Posted on November 9, 2009 at 7:45 PM
Updated Tuesday, Nov 10 at 2:05 PM
******
NEAR ATHOL, ID-- A head-on crash four miles north of Athol, Idaho on Highway 95 leaves one person dead, another one injured. It happened a little after 5 p.m. Monday. Idaho State Police say 43-year-old Michael Johns died at the scene. He had not been wearing his seat belt. 27-year-old Jayme Shottanana was taken to Kootenai Medical Center. Troopers say they still can't determine who was going in which direction. Alcohol was a factor. The highway was blocked for about two and a half hours.
said on November 9, 2009 at 9:48 PM
Was alcohol involved?
said on November 10, 2009 at 8:26 AM
wish they'd say who was driving what car...or did I miss that? Who's the one that was driving drunk?
said on November 10, 2009 at 10:35 AM
There is no way that anybody knows whether alcohol use was a cause of this collision or not. Law enforcement doesn't even know which direction each car was traveliing and that means they don't know enough to responsibly brand either of these folks as driving under the influence. Obviously an officer has formed the opinion that at least one of the drivers had been drinking, but drinking and then driving is perfectly legal so long as the driver's BAC is less than 0.08. So let's not brand anybody in a rush to make a point. Deterring drunk driving is important, but labeling a driver as impaired and causing an accident when you have no clue how the accident happened is not cool. This just as well could have been caused by a cell phone going off in a coat jacket, you know? My thoughts and prayers are with the families!!
said on November 10, 2009 at 12:36 PM
ISP says a Dodge Intrepid, driven by 43-year-old Michael L. Johns of Athol, and a Jeep Liberty, driven by 27-year-old Jayme Ruben Shottanana of Bonners Ferry
said on November 10, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Pubcrawler.. I believe I called it right the first time. Next time listen to you police scanner.
said on November 10, 2009 at 9:30 PM
I wasn't suggesting that the officers were wrong in suspecting that a driver had been drinking, they certainly can make that determination. However, just because a driver had been drinking does not mean that alcohol use was a cause of the crash. It's certainly a potential cause, but I just hate to see people branded that way. The drinking driver could have been under the legal limit in which case the driver was not 'under the influence' and alcohol use was not likely a 'cause' of the collision. The alcohol use is irrelevant unless the driver is actually or legally impaired by it. Just thoughts.
said on November 11, 2009 at 12:39 AM
Alcohol involved, maybe. Factor? Who truly knows? Bold statement. Bold and unprofessional.
To add a comment, please register or login.