Hey, there! Log in / Register

Two die in Lynnway crash

State Police report a man and a woman died around 2:30 a.m. when their SUV crashed into a Dunkin' Donuts on the Lynnway at Blossom Street northbound.

Both victims - Salvador Quinones, 26, of Boston, and Silvia Rodas-Dugal, 25, of Chelsea - were ejected from the car during the crash, which ended with the car resting in the middle lane on the Lynnway, State Police say, adding the crash is still under investigation.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 

Ad:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

...if there was ever an argument to make last call the same time throughout the state rather than varied from one city and town to the next, the Lynnway could provide useful data.

My clubbing days are behind me, but I do still go from Lynn towards town for live entertainment, and I often pass through town back to Lynn after visiting family and friends in Providence. I've seen a lot on the roads just north of Boston. They're leaving the North Shore for later hours and different entertainment options and making dumbass choices for the return trip.

Most of the drunk drivers I've witnessed have been in Revere heading north, but I can only imagine some of them actually make it to the Lynnway. Here's just one of the stories we have. One night coming back to Lynn from PVD, my wife and I witnessed a swerving Caddy in Revere. It slowed down and swerved to the right. We were discussing calling it in as we passed it, and as I glanced in my rear view mirror, i was shocked to see it teetering on its side. I don't know how it was even going fast enough to do that, being a sedan. Well, it slowly went full turtle and folks standing outside a bar who were also witnesses called the police.

Anyway, Lynn is 1am. Salem is 1am. It's the later closing times (and the different nature of the nightlife options available in town) that make people want to travel that route. But no one is forced to be an idiot and drive drunk. I'm not making excuses with taxis, Uber and Lyft at everyone's beck and call, but shouldn't we just make it 2am EVERYWHERE in Mass and eliminate one more variable!?

up
Voting closed 0

I don't know how you can read this and think, hmm, what we need here is more more access to alcohol late at night. Not that I'm for any kind of prohibition, but it sure doesn't make any sense with this story. On the other hand the latest place open has alway been the Porthole, which is just north of this crash. People in the region would always go there because they stay open till 2, but this happened at 245.

up
Voting closed 0

Regardless of whether it's 1:00 or 2:00, setting an arbitrary time causes some people to drink more as it approaches "last call". Just stopping the serving of alcohol wouldn't be so bad if the bars weren't also required to make all customers immediately leave the premises at their height of intoxication. Inevitably, some people will use poor judgement and attempt to drive while impaired, resulting in sad stories such as this.

If bars and clubs must stop serving alcohol at a designated time, then they ought to be allowed to remain open past that time, serving food, coffee, or other non-alcoholic beverages. Patrons can continue enjoying the evening; dancing, socializing, or whatever else the venue has to offer; without consuming more alcohol.

This would have several positive effects. First of all, people would have some time to "sober up" before heading home. The decision of "am I too intoxicated to drive?" wouldn't need to be made on the spot as it does with the current system, when drinks gulped down at closing time may not even have taken effect.

In addition, the "bar break" time period would become much longer. Because people wouldn't all need to leave all the clubs at the same time, Uber-type services would become more practical and affordable to use, thus taking more potentially impaired drivers off the road.

People who enjoy nightlife would have a better time, businesses would have a chance to increase sales revenue, and it might actually save some lives.

Sending people home right after serving them the maximum amount of alcohol, seems absolutely crazy. Who ever thought that was a good idea, and why?

up
Voting closed 0

or worked at a club? If so you would know that these places have zero interest in staying open to serves tea and biscuits to drunks after closing time (this doesn't even get in to how do you know they aren't still serving alcohol.) Get em out the door is the order of the day. Maybe one day in Utopia such a system (which forces businesses to do what the State decrees) will be arranged but it's not very plausible in real life.

up
Voting closed 0

They close the beer stands after the 7th inning. It gives [most] people a chance to sober up a little before leaving.

up
Voting closed 0

Have you ever been outside of Massachusetts?

The way things are done here isn't the only way these things are done in the US, and maybe looking for a better example would be appropriate? I've been to several places in other states where the bars close, but patrons are allowed to hang out in the restaurant or lounge, which has a different closing time, and order food and sodas.

up
Voting closed 0

If that works in other places we should look into it. If Wynn's casino ever opens we will se it in action, as I'm sure it will be open 24/7. I just don't think that individual cities, towns, and businesses will be that thrilled at the prospect of staying open until dawn for a small profit margin. But I understand that some people read a news story and want to force people to change their entire lives to ensure that it never happens again. Every story creates reasons for them to dictate to others, because they presume that they know better and hold the moral high ground.

up
Voting closed 0

Surely if we as a society have the right to tell these businesses what time they must stop serving alcohol, then we can also require them to remain open for a specified span of time after last call.

I would actually think the latter a more reasonable imposition than the first- more akin to requiring them to maintain working fire extinguishers on site than dictating how they do business. Some venues would find it necessary to hire more security to enforce the alcohol lock-away, but their patrons are probably the ones we least want to see dumped onto the streets whether they themselves feel ready or not.

Alcohol impairs judgement enough as it is, but the current laws seem to encourage one-for-road among the group least likely to make the smart choice- those who are already drinking. We cannot mandate that people stay during that period, of course, but those who realize they may be on the cusp of a bad decision should be permitted if not encouraged to take a little time to think it through or make a phone call.

We can pepper people with campaigns against drunk driving all day, but that one moment counts more than most.

up
Voting closed 0

The way people have been doing business since the beginning of time. We cannot force people into a business that they do not want to engage in. Consider also the grown-up reality that you could never decree these changes, even though you really want to. And this gets back to how every little story leads to the perceived need for new Societal Engineering. Something bad happened so you think you should be given absolute power n hopes that it never happens again. Something will be in the news tomorrow and you all will figure out what rights people should have again.

up
Voting closed 0