Trapped crash victim is arrested for DUI

| 26/01/2010

(CNS): Police have arrested a 40-year-old woman following an early morning car collision in George Town. At about 1.45am on Tuesday 26 January 2010, the woman was driving a Jeep eastward along Crewe Road, as the vehicle approached Canal Lane it left the roadway, and crashed into a concrete column and overturned, leaving the female driver trapped inside. Emergency services attended and the driver was cut free from the vehicle. She was taken to George Town hospital where she was treated for minor injuries. She was then arrested on suspicion of DUI and released on police bail.

Police said that there was no-one else within the vehicle at the time of the crash and no other vehicles were involved but have now confirmed that a dog was killed during the collision. Inspector Adrian Barnett is now appealing for any witnesses to the incident to contact the traffic management department on 946-6254.

Category: Local News

Comments (27)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. anonymous says:

    DUI is not a criminal offense here.  It is a traffic offense in which1st time offenders typically loose their Driver’s License for a year, pay a fine, and are advised by the court to enroll in some AA classes.  Many attend only the first few supervised classes.  They continue to drink and continue to drive despite being disqualified, gambling that if they are careful they will get through the year okay.  The outrageous truth is that there are dozens of these people on the roads on any given Friday/Saturday night.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Spend six months in jail and then what? Only to come out and get drunk all over again? Sending drunk drivers to jail will not cure their addiction so that idea is bull. These people need help! What I am glad of (and I am not an apologist) is that many of these closet drinkers are hiding in their secretive corners with their consumption and not attempting to come on the road. I’m quite sure there would be injuries or death to more than just a dog. My advice to them is to stay home and continue posting on CNS so that we are a bit safer on the streets. 

    • Mistake says:

      Your are equating the crime of drink driving with the illness of alcoholism.  The vast vast majority of drink drivers are not ill they are just selfish.  And even for the alcoholics, they need to take responsibility for their actions – a spell in jail where they can be exposed to recovery options might be the fast route to a "rock bottom".

  3. Anonymous says:

    charge her: cruelty to animals + DUI + ignoramus

  4. Fallen Angel says:

    While we are on the subject of ‘killer’ drunk drivers,  is there any update to the cases of the lady who was hit and killed while crossing the road across Hurley’s and the cyclist guy, also hit and killed by another drunk driver, both of them Filipinos?

    Least we forget, they were HUMAN beings who got families that loved them, too and were dependent on the money they had been sending before their lives were senselessly snuffed-off by careless morons.

  5. Two more cents says:

    While there is no excuse whatsoever for drunk driving, I agree with a previous poster in relation to this woman being arrested on suspicion of DUI so lets wait for the courts to decide. Since it would appear that the only cases some of these RCIPS officers are quick to solve are speeding and DUI’s, I wouldn’t be surprised if they start arresting the annoying green iguanas on the suspicion of being on "something" every time they cross the street. As was mentioned, I’m sure many of you that are calling for this woman’s punishment are guilty when it comes to driving home after having a few drinks so please clean your windows before you say your neighbour’s laundry is dirty.

    • Anonymous says:

      I have never driven under the influence of alcohol.  Stop being an apologist for potential killers of innocent people.  If drunk drivers only injured or killed themselves I would not weep.  But they kill good, innocent people because they are selfish and stupid. 

      Everyone convicted of DUI should spend 6 months in jail for risking others’ lives.  A few middle class professionals seeing the inside of Northward for driving home drunk might change the disgustingattitude to drunk driving so prevalent on these islands.

      • Pending says:

        For my 2 cents on this debate I have this….In the past decade in Cayman there have been many people killed by a few due to DUI  and the outcome has always been 1 of 2 things;

         

        1) They get off because their Defense has hired some "expert" from timbuktu.

        2) They are found guilty, losse  their license for X yrs, get sentenced to 1-1/2 yrs MAX at HMP Northward (out in 6 months if that due to good behaviour) and are back driving in a couple years once their license is returtned to them and they have served out the ban imposed.

         

        These are facts, go look it up. It seems that if you kill a person with a weapon, murder / manslaughter = significant amount of time / life behind bars. If you kill a person with a vehicle, you get off scott free or spend no more than 6 months in prison (then have the opportunity to get back on the roads and do the same all over again).

         

         

  6. Sheena says:

    I dont feel sorryfor her, she killed my dog.  His name was Willie, full black and the sweetest dog ever.

    • O'Really says:

      While I appreciate that you miss your dog, maybe it should have been at home locked up in some manner, then it wouldn’t be dead and the woman may well have arrived home safely, drunk or not.

  7. Young Caymanian says:

    This is such a shame. But at least it serves as an example that it is not only young men that are a hazard on our roads. I recall many persons saying after a car crash that the age limit of driving should be raised higher. I wonder what they are saying now? Just what would be an appropriate age? 60? This just goes to show that things happen and people of all ages and gender  can be reckless. At least no lives were lost…. wait except a poor dog, whowas possibly sleeping on the side of the road. Innocent.

  8. Rorschach says:

    Now I am not one to start a controversy…hehe…but i do recall the post saying "arrested on SUSPICION of DUI"  …NOT charged…once again, the masses are calling for punishments and sanctions against a person who has not been found GUILTY of anything….remember…"let he who is without sin, cast the first stone…."  How many of you here posting have driven after having "one or two"???   It is for the courts to decide guilt and punishment…not the lynch mob…  Just my $.02…

    • Sylvan says:

      The initial post says "anyone found guilty".

      I understand there may be spaces available in the remedial reading classes.

       

       

      • Rorschach says:

        you so fuuuuny!!!….NOT!!

         

        Read some of the other posts…calling for "forcing" a person to pay for emergency services…

        • Debt Collecta says:

          You must be seeing some ghost posts, all the ones the rest of us can see call for those irresponsible persons who are found guilty of an offence to be held accountable. I have nothing else to do if you want to go back and forth about this if you really want.

          • Rorschach says:

            Sorry, no.  I have read some of your other posts and I have no desire to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent…

            • Debt Collecta says:

              Sounding a touch defensive now are we not? Yet we are still to see any real evidence of which you speak.

  9. Sorry says:

    I feel sorry for the dog, the allegedly drunk driver not so much.

  10. Richard Wadd says:

     That is a reasonable proposition.

    What I would like to see happen first however, is for the Traffic Police to ensure that the ‘Scene’ of these Accidents are properly CLEANED-UP afterwards.

    All too often debris and car-parts are left at the scene after these accidents, constitutinga potential Hazard to other pedestrians and motorists.

    Believe it or not, a high-ranking Police Officer has told me that it is not the responsibility of the Police to clean-up after an accident.

    I wonder just WHO then is responsible for ensuring that potential Hazards to life and property are removed?

    I most countries that I am aware of, it is the responsibility of the Police to ensure that it is done, even IF they themselves do not physically do so.

    I wonder how many of us motorists have suffered damage to our vehicles and tyres, perhaps even had an accident, as a result of this issue?

    I had to replace at least one tyre (that I am sure of), as a result of accident debris at ‘Malfunction-junction !’

    • Anonymous says:

      In most countries it is actually the Fire Department that is responsible for the clean up.  This is for a few reasons:

      Firstly they are the ones that are responsible for most hazardous materials incidents.  This includes the initial response and subsequent clean-up.  The size of a police car is fairly limited, but there is a lot of spare space in a fire truck.

      Secondly the police department is significantly busier than the Fire Department.  The call statistics are available from the 911 Communications centre here, but suffice it to say that the Fire Service is the least busy of the three emergency services.

      The police are involved with detection, prevention and investigation of crime.  The paramedics are responsible for delivering patient care.  The fire department is responsible for fire suppression, heavy equipment operation (such as the JAWS of life) and post-incident clean-up.

      So in response to your statement, yes I can believe that the police are not responsible for clean-up.  Nor are they responsible in most jurisdictions in the developed world.

    • Anonymous says:

      The National Roads Authoruty would be the correct department to conatc in with regard to the cleaning up of an accident…

  11. Anonymous says:

    poor doggy…victim of a drunk fool.

    • Anonymous says:

      Instead of a dog it just as easily could have been a person but either way an innocent suffered at the hands of a XXXXX.

  12. Debt Collecta says:

    Anyone found guilty of an offence which caused a need for the use of emergency services should be held accountable for the costs involved.

    • Anonymous says:

      Then they shouldn’t be called emergency services – can’t wait until the day you house burns down because you didn’t have the correct wireing or left a pot on the stove and then you get lumbered with the bill – oh yes and the insurance shouldn’t pay out either!!! Fool

    • Anonymous says:

      If you have insurance, then it is billed to them, if not then you have to pay the bill, simple, although the Insurance provider that you use will want a full report and having said that, if it turns out to be your own fault, i.e. DUI, then you will end up footing the bill regardless. (It costs $600 to call an ambulance as well, let alone the Fire  Dept…..)

  13. inside job says:

    in the event that a driver requires assistance to to a DUI crash – the drunk individual should be extracted and cared for by emergency services and they should be forced to pay the cost of all services.

    in addition, medical treatment would be administered and paid for with one exception – no use of any pain killers. any and all pain killers to be used for that person could be donated to the more worthy victims in haiti.