We have long argued that anti-drink driving campaigners are wrong to ignore the problems of drunk pedestrians. No, really. For reference: Grand Rapids TV station WTOL carried a report on a District Court Judge who struck down a ruling that allowed Michigan police to breathalyze pedestrians without a warrant. Needless to say, the ACLU was at the forefront of this effort, which negated law enforcement's ability to get tough on teenage drinking and drunk and disorderly conduct. And, we'd like to point out, could help prevent drunk pedestrians from stepping in front of hapless motorists. Although sobriety wasn't mentioned in this morning's Atlanta Journal Constitution report on a recent pedestrian fatality ("GSU law student Paul Brady, 26, died of injuries he suffered after he stepped in front of a Georgia Building Authority truck. The truck had the green light, witnesses told police. The truck driver said she tried to stop but couldn't before she hit Brady."), the paper's report on jaywalking offers a sobering look at a lethal problem.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Find a way to attach money to the problem and someone will come up with some way to milk it for every dollar it’s worth solve it.
But most people don’t see a walking drunk as a real threat to anyone but himself. It’s not like a DWW is going to step off the curb and suddnely wipe out a family of small children. Never mind that someone might swerve out into the other lane and hit another car trying to avoid him, but then some people will do that for a squirrel too.
Drunk and disorderly is a crime why couldn’t it be prosecuted under that? Still, nothing is safe. Even sober people stumble in front of cars/trains/etc. There are some activities whose benefits outweight the risk. Face it, people need to get high. You can’t regulate it out of society as has history has shown.
“But most people don’t see a walking drunk as a real threat to anyone but himself”
A neighbor of mine struck a drunk pedestrian trying to cross the interstate to get to a 24 hour liquor store at 4 a.m. on a weekday (he was on his way home from the late shift).
The driver was traveling 60 mph in light rain in his Mercedes 350sdl: the impact was on the front passenger side, which crushed the headlights, right fender, hood and windscreen.
Luckily, no one else was hurt, but neighbor could have easily been killed or a larger accident caused if traffic were heavier.
The sdl, which was just had a major tune up and was running like new with 355,000 mi. on the clock, was totaled by the insurance company.
Okay, how many of us were more upset about the loss of the old mercedes than the drunk in the last post?
You think your legislator would look at this travesty and make a law to save the classic cars?
It’s the libertarian in me that rises up when these stories come up. I am [more or less] against random roadblocks, but can reconcile the fact that driving is a privilege and that you can be breathalysed in your car, but walking? Nope, don’t see any way the illegal search doesn’t come into play here. Without reasonable cause, I don’t see how the cops can just request that you submit to a breath-test…what’s next? Piss testing? Hair test? Blood test? Shutting down entire city blocks and then going through and giving all of the previous tests plus IDing everyone?
RE: DWW…You’re still much more of a danger to yourself than others. I don’t have any stats right with me, but I still bet the chances that you hit an animal or inanimate object are significantly better than you hitting a drunk biped.
I can’t drive home after I go to the bar. I can’t walk home after I go to the bar. I can’t wait until someone proposes banning drunks from taking taxi rides because too many of them puke. Good thing I do all my drinking at home. Alone.
I know this is a problem though; bar close on Water Street in Milwaukee no one obeys the walk signals. I’m surprised I’ve never seen anyone get hit.
City deer, except the deer don’t fake it to sue.
I work in downtown Atlanta just a few blocks from where this happened. It’s not unusual to see students yakking on a cell phone, texting on a Blackberry, or zoned out on whatever headbanger noise they ripped off downloaded to their iPods step out into traffic as if they expect it to part like the Red Sea. I’m really surprised something like this doesn’t happen more often around here.
Ummm are you really in favor of breathalyzing pedestrians? No thanks. There’s already a law allowing someone to be arrested for being obviously drunk in public.
we dont need any more laws-its called j-walking ,give them a ticket dont waste time and money creating another redundant law. if i was the drunk getting the ticket ,id tell the cop to piss off anyway-go arrest and illegal alien or something.
So what would be the legal blood-alcohol limit of said walking drunks? Do you take away their walking rights if caught staggering down Main st? I can see it now. Judges ordering 1000s to couch arrest.
But Officer, I was too drunk to walk so I had to drive….
I am/was one of Paul’s classmates and I was MOST surprised to see his name mentioned on TTAC, and even MORE surprised to see it included in a story which is presented as about drunk pedestrians.
Paul was not drunk when he left the College of Law to cross the street to the gym; the story seems to imply that there is a connection between drunk walking and the tragedy that occurred. I realise that this is to some extent unintentional/accidental but nevertheless I hope that you can understand that in many readers’ view, his death and drunks crossing the street are somehow connected. That is an unfortunate blemish on the memory of a beloved classmate and wonderful person and deeply hurtful to his friends and family to see his name mentioned in the same breath as drunken crossing. I’m sure you will understand that his family and friends would wish that the story be altered to be a little more accurate-
Respectfully,
Alan Thomas, 1L Ga State College of Law