You’re walking home late at night from the bar because you’ve had 11 shots of tequila but you still made the conscious decision not to drive for the safety of others.
You’re crossing a stroad.
Someone “in a hurry” decide to run the red light and hits you at 70 km/h (because of course they were speeding, why wouldn’t they?), doesn’t see you because you’re hunched over while you’re walking and it’s really dark and the person is driving a giant SUV with shit visibility.
Cars are one of the largest source of fatal pedestrian accidents in a major city. How much more likely are you to get into an accident if you’re drunk and is less able to pay attention to cars breaking the rules and putting you in danger? Walking safely in most cities is a task you need to be sober for because you have to walk super defensively.
It’s dangerous to be blackout drunk no matter what you’re doing. 11 shots of tequila will certainly put the majority of people there.
Yeah. You’re not of sound mind if you decided to get that drunk, you’ll get into trouble no matter what you do. You’ll be an easy target of robbery, you’ll definitely not able to cycle well, even worst if you have to climb stair.
Depending on the interval and person, 11 shots of hard alcohol could literally kill you, no cars needed whatsoever. That is like 2/3rds a full 750ml bottle. I’ve seen a girl blackout, passout, and vomit all over herself from a slammed fifth.
She’s lucky she vomited it up, and also didn’t choke on that.
Yeah. That was my point.
It is dangerous to exist around cars regardless of your mental state
This type of collision involving a sober driver and drunk pedestrian is included in the tally of alcohol-related traffic crashes. As a result, it exaggerates the problem of DUI – which the road lobby likes because they can blame traffic fatalities on the “epidemic” of drunk drivers rather than their dangerous stroad designs.
11 shots of tequila
why wouldn’t they?
a task you need to be sober for
Did somebody get drunk and imagine herself the victim again?
Lol
This is a more effective argument against alcohol than it is against cars. 11 shots of tequila is an easy way to end up in the hospital regardless of what you’re doing. If that’s what it takes to get you drunk there are groups that can help with your alcoholism.
Right? The way this post is written…
11 shots of tequila + car = bad
11 shots of tequila + walking home = bad
11 shots of tequila + at home while juggling knives = I dunno might be fine
It’s dangerous to drink period, but yeah, cars are dangerous too.
deleted by creator
I appreciate the sentiment, but this is a huge exaggeration. It’s not generally dangerous to walk outdoors.
I think drunk drivers make it unsafe for every pedestrian regardless of their soberity. I see kids, adults, and seniors all crossing a busy intersections in a relatively small town every morning. Nearly every day i see a near miss fron a driver turning right on red and nearly hitting a very visibile pedestrian crossing in the crosswalk while they have the right to cross. And most of these drivers arent even drunk or impaired, many of them are texting though.
Most often, the driver is looking up the road to ensure the traffic lanes are clear but many forget to also ensure the crosswalk is clear. What really bothers me is when most drivers almost hit someone, including seniors or children, they honk and throw their hands up as if that pedestrian is the asshole. At least the honk might give someone just enough time to avoid being hit.
This was in Freakonomics https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-perils-of-drunk-walking/
I almost cross-posted this video to fuckcars, but held back bc people tend to dislike my video shares. Anyway the word is getting out there, both of the dangers of cars, and alcohol, and especially the combination, and furthermore the dangers for others who did not make the choice to drive.
deleted by creator
You can remove drunk
And boating (which is actually illegal, in Minnesota, at least), although you mostly end up killing only yourself.
And bicycling, where drunk bicyclists are almost more of a hazard to pedestrians than cars, if to less effect. You might only be put in the hospital, but bicyclists are not required to carry insurance, so good luck recouping your medical costs.
found an american
Yes, our health care system sucks, but I’d it didn’t, we’d be dirty communists like the Canadians.
/s
Cycling collisions, while harmful, are orders of magnitude less harmful than collisions involving cars, especially SUVs.
When you hear about a life-threatening or life-ending traffic injury, you can assume it wasn’t two people walking, or two people biking, or one biking and one walking, etc. You can always assume a car was involved.
I did say cycling/pedestrian accidents are less fatal. I just don’t believe that justifies irresponsible cycling. You can still easily be put into the hospital by a cyclist, and (in America) you’ll be paying your own bills. And bills or not, I don’t need or any any pain, suffering, broken bones, bruises, concussions, or any damage that’s caused by being hit by a cyclist.
Pets can be fatally injured by cyclists, and they often share the same space as pedestrians.
Just… don’t navigate any vehicle in public while inebriated.
