Letters to the editor

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most e-mailed articles

Rescue from the drink

Tough DUI penalties are the least of drunken drivers' problems

Editor, The Times:

I am completely in favor of the new DUI laws and applaud all of the efforts to stop the drunks and the idiots from trying to kill us. Has that fact escaped us that somebody is trying to protect us before the carnage has ruined lives out here on the streets? ("Tough DUI laws take effect," Times, Local News, June 10.)

Every day I watch as drivers speed by, cut people off and make one stupid move after another and if they get caught, they might get a slap on the wrist.

Then I think about that same person with a couple of drinks under their belt and, according to attorney Bill Bowman, "they should not lose their careers nor have their lives destroyed for one mistake." Who is he kidding? An ignition-interlock device will end their career? Destroy their life? I guess so if they can't blow legal. So be it and good for us.

The article states that between 35,000 to 40,000 people get arrested on "suspicion" (politically correct) of DUI and more than 90 percent are found guilty. The other 10 percent are driving so badly that they seem impaired. That means that 109.5 times a day on average in this state, someone will get behind the wheel who could/will end your career or destroy your life and (people) at Bowman's firm who make money by defending the careless few want us to know that their job will be more difficult, that they should get credit for punching holes in current law and consider it "their duty to challenge this law."

On behalf of the over 6 million of us in this state, I thank the lawmakers, hope the attorneys fail in their challenges and look forward to safer streets.
— Raleigh Andrews, Newcastle

None is the limit

The real problem is, it isn't "one mistake." No one I know who has been cited for DUI was driving drunk for the first time. They have driven drunk many times, some thousands of times.

If California had required interlocks for first-time offenders, my sister-in-law would likely still be alive. Instead, she drove drunk (again) on a suspended license, crashed her SUV and died. Her life was destroyed, literally; and this law could have saved it.

If the "professional athletes, judges, teachers, police officers and nurses" attorney Bill Bowman represents don't want to lose their careers, they shouldn't choose to drive drunk.
— Gene Bennett, Everett

Dead end detour

Speaking of the unfortunate victims of the drunken drivers who cause death and destruction on our streets: it doesn't matter if someone is a lifelong tosspot who drives intoxicated every day, or if they're a one-time-only tipsy driver. The person they hit is just as dead either way. Speaking as one who is on the inside of alcoholism, and five years sober, I say, "Throw the book at DUIs!"

The wake-up call a drunken driver desperately needs has to come from somewhere or they inevitably will cause catastrophic harm. Do them a favor: Bust them, send them to treatment and pray they will get the message.
— Jay Kridner, Seattle

Shot of severity

Defense attorney Jon Fox says the new DUI laws are too tough and not fair. I say they are not tough enough. DUI laws should not be used as a means for punishing repeat or problem drinkers. They should be used as a method for ensuring public safety by making punishment so severe that no one will get behind the wheel of a car if they have consumed alcoholic beverages.

If the first offense were punishable by a mandatory year in jail, no exceptions, driving under the influence would quickly become a thing of the past. This would benefit everyone. Our streets would be safer, our insurance rates would be reduced, and our courts would have less casework to handle.

I vote for getting tougher!
— Robert Sichel, Bellevue

Cork the leniency

Anything that helps hold offenders accountable and increase public safety is a positive step. My concern is that this is only a token measure and that our legislators are still not taking DUIs seriously enough.

Sure, anyone can make a mistake. I agree that a first-time DUI conviction should not ruin a person's career, personal life and reputation. The emphasis should be placed on obtaining the appropriate level of treatment and helping to ensure that the mistake is not repeated.

However, there needs to be a greater level of accountability for the repeat offenders, people who have two or more DUI convictions and still insist on drinking and getting behind the wheel of a car.

I will be convinced our legislators are taking DUIs seriously when Washington state follows the lead of several other states and prosecutors are allowed to prosecute these repeat offenders as felons.
— Tim Benson, Bellingham

Two for the roads

Bruce Brandstrom's letter ("Rural revenue disservice," Northwest Voices, June 13) shows a knowledge gap: Why should more state money go where more people live? The transportation projects he objects to are being paid for by locally approved taxes!

If he is referring to Safeco Field, King County is the only county collecting tax on bars, restaurants, hotels and rental cars to cover that debt. If the whole state were, the debt would be retired.

If highway maintenance were limited to area gas-tax collections alone, Brandstrom might find the state highways in rural areas unpaved.

Those of us who provide public service (I'm a state employee, my wife an educator), take the time to learn how the system works and fails before we lob bombs. Knee-jerk condemnation, and panaceas like Tim Eyman's "Slots for Tots" create a climate ripe for partisan grandstanding. Which, in the end, leaves needs unmet and reduces the power of community.
— Joe Davenport, Holly Homan, Seattle

Around on us

Every so often the erroneous belief that will not die — that Eastern Washington highway taxes subsidize the I-5 corridor — rears its ugly head. The majority of state highway taxes are raised along the I-5 corridor; and in fact, those funds flow to less-populous areas of the state.

That's right, Mr. Brandstrom, my fuel taxes are paying for roads in your neck of the woods (Grand Coulee), not the other way around.

So now that you can be secure in the knowledge that your highway taxes are not being wasted on that useless I-5 corridor, why don't you put on the robe you bought at Wal-Mart (which came via ship from China, through the Port of Seattle, to I-90 via I-5) and sit in the chair you bought at your local furniture store (transported from California through the regional trucking hub in Portland up I-5 to I-90) and read your mail (some of which came by — you guessed it — I-90 via I-5) and have a nice bowl of oatmeal that came to your grocery store from Associated Grocers' warehouse in Tukwila — whaddaya know? — on I-90 via I-5.
— Robert Dent, SeaTac

Dating aim

Re: letter writer Mark Watkins' and friends' frustrating search for suitable women to date ("Since we asked: What we won't do for love," Northwest Voices, June 14):

Sorry, guys, Pamela Anderson and Jessica Simpson are taken. You will just have to move on.
— Joan Martin, Seattle