Town Square

Post a New Topic

Palo Alto police plan DUI checkpoint tonight

Original post made on Aug 20, 2010

The Palo Alto Police Department will be conducting a DUI/driver's license checkpoint tonight (Aug. 20) from 9 p.m. to 3 a.m. at an undisclosed location within the city limits.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, August 20, 2010, 4:06 PM

Comments (24)

Posted by not drunk, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 20, 2010 at 5:42 pm

I thought they had to disclose these rather than keep them secret.

Many people are over the limit but do not consider themselves drunk. Calling them all drunk drivers is part of the problem. If someone is over the limit but not drunk they think that they are fine to drive. It is these drivers who must not drink as well as those who are not able to stand and walk, let alone drive.

Calling someone over the limit as "drunk" does not help. Calling drivers who are over the limit as "intoxicated" or "moderately drunk" will make those on the borderline take note. They know they are not "drunk" in the social sense, but they may well be "intoxicated" in the driving sense. Don't call someone "drunk" when they are slightly over, leave that terminology for those who are blatantly disregarding how much they drink when they drive.

It is never safe to drink and drive. What we call these drivers needs to be rethought.

Just a comment.


Posted by not drunk, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 20, 2010 at 5:59 pm

I was responding to a since deleted comment.


Posted by MADD, a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 20, 2010 at 6:42 pm

Why was the comment "Drunk drivers are terrorists" deleted? Is it not true?


Posted by MADD, a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 20, 2010 at 7:01 pm

Good example of why drunk drivers are terrorists. Here is the guy who killed that German tourist in San Francisco last week: Web Link


Posted by Jack, a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 20, 2010 at 8:45 pm

University and Seneca was in the paper this morning as the location of the Checkpoint tonight.....


Posted by Bob, a resident of Community Center
on Aug 21, 2010 at 3:46 pm

The German tourist WAS SHOT!!.


Posted by svatoid, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Aug 21, 2010 at 3:57 pm

Bob--I think MADD was referring to this incident from last week:

Web Link

"A bicyclist who was killed in a hit-and-run accident Friday night in San Francisco has been identified as 21-year-old Nils Linke, who was a tourist from Germany, according to the San Francisco medical examiner's office."


Posted by WilliamR, a resident of Fairmeadow
on Aug 21, 2010 at 3:58 pm

@ Bob --

Wrong German tourist. The lady was shot a couple of weeks ago, but a man on a bike was run down and killed by an alleged DUI driver last week.


Posted by MADD, a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 21, 2010 at 4:13 pm

Read the article in the link I posted. The "alleged" drunk driver was seen running down the bicyclist from behind, getting out of his car, staring at the bicyclist on the street, picking up the bicycle and throwing out of the way, then switching seats with his girlfriend and leaving the victim to die in the street. Witnesses called the cops, who caught them a couple of blocks later, with the girlfriend driving. She's probably facing charges, too.


Posted by Enough, a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 21, 2010 at 4:19 pm

.... What we call these drivers needs to be rethought.

No a drunk is a drunk. You either say what you mean and do what you say or you have no integrity.

All this nanny non-sense is pointless.

I hope PAPD rolls up every last one of them tonight.


Posted by not drunk, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 21, 2010 at 7:05 pm

Calling someone who has had a glass or two of wine with dinner a drunk is exactly the point. These people do drive because they consider they are not drunk. They are able to drive, but are they safe? They are not falling over drunk, but they are still in the position of not being able to fully function, respond quickly, judge speed and distance, etc. etc. as if they had had no alcohol.

Calling a real drunk a drunk is fine. But, calling someone who shouldn't be de driving because of a glass of wine a drunk will not stop them from driving, they don't consider themselves drunk. Telling them they are intoxicated, or partially drunk just might.


Posted by not drunk, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 21, 2010 at 7:13 pm

ps, and you certainly can't call them terrorists.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 21, 2010 at 7:16 pm

People should not drive drunk--- but what about those who smoke pot or take other drugs--legal or illegal? and drive
We need standardized tests to get such people off the road


Posted by MADD, a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 21, 2010 at 8:32 pm

Killing large numbers of innocent people == terrorism


Posted by Let's get real, a resident of Menlo Park
on Aug 22, 2010 at 12:13 am

I was wondering how effective these checkpoints really are. I walked by the check point on University Ave. last night. What struck me was a couple of things.

First, why was the check point only for the outbound direction of traffic. It seems to me that since the city of Palo Alto's numerous restaurants and drinking establishments are a good source of tax revenue and add to Palo Alto's bloated bureaucracy that they would not want to deter visitors. I would suggest that the police change their approach and check all inbound traffic. That would prevent any drunks entering the city and thus harming Palo Alto citizens.

Second, these check points are very expensive to operate. There had to be at least 20 to 30 officers at the checkpoint. I understand that these check points are funded through the ABC. Even though, this was a police block party...the cars, trucks, lights, signs and on and on. It almost looks like anyone who needs overtime to boost their upcoming paycheck is welcome.

Finally, just had to chuckle as I walked by the sign at the end that thanked all for their cooperation. As I could see it, cooperation was mandatory and not optional.


Posted by Katie, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 22, 2010 at 11:14 am

Did they catch anyone drunk?

Re "Let's get real" comments, do you have no gratitude? If there were only a few cops, traffic would get backed up and then you would complain about that. They probably checked the outbound traffic because people get drunk downtown and then try to drive home, which makes more sense than your assertion that drunks drive in to Palo Alto. Their sign was polite and you find that insulting? You think they should allow drivers to decide whether or not they want to cooperate? You should "get real."


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 22, 2010 at 11:53 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

The reason we have laws against drunk driving is that drunks drive dangerously erratic. I believe that dunk drivers are best detected by trained observers driving with them. When these check points were proposed there were such wild overstatements like one out of every six drivers after 9 PM were drunk, yet the percentage of arrests from check points is far less. I agree with get real it is a poor utilization of personnel. Get them back on patrol where they do the most good.


Posted by MADD, a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 22, 2010 at 12:43 pm

We need to rid our streets of these terrorists by all means necessary. These one-night-a-year road blocks cost very little compared to the annual carnage of drunk driving. They are probably mostly a PR stunt anyway. The vast majority of drunk drivers are caught by officers on regular patrol.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 23, 2010 at 6:05 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

MADD, every officer at a check point is one less officer cruising with traffic observing erratic driving.


Posted by not drunk, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 23, 2010 at 8:00 am

definition of terrorist

Web Link

someone having a glass or two of wine with dinner and then drives home can be cooled foolish, but not a terrorist.

someone who has been drinking liberally for many hours and is unable to walk straight, let alone drive, is criminal, but not a terrorist.

These people have no political agendas, no wish to harm anyone, and no plans to deliberately bring terror into the lives of others.

Don't try to prove points by scare tactics - using the wrong words will not help your case.


Posted by Donald, a resident of South of Midtown
on Aug 23, 2010 at 12:29 pm

Terrorists try to instill terror by committing acts of violence against civilians. Impaired drivers do not fit that definition. Twisting words in this way doesn't do anybody any good.


Posted by MADD, a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 23, 2010 at 7:41 pm

Drunk drivers kill many more innocent Americans than political insurgents. Who should we be more afraid of?


Posted by Donald, a resident of South of Midtown
on Aug 24, 2010 at 3:34 am

MADD - it comes down to motivation and intent. Terrorists are trying to scare you, while most impaired drivers are self-centered and just don't care about you or aren't thinking about your welfare one way or the other. You can be afraid of anyone you choose to fear, but if you want to address the roots of the problem to stop it you need to understand the thoughts of the people with whom you are dealing. The strategies we use for dealing with terrorists will not work for drunk drivers.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 24, 2010 at 10:34 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

MADD, calm down. Have a little wine for the nerves.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

David's Tea: now open in downtown Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 6 comments | 2,831 views

Foothills Park: a world away
By Sally Torbey | 17 comments | 1,889 views

On Tour at Selective Schools: Chapman, La Verne, Redlands, Whittier
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 1,597 views

Two Days to Save This Dog?
By Cathy Kirkman | 13 comments | 919 views

It Depends... Disguising Real Characters in Fiction
By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 249 views