New California law allows liquor companies to pay for free rides
sacbee.com
sacbee.com
Not-so-fun fact: you cannot redeem the wristband for water. You literally have to get soda.
A fountain has no inherent need for non-carbonated water unless they serve uncarbonated drinks like orange or punch.
That's way less ridiculous than the original guys phrasing made the situation seem.
Still, in either country we run mostly safe, drinkable water through our toilets and not soda =D
Pro tip: you get the DD promo by signing a pledge sheet at Guest services at any concourse, but the coupons are only accepted at a few designated stands (on Club level, only the stand by section 230).
There are also some water fountains -- in Club, above section 202, by the bathrooms at 210 and 220, and the group area around 231, IIRC).
Good point on the coupon/wristband distinction.
Coffee and hot chocolate (and tea?) are other options printed right on the coupon.
That said, people not having any options to get home ignores the fact that people are heading out to spend money on alcohol to begin with. Budgeting for a cab ride home seems beyond everyone's thinking, in this article...
Cabs at the time you need them for this kind of duty are damn near useless except in the largest cities.
It's only the ridesharing services that suddenly made hailing a ride home from the bar a useful situation. And we haven't had ridesharing services around for that long, really.
I think you'll find that outside of larger urban areas in the US, drunk driving tends to fall into a gray area of morality, or in some cases (in my experience, very rural locales with very little meaningful road traffic), an accepted norm.
Almost nobody I know that lives in an urban US area drives drunk or finds it acceptable. This becomes more lax among my suburban friends and acquaintances. For some of my more rural acquaintances, taking a 6 pack along for consumption during a drive is typical behavior that nobody in their community even bats an eye at.
If I'm working in the city, it's easy for me to say "Well, I plan to drink tonight, so I'll cab to the place where I'm drinking so that I'll have to cab from the place after I'm drinking."
When that place is more than a $50 Uber/Lyft/Cab ride away from the suburbs I'm coming from, the options are limited, leaving me to the effort of having to curtail the amount that I drink such that it's safe to drive home. The science I've heard mention is that you can metabolize something like 2 drinks per hour, which is a handy guideline, but lacks so much. 2 drinks of what? 3% Miller Lite isn't the same as 10% microbrews, which isn't the same as 40+% scotch or bourbon. Does that 2 drink guideline cover hard spirits in assuming the worst, or is it assuming the most common scenario of beer? I have no idea.
For me, I tend to prefer drinking at home, or at Uber/Lyftable distances from my home, so that I can be safe, but yeah, everyone's guidance differs slightly, and as someone downthread mentions, relying on choice of drinking safely as judgement is impaired by the alcohol they're drinking is fraught with peril.
As far as 'drinks per hour' guidelines go, that's usually standardized as a single unit of alcohol (e.g. 1 1.5 oz shot of 80 proof liqour OR 12 oz of a macrobrew lager OR 6 oz of a typical wine).
This seems like it would work as long as you treat all of them as trending towards the middle of the alcohol content scale (i.e. treat Miller Lite and a highly alcoholic cocktail as approximately equivalent to a shot ). On the other hand I don't think it would work if you treated the ends of the scale as the same (i.e. treating Miller Lite and a highly alcoholic cocktail as equivalent).
This, I suspect, is the big difference in attitude.
In a suburban area, you have a significant chance of hurting some else when you drive drunk.
In a truly rural area, you are mostly likely to harm only yourself when you drive drunk.
Commonly in parts of the midwest, people will pop a roadie while they're driving, to the point that it is part of the culture in places like Wisconsin and Minnesota.
When I was visiting friends in the US, a totally different picture. Almost everyone was happy to drive after a few drinks and noone did care.
Ride sharing companies should now be falling over each other to sign exclusive deals with bars. "Come to Kodablah's Bar. We'll pick you up in a Lyft and send you home in one at no extra cost. Restrictions apply: only applies to those within 18 miles, minimum tab of $40."
> A new law that takes effect Jan. 1 may not only let everyone join in on the fun, but it’ll also mean more money for the bubbly.
The problem here is the whole party may be too drunk to make the wise decision of getting a ride. The designated driver isn't just a driver but the overall sober final say for the group.
“Too drunk to drive? New California law could give you a free ride”
It wouldn’t “give” you a free ride, it would undo the previous law that stopped the business from giving you a free ride. They’re framing it like “not doing the stupid thing anymore” is some kind of gift from the state.
If someone is considering whether to drive to an event or get a ride, a coupon isn't going to sway them. They may want to show off their new car, or have the ability to take someone home with them, etc.
For people who drove to the event and drank too much there, they'll worry about their car. Also they'll take offense at being offered a ride. Alcoholics often have a lot of arrogance and would rather risk it than use a coupon to take a ride because they're "out of control", and take that hit to their pride.
This would only work if the law would allow for free transportation to the event, as controversial as that may be.
How can you possibly tell the difference? And I’m sure the vouchers will prominently feature advertising.
Don’t get me wrong, I think this is an excellent idea (though I only drink 1-2 drinks a month). But some of the rules around alcohol are fantastical.
Pardon my humor, but do designated drivers exist anymore? or was that just a fad that went out of style?
On the whole, stadiums may prefer to have a big line of ubers/lyfts lined up to take people home, but it's not like it's a total loss to have DDs.
But I don't see why this should be viewed in terms of pure economics. What if people who make beer et al are actual human beings and are bothered by the fact that drunk driving kills people? Since their product is involved, what if some of them feel some personal sense of responsibility to reduce death's due to drunk driving?
Pretty dumb to ignore the fact tha buy cutting back on a few $12 beverages at the game one could either drive home or afford a Lyft...
You may have money to get a ride home, but prefer to drive drunk. An incentive will change the minds of some percentage of those people, resulting in less drunk drivers.
Or you could awaken yourself to reality, where that does not happen. And the politicians here are looking at a potential solution to not having so many drunks on the road, where they can potentially kill someone.
All pedestrian crossings to/from the stadium compete at ground level with all other traffic (cars, buses, light rail). They spent over US$1 billion on the building but wouldn't even consider things like pedestrian overpasses (which Candlestick Park had for 50 years before).
I actually pointed that out to the Legends people and 49ers people as soon as I saw the first model.