Police: Woman drove wrong way through three towns

Why was she placed in jail? Realeased to a friend and none the less a fellow partier. Geez. Why isn't she in jail? It makes it all seem this was a joke.

The police should have been arrested for releasing her. This loser will be out again drinking and driving and maybe this time some innocent driver will be killed.

She must know someone in high places. Just strange. Even at sobreity checks if found drunk aren't you carted off to jail. hmmmm

Oh well, there goes her license. I agree that she should have been arrested and lock the h--l up until she sobered up enough the next morning and realized how drunk she really was and that she nearly killed not only herself but several other people. Then again maybe that's what happens when you know someone, who knows someone, who in turn knows that right person.

I'm thinking the police gave her some salami with extra special sauce than released her.

"I'm thinking the police gave her some salami with extra special sauce than released her."

You are probably right. She should have one count of attemped vehicular homicide for EVERY person that called 911. Drunk drivers make me sick. D*mn drunks!!!

It is pretty much standard procedure to release someone to a responsible friend or relative after being charged in this type of situation. They also usually take a blood test to determine the BAC. I wonder if they did that?

Real Time wrote:

"I'm thinking the police gave her some salami with extra special sauce than released her."
You are probably right. She should have one count of attemped vehicular homicide for EVERY person that called 911. Drunk drivers make me sick. D*mn drunks!!!

They should have their own road. I dislike them for the fact innocent people pay with their lives for these drunks and most times the drunks survive the fatal accident they cause. Strange i would say the law keeps letting them get back on the road with not responsibility for their actions except a financial fine. What's a suspension or loss of license if you can still drive.

Take her license away for good! People that abuse alcohol aren't responsible enough to keep their license. Why should some innocent life be put at risk to see if she'll drink and drive again. When it comes to people's lives there are no second chances. Take her keys away please!

While I feel she should be punished severely for this incident, I do understand the mix-up getting on the highway at that interchange.

The interchange crests over the railroad tracks and 283 at the Kellogg building. Someone who travels that road regularly knows where the traffic entrance is for 283. However, you can't easily see one side of the interchange from the other. I only drive on that road several times a year to visit inlaws. That interchange always seems a bit confusing to me, even in the daytime. The 283/30 interchange seems simpler to me.

Coming from the west on 722, you go over the train tracks and see the ramp at 283. It's hard to notice there are tracks there. One could assume you went over a road instead and now you have this "ramp" connected to a highway. It just happens to be the off ramp, but my point still remains valid. It's unusually laid out. It could certainly be confusing to someone who is impaired.

strange wrote:

She must know someone in high places. Just strange. Even at sobreity checks if found drunk aren't you carted off to jail. hmmmm

Or is it because she is a girl? Most boys don't get off this easy. She'll likely lose her license for a year for refusing to take the test, have to attend classes,etc. I think you're right, the officers either knew her or her parents. "She is a good girl from a good family"

Just_Me wrote:

... It could certainly be confusing to someone who is impaired.

yes, that is why it is illegal to drive impaired. Many roads can be confusing to a drunk.

I can understand how someone could make that mistake but after the first few minutes of blnding headlights and people honking thier horns any normal person would have stopped and turned around.
I just pray she never breeds.

Just_Me wrote:

While I feel she should be punished severely for this incident, I do understand the mix-up getting on the highway at that interchange.
The interchange crests over the railroad tracks and 283 at the Kellogg building. Someone who travels that road regularly knows where the traffic entrance is for 283. However, you can't easily see one side of the interchange from the other. I only drive on that road several times a year to visit inlaws. That interchange always seems a bit confusing to me, even in the daytime. The 283/30 interchange seems simpler to me.
Coming from the west on 722, you go over the train tracks and see the ramp at 283. It's hard to notice there are tracks there. One could assume you went over a road instead and now you have this "ramp" connected to a highway. It just happens to be the off ramp, but my point still remains valid. It's unusually laid out. It could certainly be confusing to someone who is impaired.

I have followed police cars going up the road not driving correctly, do you think they get caught? Most everybody has done this same thing and got away with it...But it is the other person that gets the bad end of the stick in the accident...The best thing she can do is not take the breath test, she will lose her license for a year,but shouldn't have to pay all the attorney fees that the judges are in on and get a cut anyway

Yeah wrote:

<quoted text>
yes, that is why it is illegal to drive impaired. Many roads can be confusing to a drunk.

I'll bet you were the one to mark my post as "spam" and "offtopic". What is your impairment with using topix? I wasn't advertising anything, so it's not spam. I was referencing an interchange in the article, so it certainly was on-topic.

My point was, it's a screwed up interchange in the first place. I never condoned her actions. Had it been a more normal and specially marked interchange, MAYBE the severity of the situation would have been lessened.

It's been about a year since I used 722. I know the signage was screwed up then. I doubt it has been updated since then.

Going east on 722, you see a 283N sign with a forward/turn arrow BEFORE an overpass. On any other overpass interchange, a sign like that generally indicates the driver should go over the bridge and turn left. It just so happens the bridge goes over a railroad track that's not immediately obvious, especially in the darkness during the time of the incident, as the proper left turn is obscured by the crest of the incline. The first left after the bridge is the wrong left.

Combine that situation with the lack of "Wrong Way" signs on the mistaken exit ramp and there is a road situation that can confuse visitors to the area even during the day. I know this has happened regularly because many a driver in front of me would slow down, flash a turn signal momentarily, and then pull forward again to take the real turn.

Unfamiliarity of a region is also an impairment. Why don't you go spout snarky remarks to all those who don't know the roads in any given area.

Just_Me wrote:

While I feel she should be punished severely for this incident, I do understand the mix-up getting on the highway at that interchange.
The interchange crests over the railroad tracks and 283 at the Kellogg building. Someone who travels that road regularly knows where the traffic entrance is for 283. However, you can't easily see one side of the interchange from the other. I only drive on that road several times a year to visit inlaws. That interchange always seems a bit confusing to me, even in the daytime. The 283/30 interchange seems simpler to me.
Coming from the west on 722, you go over the train tracks and see the ramp at 283. It's hard to notice there are tracks there. One could assume you went over a road instead and now you have this "ramp" connected to a highway. It just happens to be the off ramp, but my point still remains valid. It's unusually laid out. It could certainly be confusing to someone who is impaired.

Like i said drunks need their own road and according to your post I guess she thought that road was hers that night.

Was she tased ?

Sua Sponte wrote:

Was she tased ?

No, but I saw the police vehicle video and they did attach electrodes to her nipples. That's why she couldn't walk and had slurred speech. Plus she $hit her pants on the initial jolt.

QueenGirl wrote:

<quoted text>
Or is it because she is a girl? Most boys don't get off this easy. She'll likely lose her license for a year for refusing to take the test, have to attend classes,etc. I think you're right, the officers either knew her or her parents. "She is a good girl from a good family"

I'm amazed at the number of people who are shocked that she isn't in jail. In almost every DUI case the person is released that night to a responsible (i.e., sober) person. The rare exception is if no one can come and pick you up or you are from out-of-county or out-of-state. You can say what you want, but she did not get any special treatment.

She will also lose her license for a year for the refusal. There's no question about that. If convicted, she'll lose her license for another year.

The devil watches over drunk drivers thats why alot of them can crash and flip 5 times and not get more than a scratch where as a sober driver dies instantly