Sandusky steps up enforcement

Two-week effort to seek out drunk drivers begins Friday.
Register
Aug 13, 2014

 

Starting Friday through Sept. 1, Sandusky police officers plan on launching an aggressive special enforcement campaign targeting drunk drivers.

Dubbed Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over, Sandusky police's participation in the national campaign aims to curb and end drunk driving.

National statistics indicate about 10,300 people died in 2012 from a drunk driving-related incident.

"It's tragic how many people lose their lives to drunk driving," Sandusky police Lt. Robert VanScoy said. "If the news reported that more than 10,000 people were killed in a preventable crime spree, the American public would be outraged."

He continued: "Driving drunk is totally inexcusable. We are hoping that Sandusky drivers get the message and take some simple steps to prevent a tragedy."

 

 

Comments

C F F

This is great new s and I am 100% supportive but the drug problem there and the surrounding cites have gotten so bad. I am sick to death of hearing about these kids getting hooked on heroin/opana and all this crap that is out there. I feel that anyone who sells hard drugs that can kill you should get attempted murder charges because they know damn well it can kill. I loathe these people. I would be a narc agent in a heartbeat if I could be
]

From the Grave

Why wait...

clubfrog

stop the use and sale of all alcohol ..
it cost u.s. tax payers 200 plus billion a year in adverse effects ...
plus when you go to a sporting event you always sit by a loud drunk ...js :)

bnjjad

Tried that once. Pretty sure it didn't work out.

knowitall

I'll drink to that!

clubfrog

c f f .. what about state sponsored liquor stores? how many die a year due to alcohol .....js ,,,,the state the biggest PUSHER so to speak ,,no ?

arcman033

Clubfrog. You're an idiot. Stop the sale? Lol. Must be a liberal....

CommonsenseNow

33,561 people were killed in 2012 from traffic accidents, of those 10,322 were from alcohol impaired drivers; so 30 percent were caused by alcohol. What about the other 70 percent? How come we never talk about that? Riding my bike around this city all the time, I can tell you people are on their phones, driving too fast, not paying attention, and I've almost gotten hit. The reason we talk about alcohol so much is it is the only thing they can measure after an accident. I'm tired of the myopic view.
"Driving a vehicle while texting is SIX TIMES more dangerous than driving while intoxicated, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration."
"Drivers who talk on either handheld or hands-free cellular phones are as impaired as drunken drivers, according to experimental research conducted by Drs. Frank Drews, David Strayer, and Dennis L. Crouch of the University of Utah."
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pub...
http://distracteddriveraccidents...
http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/...

fedup2

Amen

From the Grave

Why aren't you considered impaired when you are having a conversation with someone who is in the car with you?
Most people are impaired because they just don't take driving seriously.

CommonsenseNow

So, given the evidence, why the hell don't we make texting while driving an M1? how about talking on a cell phone while driving an M1? No. We target a group of people and say they are the reason we have traffic fatalities. Just an excuse to make money and engage in aggressive campaigns to harass people. Like I said, what about the other 70 percent of people who died in 2012 from traffic accidents that DIDN'T involve alcohol?

Bodega

You make some good points but let's talk about things like changing the radio station and trying to eat a taco in the car. I mean there are an endless combination of things people do in a car that's distracting. Kids in the car, a dog hanging their head out of the window, trying to find a song on your smart phone. None of it is good and all of those things cause accidents I mean, I saw a lady putting on mascara other day while driving in the car! Our cops supposed to pullover all these people and charge them with an M1? I thought that if somebody was in an accident and it turns out they were doing one of these things that they can be charged criminally.

CommonsenseNow

I am NOT for more criminal charges that hang around the neck of someone the rest of their lives; an 18 year old should NOT have a criminal record because they were texting. My only point was we operate under illusions thinking we have some control of reality. Only problem is those illusions involve a scapegoat for ALL the ills of the particular problem we're focused on. And that scapegoat is usually a targeted group of Americans who have been vilified in the news (selective reporting), Hollywood (take note of their favorite bad guys), music, politicians (with their reckless rhetoric), etc, and held up to America as an effigy to be hated and hanged. I'm tired of it. Listen, I'm not saying there shouldn't be punishment. But the laws are too severe already. We need to come up with other solutions besides criminalizing everyone. And IF we are going to criminalize something, then you need to provide some grace if no one was hurt, meaning if that 18 y/o does get an M1 for texting, if he goes 10 years without another offense, it is taken off his record. Period. There is little grace in this society. Everyone wants to tar and feather the effigies.

downthemiddle

Just as bad are those who have dogs running loose in the car and climbing on their faces while driving.... kids have to be restrained...

DO something about this....