not trying to force anything on the public, except discussion and thoughtful consideration.
I've spent years hauling accident victims off roads. And with all the death and injuries I've seen, I still believe that it's an individual's right to choose, and his own responsibility how he chooses, whether to wear a helmet on a motorcycle, or a seatbelt in his car. I do not favor paternalistic gov't for 'a person's own good'. I don't think it's the gov't [or anybody else's] business how much, or what, someone consumes. If there was some way to ensure that DUIs would only injury themselves when they mess up, I'd be in favor of no DUI laws at all.
But unfortunately, that's not the case. In fact, it has been my experience that in DUI-related accidents, the DUI is the person most likely to be least injured [I don't know if that's accurate or true across the board]. So to my mind, DUI laws are significantly different, and more justified, than say helmet or seat-belt laws.
I don't see Interlocken as punitive devices, but more like the safety on a gun. I don't see how they take away, or limit, individual freedoms.
I DO understand that there are problems with the devices as they currently exist, and think that they would need improvement before they can become standard equipment.
I propose the idea of Interlocken on all road vehicles, because I see no other *realistic* solution to the wide-spread and frequent occurance of DUIs on the roads, and the damages, maimings, and deaths they cause.
I will admit to a secondary motive, though. And that's personal freedom from undue LEO power of intrusion. When the seatbelt laws passed, the Troopers [and other LE Depts] hailed them because it would give them another reason to be able/legally allowed, to pull people over, get a look at them, their passengers, the interior of their car, and check them out for 'possible' infractions. I think we're going the wrong way with this. Instead of getting all fired up against DUIs, and calling for more LEOs on the road, more random 'stop-and-check's on 'suspicion', etc, etc, we should be searching for a way to deal with the problem WITHOUT increasing LE powers over everyone. There's plenty of other business that demands LE attention, where there is no mechanical substitute.
Taking away the liberties of those that abide by the law is assinine, spelled incorrectly on purpose. It's the same as lowering the bar for the stupid ones in the class. Raise the standard instead of lowering it! Take away the rights from those that abuse the laws instead of forcing more laws/stipulations onto those that abide by the law!!
Also sad is the call for (DUI)devices to be fitted on all cars so they won't start. While you may be fine with it Pearl, I'm not. I prefer personal responsibility. How far would you go? Weight scale on the fridge? I might endorse an IQ test on the keyboard. Thing is , I don't believe trading freedoms for safety is a good trade.
Pearl- you have a car built by a human that you dont need a human to service? That is the inherant flaw to your logic, as long as you build it someone else will make a buisness out of getting around it. It will solve nothing. You can not dictate or regulate morals, it does not nor has not ever worked.
Perhaps the best idea yet, ban the private ownership of motor vehicles and mandate that public transportation be used by all.
Then, just to be sure we are all safe, we can mandate interlock devices on all bicycles, tricycles, skateboards or other wheeled vehicles.
You're very right, unfortunately. Punitive measures do not deter/have not detered DUIs.
The loss of judgement that goes with drinking, combined with the long odds against getting caught, are enough to ensure that many people will continue to drive while intoxicated.
Both these people are lucky they survived without major injury, and everyone else on the same road at the same time is equally fortunate.
But it was just 'luck', and it could have had much, much worse consequences, even though neither of these individuals had ever been *caught* DUI before, apparently.
Mandating Interlocken devices, or something similar, on all road-legal vehicles, as standard safety equipment, is the only way we will be able to limit the often tragic consequences of DUIs.
Myself, I don't think that establishing that I'm competent to operate the vehicle before it will start, is any worse than establishing that I in possession of the keys. And I'd be happy to deal with that minor inconvenience, if it would help limit the DUIs [and the risk they pose to others] on the roads.
IMHO, it doesn't matter if they were drunk or sober: goofing around in a car while it is moving on a public road (i.e. not on your own property) is not excersizing your driving privileges in a responsible manner.
At the very least a suspension of license for each of them should work; a punishment to fit the crime.