There is no question that the fight to keep our roads safe from drunk drivers is an uphill battle. Programs like the DUI [Driving under the Influence] Court in Schools and the Courier's report on it in the June 11 issue give us a great starting point.

Alcohol is the leading cause of traffic crashes resulting in injury or fatality, especially among teenagers. We were able to introduce information like this to the students of Cupertino High School, many of whom seemed unaware of the very real risk to each of them.

I was invited to speak that day at the trial as a drunk driving crash victim. But I was disappointed to read that my main message to the students was mostly omitted from your article.

I spoke about the consequences I face everyday due to the fact that someone else chose to drink and drive. I focused on choices because DUI crashes are preventable.

And it's not just thinking about choices, but also making the right one. I tell everyone I meet about my story because what happened to me could have been prevented. By helping people to recognize that it takes less time to make the right decision than it does to pay for the consequences of the wrong one, we will help to save the lives of those on the road.

It is important for the public to understand that a DUI incident can lead to much worse than paying fines or serving jail time.

—Lisa Yakes, San Jose


Mandela quote in article belongs to Williams

I write regarding the quotation attributed to Nelson Mandela in the article written by I-chun Che concerning Larry Vosovic, an outstanding teacher at Homestead High School in Sunnyvale in the June 18, 2003 edition of the Courier.

The quote: "We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn't serve the world" is often incorrectly attributed to Nelson Mandela.

The author of the quote is Marianne Williamson, the American-born spiritual teacher and writer. It is from her 1992 book Return to Love: Reflections on the Principles of A Course in Miracles (Harper Collins 1992).

—Geoffrey M. Kronick, Portland, Oregon


Council shouldn't have cancelled July fireworks

I am so disappointed that the Cupertino City Council thought it prudent to cancel the Fourth of July celebration and the fireworks exhibition this year.

It has traditionally been a gathering of neighbors to celebrate our great nation and to honor the worthy men and women, who, as members of the Armed Forces, past and present, give themselves for the freedoms we enjoy.

I do appreciate the effort to make financial cutbacks, but economics aside, there is something almost sacred about the Fourth of July that imbues in young and older Americans alike a sense of patriotism unmatched on other holidays.

To see the young citizens of Cupertino waving flags and dressed in red, white and blue, participating in the singing of patriotic songs and watching the incredible fireworks display fills one with pride! It should not have been sacrificed! Some things are more important than money!

My husband and I have contributed in years past to the fireworks program and would willingly do so again to see the gathering of so many different races and creeds come together on this auspicious occasion to honor the place we call home.

—Carol Bonzell, Cupertino resident since 1961


Street barrier illegally put there in the first place

A few weeks ago in the Courier's opinion column, I wrote about my receipt of a traffic citation due to the malfunction of a barricade at Bollinger Road and Kim Street. I also chronicled my unsuccessful attempts to obtain an acknowledgement of the existence and malfunction of the barrier from the Department of Public Works.

I had hoped to use that information as a mitigating circumstance in traffic court.

Subsequently, I've gained some historical perspective on the barricade, which may explain the official reluctance to address the matter in writing.

From a former Cupertino city attorney, I learned that the state of California did not sanction the installation of the barricade. In fact, when Cupertino sought state approval of the barrier, it was refused. There is a state law that upholds the "grandfathering" of easements and rights of way and specifically prohibits the infringement of same.

It appears that the city has operated a non-state-sanctioned barrier in a right of way for approximately 15 years. This is a serious matter since nonconformity with state laws could, conceivably, result in withholding state funds from the city's coffers.

Is it possible that this noncompliance with state statute is the reason that city employees are reluctant to admit, in writing, the fact of the barricade's malfunction?

Would a written explanation of the barricade situation be tacit admission of the many years that our city has operated an illegal barricade?

—Peter Tadin, Cupertino