These are my opinions. They aren't based on research that has been published by people who are experts in understanding attitudes or beliefs, or how those things change. This is my blog, and sometimes it features scientifically based assertions. This time it doesn't.
For those of you who don't know, I no longer have a Michigan driver's license. I had to switch (temporarily, of course!) to an Illinois license while I live my grad school life. The change wasn't too painful, although it does involve being reminded of the rules of the road ;) ...thus -- over the last week I've been working diligently through the modules of a driver's safety reminder course.
heeehee, remember these dummies from driver's ed?? Lots of them in these videos. You'd think with all the amazing things today's animators can accomplish, this is still all they will invest in driver's safety videos...
Overall the course was a good refresher. I remembered some stuff about spacing, and what to do in case of emergencies, and blah blah, everything else I haven't thought about since I was taking the test as a 17year old high schooler. I was also made aware of new rules that are IL specific (like the specifics about driving and phone use). Its always good to be reminded about the importance of good driving habits, and the consequences of being distracted by phones, passengers, food, and pets (they're talking about you, Gracie).
The modules were generally clear and logical, with lots of advice and tools for managing distractions, fatigue, and non-driver related aspects of travel (like road rage, road blocks, and emergencies).
There was one module where they failed: the drinking and driving module.
I think we all know that drunk driving is bad. No sane person will ever tell you that drunk driving is good, or even OK. But the problem lies in the definition. What IS drunk driving? If you're reading this, take a minute to think about the last time you went to a bar, and then used your own car to get home. It's an extremely common scenario: your friends want to go to happy hour. Before you know it, you're two in and people are starting to leave to go home. Are you ok? Is that even a relevant question? How can you be sure...
The DUI module went pretty much like this: one page showed you what the medical community (and center for disease control) considers a drink. Another shows you how many drinks you can have in about an hour period before you are considered legally impaired.
The rest of the module was entirely comprised of videos covering the very tragic story of a young man who, under the influence, killed a recent high school graduate in a horrific car accident. These videos were obscenely graphic, and NOT REENACTED. They were real videos. Already this is offensive to me, but I'll lay out a less emotional argument for why this is a terrible way to teach anyone about drinking and driving.
In the first place, the man that caused this life altering tragedy certainly caused it under the influence of alcohol. But to be specific, he caused it under the influence of a lot of alcohol. And cocaine. Already this situation is much different than the average working person after happy hour. Why is this a problem? Well, these sort of videos are meant for shock value. But many will look at this particular driver and situation and think "well, I have one or two, but I don't take other drugs. I'm never as drunk as he was when I drive, so this doesn't apply to me". Already, you've lost part of your audience. Furthermore, you've got a subset of people who aren't going to be easily convinced to change their behavior by being scared and intimidated by graphic videos.
If you really want to scare people, make the perpetrator someone they can relate to. What if the story was "I had a few beers and was feeling fine, but the slower reaction time turned out to be a real problem when I ran a red light...". Those are real situations that happen under the influence of a small amount of alcohol.
The second problem with the module is that it is not empowering. The information is virtually impossible to use in a productive manner for the following reasons:
First of all, the CDC defines a "drink" as 12 ounces of 5% alcohol content (light beer), 8 ounces of malt liquor (about 7%), 5 ounces of wine (about 12%), and 1.5 ounces of liquor (40%).
Excuse me, but when was the last time you watched your bartender pour your rum and coke, let alone check to see how much they're putting in? I can tell you the gin and tonics in DC at the ethiopian restaurant where we were eating had more than a shot of gin. I worked at a bar -- these serving sizes are garbage. But wait! It gets more confusing.
Secondly, everyone metabolizes alcohol differently. Generally, males metabolize alcohol faster than females, and heavier people metabolize alcohol faster than lighter people. But if that's the case, why is the general "average" time to metabolize one "drink" estimated to be 1 hour?? If there are gender and weight differences, should the average metabolism time change based on those factors? This leads me to my second point. How does the CDC reach this average? You can have a range of values from 1-100 and the average could be 50. You could also have a range of values from 40-60 and the average could also be 50. If I'm a light, female woman, it might take me a little longer than an hour to metabolize one drink. But how much longer? 15 minutes? 30? There is no way to tell, because we have no idea how they reached the average.
Finally, we're told to use our best judgement. The limit is .08. What does .08 feel like to you? Oh ..nothing. There is no internal biological limit-reaching point where something registers in your mind. There's no little judgment timer that starts ringing when it's safe to get behind the wheel. It's stupid advice. And since when is how someone "feels" a tried and true indication of internal mental function? We don't study reading comprehension by asking people how they "feel" reading works, that rarely tells us anything relevant to the process. We look at uncontrollable behaviors that have nothing to do with an individual's personal opinions about the process. The whole beautiful mystery of psychology is that people exhibit thought patterns and behaviors they have no idea are going on under the surface of awareness. That goes for reduced reaction time under drug influence too.
So think back to the question I asked earlier, and consider this scenario... It takes 2 drinks for a woman of 130 pounds to surpass the legal limit (in one hour). So 30 minutes after a beer, a woman who may or may not take more than 1 hour to metabolize the 10 ounces she (her bartender) considers 1 drink of wine she thinks has 12% alcohol content (it's 16%), finishes the drink, and gets into her car over the course of another 30 minutes. By this logic, the beer is "gone", and she's at "1 drink", putting her below legally impaired. Having followed all the module's rules, she gets pulled over for having a taillight out. She receives jail time and pays 10,000 dollars. She felt fine.
There are many reasons not to drink and drive. You can cost a person their life or general wellbeing. You can hurt yourself. You can damage property. But we can cause all of these things while texting, eating, applying makeup, and being emotionally distraught or fatigued. We have tips and tools for avoiding those things.
The real reason we should fear drunk driving is that NONE of us have the tools to manage it. We are not empowered to live in a society that condones the necessity of driving home from a bar. Instead, we're encouraged to fear consequences many of us believe will never apply to us.
The only answer is coke at happy hour. Because Driving buzzed is driving drunk. And how you 'feel' is irrelevant.
No comments:
Post a Comment