Yes, but, we knew not to drive drunk in the 90s too, but we did it anyway because we didn't have Facebook and Twitter.
But that report is fantastic news, and is the best sign yet to me that we can actually choose to live more energy-efficient lives. The per capita numbers are especially striking, since we're driving almost 10% fewer miles per capita than at the peak (in 2005) and buying 20% less gasoline per capita than we did at the peak (in 1989!).
The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.
As atrios pointed out the other day, if the legal limit gets lowered to 0.05 it will be essentially impossible to drive somewhere to have a couple drinks legally.
I probably biked home today over 0.05. But probably less than 0.08. It's not every day the company gives you a 3 hour open tab at a brew pub.
3: I think it was Atrios as well who pointed how a reduction in driving is treated as man bites dog as if an ongoing increase in driving miles per capita is the natural order of things. The increase from the 80s to the 00s always does strike me even though I'm sure i contributed.
The car companies are well aware of this, and are freaking the hell out. If young people don't think that great cars are prestigious, well, you can fill out the rest. I personally am horrified by a world in which reasonable people don't fantasize about Huayras and Veyrons, but perhaps it's better for the world as a whole if they don't.
I guess the car companies shot themselves in the foot with the whole "automatic transmission" idea, leading to a world where young people like me view a car as a tool for getting from place to place, instead of a sort of skateboard or Gibson Flying V on which I continue to hone my skills aspiring to an ecstatic communion of virtuoso responsiveness.
||
Jesus vengeful Christ of the Crusaders. You know how we were talking the other day about how Facebook keeps asking you where you live? Facebook apparently thinks that I live in BOSTON. Burn it down, burn all of it down.
|>
By that I meant Facebook, corporate america, and the internet industry should burn. I'm still a little sensitive about rhetorical flights of fancy re Boston, though WTF are you thinking Facebook..
Let's look at that again:
If you consider that more than half the people in that age group were old enough to drive in 2001, too, that suggests that even as those at the older end of this generation enter their 30s -- presumably settling into more stable jobs and in some cases starting families -- they're still not switching over to a car-centric lifestyle at the same rate as generations before them.
"Suggests", maybe? "Implies", not so much.
They may very well be planning to switch over to a car-centric lifestyle, but are in fact not settling into more stable jobs.
In 2001, I drove whole bunches more than now because Durham had virtually no public transportation and no decent bar near my house.
So do I have these numbers correct?
Nearly 10,000 people die in alcohol-related highway accidents. We want to lower the limit to 0.05 to save 500-800 lives a year. Isn't this just "Unsafe at any speed"?
On the other hand, about 30,000 people die from firearms. 600 of which were due to accidental discharge. Yet there's no political will for any regulation of firearms.
Milo: I understand that my opponent supports the 55 M.P.H. speed limit.
Opus: Saves 500 lives a year! I fully support saving lives.
Milo: Then he'd support the saving of another 10,000 lives by lowering the limit to 40 M.P.H.
Opus: 40?
Milo: Or to 20 ... Saving 30,000 lives a year.
Opus: Gee... 20 is pretty slow.
Milo: Apparently my opponent would send 30,000 men, women, and children to fiery, mangled deaths just so he can zoom along to his manicurist at 55.
Opus: I DON'T HAVE A MANICURIST!
Milo: He probably doesn't. Most mass murderers don't. Hitler didn't.
There are far more people calling for increased regulation of firearms than there are calling for .05. And they're meeting with success in several states.
14: the secret there is that the people pushing for lower drunk driving limits actually just want to ban booze, which cause has a pretty deep base of support among the same people who don't want to do shit about guns.
Whats the BAC limit on concealed carry? .08?
I believe it's a .06 minimum. Gotta have some Dutch courage if you want to be ready when duty calls.
9: FB keeps asking me where I went to high school. Dear Facebook: (1) I am pretty sure I added that information when first I signed up. (2) Fuck. You.
Don't think it's patting that is responsible. Changed zoning laws or moving to a real city instead of a dump that pushes bars to the edge of town solves that. The bat is rum, yac is cognac.
14/17 matches my understanding. It's a subject of some annoyance that MADD is really just against drinking, and never challenges the driving culture more generally.
I was reading it to Blume in bed and she seemed pretty into it so I thought share the wealth, you know.
I wouldn't have thought that something four sentences long went on long enough to generate a being-pretty-into, but I'm not a very enthusiastic fellow.
Well I read other things, too. The Snickers salad page, the list of discontinued Jell-O flavors. You know.
Tonight I end comments with "you know"?
I've heard extravagant praise for the rice.
I know. And I always thought Minnesotans were stingy with their praise.
God, those "salads" all sound vile. It makes me glad to have never lived in the Midwest.
I do however love the apparent fact that Blume and Tweety's home life consists of lying in bed reading Wikipedia articles to each other.
I do however love the apparent fact that Blume and Tweety's home life consists of lying in bed reading Wikipedia articles to each other.
In separate beds, but matching pyjamas, 50s style.
14: the secret there is that the people pushing for lower drunk driving limits actually just want to ban booze, which cause has a pretty deep base of support among the same people who don't want to do shit about guns
I'm in favour of lower drunk driving limits and I love booze. The secret is that I want to ban driving.