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.

I was responding to a since deleted comment.

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

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

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

The German tourist WAS SHOT!!.

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."

@ 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.

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.

.... 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.

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.

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

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

Killing large numbers of innocent people == terrorism

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.

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."

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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