mason day: Only 20% of those convicted of DUI used interlocks. Mainly licence restriction/revocation were chosen. So 70% of said 20%reduction in arrest rate ain't jack! A new Ca. law was passed on 12/28/12 and effective 1 week later, makes BAC interlocks mandatory for all who have been convicted of a DUI. The length of time can be anywhere from 1 year to 5 years and beyond, depending upon the number of repeat offenses. Since this is a new law, stats are not available, and any numbers used until then are purely conjecture. This new law takes the above mentioned options away from DUI convicts.
Monday, April 8, 2013, 10:52 am
mason day: BAC interlocks were an option to licence restriction/revocation that Ca. courts gave DUI convicts until 12/28/12, when it was found that only 20% of convicts chose the interlock. A new law takes this option away 1 week after 12/28/12, making the interlock mandatory for varied amounts of time depending upon repeat offenses. Source NBC news, LA. I totally agree with Kevin on this issue. So 70% of the 20% reduction in arrest rates; not good at all. With this new law, stats are not out yet,so any numbers thrown out there regarding interlock use is just speculation at this point.
Monday, April 8, 2013, 10:31 am
Kevin Paglia: I'm done talking with people who want to argue from the stance that MORE drunk driver accidents on our roads is an acceptable thing. I am always mystified when people see human life as so trivial.
I remember a story a few years ago of a young lady sitting at a stop light in the area here when a drunk driver going full speed slammed into her and killed her. First time offender. According to people like mr Bransom it was HER fault for getting hit "Don't want to get hit by a drunk? Pay Attention when you drive." Absolutely callous disregard for all the lives lost due to drunk drivers.
Monday, April 8, 2013, 9:35 am
Kevin Paglia: Great, so AFTER a drunk driver has BUTCHERED an innocent driver or whole family THEN you want to do something.
Personally I would rather use EVERY tool at the laws disposal to protect everyone on the roads. BAIID's ONLY work AFTER a driver has been sentence to use them. Means the drunk had to have been caught doing something serious first.
Bottom line is I want the established laws used to protect everyone on the road. You are ok with 1800 more people dying on our streets every year. Current stats say a little more than 9000 people are killed every years, DUI check points have been SHOWN to reduce alcohol related accidents by 20% (http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/checkpoint.html). I have no idea where you pulled the 9% stat from, everywhere looked all said the same 20%.
So WHY are you ok with 20% MORE drunk drivers plowing into families?
Monday, April 8, 2013, 9:25 am
Jerry Bransom: THis is for you Kevin:
A Closer Look
Sobriety checkpoints: traffic stops where law enforcement officers assess drivers’ level of alcohol impairment. These checkpoints consistently reduce alcohol-related crashes, typically by 9%.
Ignition interlocks: devices that are installed in the vehicles of people who have been convicted of driving while impaired. They prevent operation of the vehicle by anyone with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) above a specified safe level (usually 0.02% – 0.04%). When installed, interlocks are associated with about a 70% reduction in arrest rates for impaired driving.
Sunday, April 7, 2013, 9:21 pm
advocate: In most other cities the tow companies and police department split the profits. Are the tow company owners paid overtime, too? Is that why you see up to a dozen tow trucks at a checkpoint when there are seldom more than two dui arrests? Go figure.
Sunday, April 7, 2013, 3:59 pm
advocate: Raymond, are you my mother? Have you checked the statistics on those checkpoints? How do you know who is being victimized and who isn't until LPD has the guts to release their data to the public? And where the funds go that are generated by these dui/traffic citations. Who gets what? What do these tow companies pay to participate and what is their share of the return? How much goes to the state, county, city and police department? How much is paid to the catering truck on site? Why is the event always seemingly staged in an area where there is plenty of space to hold a half dozen tow trucks or more, when I have never seen more than four dui's? And on properties owned by the good old boys? And why on the east side so often when the concentration of the alcohol venues are on the WEST side?
Thursday, April 4, 2013, 1:41 pm
Lodi Resident: Robert, You get the best post award! Drunk drivers are a defiant bunch. Case in point being after Lodi Court fines a drunk driver they have been arrested driving away from the courthouse in the past according to LNS!
If a breathalizer is attached to their vehicles they will get someone to blow into it so they can get back behind the wheel. Thus the DUI checkpoint is the best chance to stop an impaired driver befor they hurt themselves or someone else.
Thank you for posting your comment.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013, 6:29 pm
mason day: Breathalyzers only work when a drunk person blows into it. Most drunk drivers have a girlfriend,friend, or whatever sober person, blow into the the device, start the car, and hand the wheel to the drunk driver. Seen this happen continually with the party crowds. Purpose defeated.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013, 5:36 pm
Kevin Paglia: Yes, by all means we should leave the drunks alone until they draw the attention of the cops, after all 10,000 dead people a year out of the millions in America is nothing to worry about. Why should we worry about trying to reduce that number by being proactive in stopping drunks BEFORE they hit someone? Silly cops for trying to protect innocent families coming back from getting ice cream or whatever.
The callousness of those who want 20% MORE drunk drivers on the road is mindblowing. Isuspect they have either A: never had a drunk kill a dear friend or maim a family member or B: have had run ins with law enforcement that makes them bitter against anything the cops do.
"An average of one alcohol-impaired-driving fatality occurred every 53 minutes in 2011.
In 2011, 9,878 people were killed in alcohol-impaired-driving crashes. These alcohol-impaired driving fatalities accounted for 31 percent of the total motor vehicle traffic fatalities in the United States.
Traffic fatalities in alcohol-impaired-driving crashes decreased by 2.5 percent from 2010.
In 2011, a total of 1,140 children age 14 and younger were killed in motor vehicle traffic crashes. Of those 1,140 fatalities, 181 occurred in alcohol-impaired-driving crashes" http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html
Tuesday, April 2, 2013, 4:59 pm
Jerry Bransom: Good grief .. this is a BLOG not a Novel! Can't you guys simply say what you mean briefly?
The laws for drinkers are corrupt and you will NEVER get them all off the road unless you install a device in the car to detect it. Why waste my hard earned money on this sort of coffee break? Get caught, now you have to have a detector - they make 'em! Doesn't cost me any money.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013, 4:35 pm
Lodi Resident: Doug Chaney posted at 12:14 pm on Tue, Apr 2, 2013.
The notice says: DUI/License checkpoint, doesn't it? There have been too many of these checkpoints with either none or one dui arrest and the overall figures don't set well with me when you count the tows/impounds, some as many as fifteen or twenty to one for tows vs. dui's?
Doug? So it doesn't set well with you! Well pat yourself on the back for feeling the City of Lodi, LPD, the Mayor and City Council should (CONFORM anything to what feels (WELL) with you! LPD is allotted federal or state funds to do the DUI/License checkpoints.
In the interest of trying to help you better understand the inner workings and purpose of these check points, it seems to me you should contact those state or federal funding agencies to get a clarification so you can determine if they can (SET WELL) with your perceptions.
As for your saying....
"Then why is LPD concentrating their efforts on minority unlicensed/uninsured drivers and not impaired drivers? Every vehicle should be screened and given literature explaining the consequences of dui/impaired driving or unlicensed/uninsured driving if that is the real intent of these checkpoints."
Once again I will try to explain why I believe, as simply as I can to you.
First, These are NOT and have never been Hispanic checkpoints for the purpose of punishing any hispanics who are breaking the law. LPD has no idea when a check point is set up (WHO) or (HOW MANY) people's vehicles will be stopped. They don't know the Race, age, occupation, marital status, income level, or whether more drivers will be male or female. I would expect you already know that.
Second, I have read in the past where drug impaired drivers were arrested, cited and vehicles impounded. So this question is mute Doug.
Third.... You are telling me that (YOU WOULD FEEL BETTER) if drivers who are cited for breaking whatever traffic laws they were breaking should get materials or brochures to help educate them to not do the same offense in the future. I wish I could help you there Doug, but once more, rather than contact the "Powers to be" of your concerns so in the future you will (FEEL WELL) you tell me what is bugging you.
You remind me of the person who has a plumbing problem but keep calling an electrician for assistance to solve your problem. My advice is contact the right person for your concerns. They should make you feel well afterwards.
Everyone driving without a license, without insurance and who are drunk or drug impaired Doug (KNOW) they are breaking the law.
I'm not a fella without mercy for all the things that appear to bother you Doug, so for once I will offer a small bit of constructive advice, aimed as a temporary fix to your issue of literature per se regarding consequences to those drivers cited.
A simple hand-written sign held up with or without a flashlight saying, "Please don't break the law again or you could get arrested again" might be all you need to do to remedy that apparent flaw in the system you took issue with.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013, 2:08 pm
mason day: Mr. Chaney; I would like to see all impaired drivers off the roads also. Like many others, I have been the victim of a DUI driver on a few occasions( nothing you can do when you're rear-ended. Lost a few friends due to drunk drivers too. Fact remains that law enforcement has their hands tied and DUI checkpoints serve more than 1 purpose,which few examples were given in my last post. Maybe if the minorities you defend would get a licence,insurance and refrained from drugs and alcohol, they would not be arrested, vehicles impounded, and massive tow/impound fees levied,etc.THE DUI LAWS ARE ENFORCED TO DISCOURAGE WOULD BE DUI DRIVERS FROM THE RESULTS OF CONVICTION. High impound fees, fines, drunk driving school(at violators expense)mandatory jail time, loss of license, etc. can and many times does ruin lives due to job loss which these reasons alone should be incentive enough to not break the law. DRIVING IN CALIFORNIA IS A PRIVILEGE NOT A RIGHT as stated in the dmv handbook. BTW, I am a minority, since California's white population is 39% as of a couple yers ago.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013, 1:44 pm
Lodi Resident: Doug Chaney posted at 11:54 am on Tue, Apr 2, 2013.
The sentiments from some of those who are getting those citations/tows/impounds are getting a lot of attention in that community, and in my opinion, for a good reason. Why are the numbers of those minorities so high? For such a little burg as Lodi, why are so many of these checkpoints placed on the small east side? It seems like there aren't any Caucasians that are driving around Lodi unlicensed/uninsured? Or impaired?
Come on Doug. Don't make everyone here laugh! What person getting a citation impound or arrest is going to be happy towards Lodi? They have themselves to blame, no LPD, not the Mayor or City Council and not the Tow company. For every (ACTION) there is a reaction. The difference is it can be positive or negative.
Since I don't work for LPD, asking me why they place checkpoints where drunk drivers are likely to be is a mis-addressed question. For the answer please contact LPD. If it is true what you say that there are fewer caucasion drivers who are driving drunk, impaired or unlicensed/insured, well, I commend those who drive responsibly.
advocate: Raymond, since when is it the norm to let dui/impaired drivers roam the streets and highways of this area, or any other? The notice says: DUI/License checkpoint, doesn't it? There have been too many of these checkpoints with either none or one dui arrest and the overall figures don't set well with me when you count the tows/impounds, some as many as fifteen or twenty to one for tows vs. dui's? And as far as the number of tws in one night, around 30 I believe, were when these checkpoints were on the east side, Cherokee Lane or Lockeford. The Mills and Turner site seemed to have ten tows at the most, less now that residents can have someone retrieve their vehicle. That disturbs me that LPD can still seem to look the other way when choosing which vehicle to inspect or which dignitary can be given the benefit of the doubt when pulled over for suspected dui on city streets. Raymond states:The best tool to keep drunk drivers off the street and harming themselves or others is to stop them BEFORE they have harmed someone.Then why is LPD concentrating their efforts on minority unlicensed/uninsured drivers and not impaired drivers? Every vehicle should be screened and given literature explaining the consequences of dui/impaired driving or unlicensed/uninsured driving if that is the real intent of these checkpoints.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013, 12:14 pm
advocate: Raymond, you don't even know me, do you? Why do you say I hate everything in Lodi? The hundreds of people and groups that I work with, especially those on the east side, have the same exact sentiments. Get over your bigotry and go to the east side and ask residents there what they think of livable ,lovable Lodi? The sentiments from some of those who are getting those citations/tows/impounds are getting a lot of attention in that community, and in my opinion, for a good reason. Why are the numbers of those minorities so high? For such a little burg as Lodi, why are so many of these checkpoints placed on the small east side? It seems like there aren't any Caucasians that are driving around Lodi unlicensed/uninsured? Or impaired?
Tuesday, April 2, 2013, 11:54 am
advocate: Mr. Paglia, speak for yourself. I don't drink or get loaded and I was referring to anyone who use a narcotic medication as well as alcohol or other drug, that even though you may not think you are impaired, the test given to suspected impaired drivers will often prove differently. You can rag on me all you want, but until LPD stops citing mostly the poor, immigrant residents of the east side with their dui traps that don't even reflect their honesty about being serious about rounding up the hordes of impaired drivers that motor from winery to winery or venue to venue or just get plastered downtown and would rather ticket/tow/impound ethnic minorities on the east side?
Tuesday, April 2, 2013, 11:43 am
advocate: Mr. Maurer, so drunk/drugged/impaired/high drivers are not likely to flee the scene of an accident? That is, if they are aren't passed out, injured or their vehicle is not drivable? So just what makes unlicensed drivers a preference over the real purpose, so LPD says, of removing impaired drivers? Your arguments don't hold water. The traffic citations and the three thousand dollars plus that it will cost to get one's car out of impound is the motivating factor for LPD to conduct these checkpoints. The out of the way areas and nights that are chosen for these traps are always laughable.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013, 11:36 am
qpham63: I went though the check point, found the officers to be polite, professional but very focus on the details that would tip them off to a DUI candidate.
Proof that they were productive with the check point prove that these individuals, the scofflaws were snagged and processed through our system.
My license was current as was my registration and insurance coverage. I wouldn't of thought that a check point was so productive but it goes to show that there are many out there who aren't following the law.
I particularly like the fact that the ones driving without a licence for whatever reason were snagged. They are the one directly responsible for all of us who carries uninsured motorists coverage, every penny.
I lost a $2,500 motorcycle, had almost $5,000 in medical bill as well as lost 4 weeks of wages from an unlicensed, uninsured (no duh, how can you buy insurance if you aren't licensed to drive) drunk driver who rear ended me as I was sitting in the middle of an intersection with signal lights on waiting to make a left turn.
Yeah, I am for getting them all of the road.
Good job LPD.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013, 11:19 am
Lodi Resident: Doug, since you are making an unfounded accusation that I was banned from LNS in the past, I would love a LNS Moderator to chime in and verify or disprove this allegation. It is sad that you spew unfounded accusations at will about others you don't like or that you have a beef with.
If a moderator confirmed I was previously banned, boy of boy would you score a big hit against me Doug.
But I doubt if a Moderator will take the time to come to my rescue or yours, so as usual, we are again back to a stale mate, not that many believed your accusation against me.
I just wanted to give LNS the opportunity to show which one of us was being truthful.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013, 9:04 am
Lodi Resident: Doug, I realize this will aggravate ya to learn that I don't write horror stories anymore and switched to westerns, but I felt it my duty to update you that I wasn't writing ghost stories anymore.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013, 8:44 am
Lodi Resident: Doug I was never kicked off LNS as a poster! Since my name is Raymod Cook, I am quite sure that if LNS Banned me, they would simply ban me right now. The truth is YOU were the one who was banned and allowed to come back. You can rant and rave about me Doug but your joy comes from (Baiting) other posters to spar with you. It aggravates the crap out of you because I won't go off the handle and spar with you.
I never said I was suffering bad Doug. Kevin commented on the topic of suffering. Without my back support I WOULD be suffering, but has served me well so I don't need any pain medication. Thank you for the opportunity to clear up your misunderstanding. I don't ave a car so their is no need of worrying about me driving drug impaired. I know you feel safer on the streets of Lodi already Doug.
As far as those without drivers licenses or insurance being caught up in the DUI/License checkpoints:
Since when is it the norm in any city to allow people who have no license or insurance to drive city states Doug? They pose a clear risk to others because often times they are driving with suspended drivers licenses. Thos who have failed to get their drivers license haven't passed the required Written test and Drivers test, making them too a dange to others because they aren't proficient or knowledgble of driving laws.
No matter how much you scream and shout Doug, no matter how much you jump up and down and tell the est of us how (UNFAIR) DUI/license checkpoints are, the bottom line all boils down to one simple and easily understood sentence.
If you don't want to lose your car and money, Please obey the law!
Tuesday, April 2, 2013, 8:39 am
Lodi Resident: Morning Jerry: You offer valid points but miss the big picture. If a drunk driver approache a red light, all drivers would expect the driver to stop since they have the green light. If a drunk driver is being pursued by the police, he isn't likely to stop at a red light or drive safely at all. Their goal is to escape and anyone in their way will be hit. You can be aware of your surroundings 100% but no one can predict the behavior of a drunk driver.
The fight or flee instinct kicks in and few drunk or drug impaired drivers are going to pull over after an accident and calmly wait to be arrested. Even those that are punished often times continue driving drunk. Surely you too know that.
The best tool to keep drunk drivers off the street and harming themselves or others is to stop them BEFORE they have harmed someone.
I love Dougs term DUI Checkpoint Trap!
I too see his fascination with "Wine Events" and those with Homes, Jobs, Nice cars and success having their wine sipping. I am no better off than Doug is financially yet I am not jealous of the wine folks having their wine tours. They face the same risks as the beer or whiskey drinker when it comes to being intoxicated.
The police do their best with the funds that are allotted in an effort to reduce drunk drivers on the streets.
As for Tow trunk companies being in cahoots with LPD for tow and impound fees, who else is going to impound a drunk drivers vehicle, Doug himself? A system is in place to deal with drunk or drug impaired drivers. Maybe if Doug entered politics or helped get the system changed to what will make him (HAPPY) his life regarding how drunk drivers are treated would be better.
Drunk and Drug impaired drivers Jerry have a simple way to keep their MONEY and their CAR!
STOP DRINKING AND DRIVING!
Tuesday, April 2, 2013, 8:27 am
Lodi Resident: Hi Kevin:
Not that Doug or anyone cares about the DUI driver who injured me, the driver was under 21, no license, no insurance, no job, and went up the off ramp of I-5 thinking it was the on-ramp. He went 22 miles northbound in the southbound freeway missing everyone until he hit the car I was riding in head-on going 80. To this day I don't kow why the 70's impala built like a tank didn't catch fire and burn me alive. For that I am grateful. Eight months and three days later I walked out of the hospital using a cane. I have come a long ways since then and must wear a back support to have a decent life, but unlike Doug, I see life through my eyes as good.
But I was fortunate not to die, where other innocent men, women and children have lost their lives due to a drunk driver. Relatives can't get that loved one back and there is no second chance to go on with life as was given me in 1972. It bothers me that someone who openly hates just about everying in LODI, especially those in power to control others would stay in a town they hate so passionately. Hate serves no useful purpose.
I could have chosen to be a very bitter person in 1972 when I was 18 years old, and seeing how my had changed but I chose not to. My advice to Doug which he won't accept is instead af whining and complaining about things that irritate him so intensely is to do something about it. Run for public office and be part of the system and try to make things better. If one has a torn in the palm of his hand, there are onlt two options: First get the thor out and go on with life. Second, is to leave the thorn in your hand, whine and rant and rave and let that thorn get infected.
As a resident and poster I have even spoken with Doug. I wish I could see Doug become a happier person and be something positive in the community but I just don't see it happening, so I guess Lodi will always have a thorn in its side.
Have the best ya can Doug.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013, 8:13 am
Jerry Bransom: It is about Power. The power to just stop you and decide if you are someone who they can arrest. Sounds like some other countries I can think of. Any way you slice it, it takes money out of someone's pocket and puts it in the hands of the government. And TAXES are paying for it even if some poor soul gets arrested. That is a LOSE LOSE if you ask me.
Don't want to get hit by a drunk? Pay Attention when you drive. How is it I have driven all these years avoiding more than a dozen (I am sure) drunks? My dad used to say, " the only direction you cannot predict a drunk is when they are coming from the sky."
Tuesday, April 2, 2013, 6:39 am
Jerry Bransom: Hmmm.. sounds like you are talking about yourself Mr. Cook
Tuesday, April 2, 2013, 6:33 am
Jerry Bransom: Well they were not causing any trouble when they got pulled over!
Tuesday, April 2, 2013, 6:31 am
mason day: Kevin; doug doesn't think that unlicenced and uninsured drivers are most likely to flee the scene of an accident, or that there may be good reasons why these drivers don't have a licence or insurance. He also doesn't take into account that at these stops, probation violators, drug suppliers, people with warrents, etc. may be apprehended. Instead he rants about wine events in which he, himself admits to pouring drinks to participants who he deems that about half are already over the legal limit,but serves them anyway. He is probably clueless that he enables the activities he claims to abhor.
Monday, April 1, 2013, 5:04 pm
Kevin Paglia: Doug has reached a not so new level of low by insulting, degrading and accusing someone injured by a drunk driver. It is no surprise that Mr. Cook is passionate about something that drastically changed his life into one of suffering, and then Doug mocks that event and even goes so far as to accuse Mr. Cook of being as guilty as those that cause HIS injuries.
Monday, April 1, 2013, 4:33 pm
advocate: And Ms. Samuels, the law was changed with the passage of a new assembly bill requiring those dui/license checkpoints to allow a reasonable time for the law enforcement on these checkpoint traps to contact the owner or a responsible party to be able to come to the checkpoint to take possession of said vehicle to avoid a tow or a $3000 plus tow/impound fee at one of the six "preferred" tow companies in Lodi that LPD contracts out to. Nowhere can I find how much of a fee is paid by these towcompanies/owners to have the "big 6" contracts for towing and impounds. In one southern California city it was reported that eight tow companies each paid $75,000 each year to be on the list of "preferred tow contractors, I believe. I wonder what that price is in Lodi, if any? Most of the information surrounding these dui?license overtime checkpoints seems to be either very confidential or hard to find. Why is that? Especially the names of those who are cited at these checkpoints? Not even in the daily police logs, where all other calls are reported?
Monday, April 1, 2013, 4:14 pm
advocate: Raymond, you've posted dozens of times your story about being hit by a drunk driver and I have sympathy for you but not for the fact that you think it is more important for LPD to "capture unlicensed/uninsured drivers than it is to get the many drunk drivers off of our Lodi streets? I also recall you posting about me delivering "day old donuts" to those who are hungry or in need? Like I was some kind of criminal too cheap to buy fresh ones or something. The products I distribute come from Raley's, Food 4 Less, Rancho San Miguel, Panera Bread, the Salvation Army, Community center of SJ county, Costco, Walmart or any other business entity that feeds not only the homeless but those in need of a little extra help. Please go tell them that their same day products, not day old as you assume, are not needed and should go to the dump? Raymond, you're the same bigoted, hateful horror story writing author you were when you were kicked off of here before. I want my taxpayer money to go to removing drunk/drugged/impaired drivers off the road before they kill someone else, maybe it could even be you next time while they are busy writing a citation for no license/insurance rather than enforcing the dui laws. Those "terrible unlicensed/uninsured drivers you so hate are the drivers that are proven to be more careful and attentive and good drivers so as not to attract attention of the traffic or patrol officers that are looking for errant/impaired drivers to check their status. These dui/license patrols don't have reasonable cause to just pull drivers cited at these traps over on regular street patrols just because they "look" like they could possibly be uninsured/unlicensed drivers and that's why these greedy law enforcement agencies, especially in small burgs like Lodi where the well connected are assumed protected from dui/drug impairment stops, set up these dui checkpoints and add license checkpoint. These same law officers can't pull anyone over without reasonable cause merely to ask for a drivers' license o proof of insurance, so they use these checkpoint traps to catch those misdemeanor traffic violators while an impaired/drugged/drunk driver could possibly go through this trap without being even acknowledged. And what you don't realize, Raymond is that many of these drivers do have a license to operate a vehicle from another state or country, but it is not recognized here in California. I do believe that in the last few moths that the legislation has been changed allowing many immigrants to have the right to a California drivers license, especially those migrants here that have work visas, green cards or documentation such as visas. And those drugged/drunk/impaired drivers should include those who take heavy pain medications from their personal physicians, such as I would think you'd do if you suffer from so much pain as you describe on some of your past posts?
Monday, April 1, 2013, 4:04 pm
Sunny Samuels: It states "9 cars were towed, 8 were impounded"....ummm...what happened with the other car? Was the driver a friend or family member of an LPD officer who just got there car towed to their house? (and probably a ride home).
Monday, April 1, 2013, 1:27 pm
Lodi Resident: Anyone posting who can't find a single thing positives to say about anything time and again is a very sad and unhappy person and has my condolences. Being a victim of a drunk driver in 1974 and at that time leaving the hospital after 8 months recovery, well, I don't have anything positive to say about Drunk Drivers but I do commend LPD for every drunk driver or drug impaired driver off our streets.
Life is hard enough on all of us without a drunk or drug impaired driver taking your life or mine away.
The bottom line is this:
If you DON'T want to lose your vehicle, STOP driving while you are drunk.
If you don't want to have your vehicle impounded for not having the required drivers license and proof of insurance, STOP driving the streets of Lodi and OBEY the same laws for everyone.
Its that simple for all those except for those who resent the LPD for enforcing the laws on the books.
Too bad, so sad!
Monday, April 1, 2013, 12:43 pm
advocate: What a joke? Why wasn't this license/dui checkpoint scheduled there last weekend with the sold out wine event at the Grape Festival? I think most intelligent Lodians can probably assume that these checkpoints are designed by LPD or city council and their dysfunctional management team only to entrap those unfortunate east side minorities whom these fearless leaders know that many are unlicensed/uninsured and at well over $3000 per impound to the city and the "lucky" six tow companies, who must somehow split the ransom, and the dui aspect is just secondary to issuing minor misdemeanor traffic citations in the hopes of being able to keep corralling those $3,000 plus tow/impound jobs. If this checkpoint were held last weekend, I would bet that LPD and the tow companies couldn't accommodate all the impaired drivers' leaving that large wine event. I was a participant for three years at this event, pouring wine for a local winery whose tasting room was managed by my wife and I can assure you that probably 40-50% of those who indulge at this event are too legally impaired to pass a breath/nystagmus/blood test to be allowed to drive home. The LPD planner should be fired for the poor choice of evenings/weekends/locations of these traps. Always the same locations, away from any logical routes the big time downtown or Wine & Roses tippler would ever think of going home, but routes taken by the minorities to travel to and from their blighted, slum-like neighborhood, picking on the poorest of the poor in livable, lovable Lodi, while giving free passes to those well known regular attendees of the regular wine parties, called "events", that offers overtime to those officers participating and a catering truck to feed them. When will the COL and LPD concentrate on the real drinking problem area in their protective little town, downtown Lodi, with its lounges, wine tasting rooms, restaurant/bars, some of those that seem to be selling more booze than food, and other venues that total more than the recommended allotment for a tiny downtown like Lodi. And the planning commission keeps on approving more each month to mostly the good old boys and their ilk knowing that they probably won't have to worry about getting one of their precious over-imbibers arrested, embarrassed and convicted for dui/impaired driving. What gives LPD?
Monday, April 1, 2013, 10:18 am
Robert Molle: Jerry the money comes from grants from the federal government and the officers running the checkpoint are usually not otherwise scheduled to work that day so there is no effect on the coverage of the rest of the city. Saying it has no affect on DUI statistics cannot be measured. There is no way of knowing if the people who are/ were arrested would have caused major accidents with multiple fatalities a mile down the road from the checkpoint. So, it may be having huge impacts on the statistics, but thank god we do not have to find out. Keep up the good work LPD.
Monday, April 1, 2013, 10:15 am
Jerry Bransom: How does it yield money? Traffic Fines.. court costs... lawyers ... judges...etc..But I fail to see how it is preventing people from driving while intoxicated. If you look at the DUI arrest statistics, there is basically no change. So the question is, why are we doing this when property crime is rising? It seems to me that money should go to patrolling my neighborhood, not a coffee stop for some checkpoint. If I need Police, are they going to be busy chatting with some driver while looking for that one percent of people who may or may not be too drunk to drive?
Read it yourself: DUI Statshttp://apps.dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/rd/DUI_Fact_Sheet_2000-2010.pdfRead it yourself: Property Crimehttp://oag.ca.gov/crime
I think this is just another way public employees serve themselves.
Monday, April 1, 2013, 8:41 am
Todd: WOW!!!!!!!!Money WELL spent!!!!!!!
Sunday, March 31, 2013, 9:09 pm
Signing in from multiple locations may be the cause.
Username or Email