A 53-year-old woman was hit and killed Sunday night as she crossed Cabrillo Boulevard. According to police, the victim, Silvia Diaz of Gustine, California, had attended a wedding reception at the nearby Casa Las Palmas building and was returning to her car parked on the south side of Cabrillo. She was not in a crosswalk when the accident occurred. Diaz was transported to Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital where she was pronounced dead shortly after arrival.
The driver, 22-years-old, had been drinking prior to the accident, but police determined he was not sufficiently under the influence to impair his driving. He voluntarily provided a breath sample at the scene which registered a 0.03 blood alcohol level. The legal limit is 0.08.
As officers responded to the scene and began their investigation, an unrelated, unlicensed DUI driver crashed through the police barricades and was arrested.


Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
"As officers responded to the scene and began their investigation, an unrelated, unlicensed DUI driver crashed through the police barricades and was arrested."
This fiasco has dolomush written all over it. Experienced drunk drivers unite! NOT! :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
May 29, 2012 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I would never hire an amateur drunk driver.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 29, 2012 at 6:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The guy that hit my dad had a 0.069 BAC and the court determined he was sufficiently impaired.
Yep, all booze, all the time. Ain't life grand?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
May 29, 2012 at 8 p.m. (Suggest removal)
'She was not in a crosswalk when the accident occurred' somewhat implies fault, I guess, but really there is not enough information. It is not illegal to cross mid-block-ish outside of our downtown core business district. I don't know about the legality at this particular location. It is not necessarily unsafe to cross outside of a cross walk either. Sometimes it is safer than at intersections with crosswalks. What to do.
The investigation could shed some light. Witnesses could too. So, is it customary to leave out the names of adults involved, i.e. the 22 year old driver. Distracted walking? Distracted Driving? Visitors not familiar with the locale. Speed a factor? Light vs. Dark., etc. A few gray areas here. .03 is suspect to some. We'll never know. But still a tragedy.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
May 29, 2012 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"The driver, 22-years-old, had been drinking prior to the accident, but police determined he was not sufficiently under the influence to impair his driving.":
buzzed driving IS drunk driving.
As our County is increasingly owned by the alcohol industry, we will continue to see more and more of these and other tragedies perpetrated by drivers under the influence.
Holly (anonymous profile)
May 30, 2012 at 12:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'd still rather ride with someone blowing a .03 than someone on a LEGAL hands free cell phone device.
Hell I'd rather ride with someone with an ILLEGAL .08 than a LEGAL cell phone talker.
DarkMarcsun (anonymous profile)
May 30, 2012 at 3:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Jaywalking is what most Humans do when the crosswalk is more than a foot from their crossing point and is still punishable even in the State of California (see web-link: http://www.legal-news-california.toze... ). This action does NOT permit the driver from attaining guilt or retribution from pedestrian who are hit.
dou4now (anonymous profile)
May 30, 2012 at 4:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Draxor (anonymous profile)
May 30, 2012 at 10:54 a.m.
hank (anonymous profile)
May 30, 2012 at 12:26 p.m.
If only we had triple-drunk Travisty Factswrong to get to the bottom of this story.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
May 30, 2012 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)