Irksome

I just finished up a hearing with a gentleman I have seen five times in his attempts to gain a return to the roadways.  His history is rather unremarkable.  In the early part of the last 10 years when he was in his late twenties to early thirties he picked up a couple of drunk-driving offenses.  This cost him his privileges to operate a vehicle.  His license was gone baby gone.

 After walking for his minimum year without privileges the man appealed to the state and asked that he be returned to the road.  On his first attempt he did not prevail. At that point he was still using intoxicants and still getting stoned is an absolute bar to any relief.    Privileges were returned the second time he appealed.  The second time the proofs looked better and he seemed to have had a good 19 months without drinking or smoking the dread weed.

 When his license issued a device was placed on his car to randomly check and see if he had alcohol in his system.  This process occurs before and during the times he would be driving.  Almost at once his unit generated positive readings for alcohol.  A new hearing was held and his nephew claimed that it was he and not the individual I had seen that caused these readings.  Again back on the road.

 And then there were more readings.  This next hearing contained the spectacle of the individual’s love interest telling me she had control of the car when the readings occurred.  She “believed” it was here valentine candy, you know the hard little “I love you” mints that did it.  Or it might have been those and the jelly donut she had.  Once more back to the road he went another saying under oath they had done the deed.

 Before the second hearing the gent hired an attorney.  At the time of the second hearing I was very clear in telling the individual and his attorney that he did not have a license and would not have a license for at least three weeks.  It had been taken away on the date I received the “sweet tarts/donut” positive for alcohol readings. 

A month later his driving record had an accident posted to it. Also found there was a conviction for reckless driving.  The time on the police report for the incident that underlay these items was one half hour after the last hearing! 

A new hearing was set for this morning. Today he admitted he had no good reason to be driving that day after I told him he had no license. He acknowledged he was aware he shouldn’t be driving when he plowed into the car in front of him that was waiting to turn left.  When asked what had happened he stated, “It was just bad luck.”

I looked him in the eye and said, “It might be a number of things, a certain moral pliability, a personal failure of respect for the law or maybe even a selfish personal focus as to what your role is in society, but the one thing it is not is bad luck.”  What a start to the day.