Here is what R. posted:
This one I think did not hit anything:
This one is a new car with temporary tags and the obligatory naked woman driver. At 6:45 in the evening.
This one, from 2013, didn't involve a driver. It was a naked woman lying in the middle of the road:
This one hit a car -- apparently she'd had her daughter in the car with her earlier, but her mother relieved her of granddaughter out of concern:
No crash for this one; high speed chase ended with stop sticks and blown tires.
Possible drugging case, not completely naked (wearing a jacket). Description of the appellate court findings, which don't actually make any sense, because they seem to assume that a person who was either crazy drunk OR drugged and intoxicated could make more or less rational decisions. Duh, not. Unclear what the long term solution to this problem is, altho I feel like if we raised everyone's awareness of the nonconsensual drugging issue, maybe we could move public opinion in the direction of favoring blood testing at traffic stops so we'd have some evidence later on. The idea that a sexual assault victim could get treatment the next day is just exhaustingly wrong, if you want any actual evidence to stand up in court.
Want some ambien stories? Here's one:
Not naked, but in PJs and wearing her niece's shoes. Apparently the evolving strategy is to require the police and/or prosecution _prove_ that a driver is _actually conscious_ before allowing the statements as evidence of state of mind. This is progress, altho, wow. I've known sleep eaters, and I'm just not sure what one would have to do to avoid this, altho I guess sticking the car keys into a box that wouldn't unlock until a certain amount of time had passed springs to mind. Part of the idea behind turning one's keys over to someone else while on the way to getting completely smashed is because once smashed, you will do something stupid. Similar thinking should be applied to drugs like ambien.