Do you honestly believe that the parent meant that nobody drives drunk anymore? In my reading, parent comment is saying that there has been a major shift in default going-out behavior in LA, from driving one's own vehicle home while intoxicated to taking Ubers to/from nightlife locations. Does that sound untrue to you? Sounds true to me.
To elaborate: even only 5 years ago, I would almost always drive unless I was sure it was going to get aggressive that evening. I bought a personal breathalyzer for $45 at Walgreens, because that's how common a need it was. I'd sit in my car for an hour if I was blowing hot. Don't close your eyes, because that's DUI...
The deal with cabs in a town like that is that it is more luxurious than the nightlife itself. $100+ rides from Santa Monica to West Hollywood. $80 from Downtown to Los Feliz. After you track down a local number and call it, if you were lucky, they would even show up sometimes. (But never in under 40 minutes.) "Cash only, no change for a $20."
I just had kind of a blowout with Uber, but even as bad as there support is, it's way above "professional" car services there.
yep. that was my honest interpretation of the parent comment.
> In LA, driving drunk was just the way of life, and it was a real problem. Now, I don't know anyone who prefers driving over ridesharing given the option.
anyone
"I don't know everyone who is Japanese" does not mean every person who exists is Japanese.
But mentioning it suggests it is representative of something, and if it were a representative sample, 0% of the sample has trait X suggests 0% of the population has trait X.
Now, with ride sharing, people that care can avoid drunk driving. But some people will always not give a shit or will have driven someplace that they didn't anticipate drinking, so it wouldn't drop to zero.
That's a reasonable interpretation, though even so interpreted it's quite wrong. You can go out and drink and never be legally drunk, much less not drive drunk.
“Go out and drink” is quite different from “go out and drink heavily and then drive immediately”.
That there is a legal threshold (In California anyway) for being drunk while driving is a common misconception. When you get a DUI, two charges are filed against you. One by the DMV and another reviewed by a criminal judge. If there is an accident, you are found at fault, and you have a ~. 06 BAC, the judge/DA will most likely charge you with a DUI and offer a plea where you get all the penalties of a DUI but may have it officially recorded as a wet reckless. The police also have latitude in what determines being intoxicated. Even if you are well under the legal limit, they can often say that you displayed symptoms of being under the influence of other drugs based on your behavior, your car reeked of marijuana, etc.
Not to sound like a PSA, but buzzed driving is impaired driving, and any level of impairment increases the likelihood of an accident for an activity that humans aren't great at performing even when completely sober.
https://www.dmv.org/ca-california/automotive-law/dui.php
Per California's driving under the influence (DUI) laws, it's illegal to operate a motor vehicle with any of the following blood alcohol concentration (BAC) percentages:
0.08% or higher― 21 years old or older operating a regular passenger vehicle.
0.04% or higher―operating a commercial vehicle.
0.01% or higher―younger than 21 years old.
Also, size matters:
http://www.businessinsider.com/drinks-before-driving-if-bac-...
If the GP is a big guy and has one or two drinks over the course of the evening with friends and then drives home, he may not ever be stopped. He may be less impaired than, say, someone driving while on cold medicine or short of sleep, which is typically not illegal, but can be significantly impairing.
[1] https://www.dmv.org/ca-california/automotive-law/dui.php