Fun fact: at Giants Stadium in SF, you can get a wristband for a free soda if you are a DD. Just swing by Guest Services and they'll give you a wristband.
Not-so-fun fact: you cannot redeem the wristband for water. You literally have to get soda.
At a place with a soda fountain you can usually get water cups for free, BUT at a concession stand type setup, often the only water on offer is bottled, which is probably why they'll give you free soda but not (more expensive) bottled water.
It ain't right, but.. it is.
I've never been to any bar or restaurant in the US that wouldn't do the same, although I'm not sure it's a law. However, the sporting event example strikes me as different because they may have soda and beer dispensers but not actually have a water tap at the concession stand.
No, the vendors will not give you water under any circumstance, wristband or not, paid or not. You literally have to get soda, pour it out, and find a drinking fountain if you want to refill with water. And of course, the drinking fountain has low water pressure, so you're tilting the cup and lucky to fill it up halfway.
Does it matter who it comes from? Free water is available. The anti-American snipe of "Soda [is] easier and cheaper than plain good tasting water." is wrong.
I've only done a small amount of travel outside North America, but, from what I've seen, water is generally less expensive and easier to get in the USA and Canada than elsewhere. One of the more unexpected things I got out of my first trip to Europe was a much greater appreciation for public drinking fountains.
In Western Europe at least, all faucets, unless labelled otherwise, will provide high quality drinking water. This is appreciated when you see some kid licking and slobbering on the drinking fountain in the USA… https://www.tripsavvy.com/tap-water-in-europe-3150039
It seems to alien to me. In Australia soda (soft drink!) at a sporting venue or a bar will cost $3+ or more for a glass. But if you have a licence to serve alcohol, it is a requirement to provide free water to all patrons.
My experiences in Germany basically led me to believe that most of the restaurant profit is made from drinks and not food, so it's not surprising that they'd be especially sensitive to charging for any kind of drink. I've also seen the same beer vs coke cost experience you have.
There are literally water fountains at every stadium I have been to from pro games to kids leagues. I doubt you can get a free nasty dasani water bottle but you can use any free water fountain without paying.
I went to a professional soccer game in a large stadium in South America a couple of years ago in the middle of summer. It was really hot and all I wanted was water, but you couldn’t buy water at the concession stand. The only drink they offered was Coke.
I think most, if not all, stands that accept the DD coupons can draw regular filtered water through their fountains if you ask. The DD coupons (it's the coupon that gets you the drink; you need the wristband to redeem the coupon) are only good for product that is not individually inventoried (fountain drinks, coffee, hot chocolate; nothing bottled).
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).
I depends on the stand, I'm guessing. I know the one by 205 has not had plain water, historically... but the water fountains are just 10 yards away. (I usually walk in with a quart-sized cup anyway; security lets open drinks through if they can inspect them.) Any stand will add ice to your cup on request.
Coffee and hot chocolate (and tea?) are other options printed right on the coupon.
I'm more surprised that it wasn't allowed to begin with. I mean, I see where they were coming from with the original law, but we've had drunk driving in the "bad" bucket for how many decades now? Seems like it took them an inordinate amount of time to catch up with the times.
>we've had drunk driving in the "bad" bucket for how many decades now?
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.
I think this has a lot to do with a lot of things.
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.
My understanding was that a (very approximate) rule of thumb was that alcohol tends to be served in portions that are appropriate for the 2 drinks an hour rule. That is a bottle of beer, a glass of wine, a shot of vodka, a mixed drink, etc.
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).
It's definitely a multifacted issue. I suspect that income distribution between urban centers and other areas definitely plays a major role, as does a person's risk calculus associated with performing the act itself.
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).
It's genuinely more dangerous in an urban area. I grew up on a road where you might go hours without seeing a single car. At night there would be nothing to hit but utility poles and deer, and even sober drivers might hit deer.
Yes. I've started using a "rule of 60" for estimating an alcohol drink's impact. Alcohol % by volume x drink size in oz. A 5% beer in a 12oz bottle is equal to a 1.5 oz pour of 80 proof liquor. That 8oz snifter of 10% beer is worth 80 points. Same if you order a pint of the 5% beer instead of a bottle.
Another difference I observed is San Francisco vs. Zurich (both urban areas). While in Zurich very few people I know would drink and drive, people in SF don't seem to really care about being a little tipsy. Of course, this is anecdotale.
Different potential risks, driving with a drink or two in you as an overweight man only puts you at 0.03% BAC, not even half the limit.
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.
Yes, but it doesn't matter if you need 1 or 5 drinks to feel tipsy. When you feel tipsy, then you shouldn't drive, legal or not. You are endangering other people's lives.
Same in Germany. Of course drunk driving is not unheard of (especially when you get more rural (and also older people)), but the general attitude I experienced is a lot different then in the US. Here almost noone in my group of friends would get behind the wheel after more than one beer. And if someone would dare it would probably result in "lets call you a taxi" or "crash at my couch".
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.
Historically, sure. But today? I can usually get from mountain view to san jose for the price of a drink; I think we have Softbank's continued investment to thank for that. Our transit is (probably temporarily) quite cheap, while our drinks are rather expensive.
I would say that in rural areas you’ll find more acceptance of driving above the legal limit because of disagreement about how reasonable that legal limit is. I don’t think you’ll find much acceptance of “drunk driving” according to their own definition of “drunk.”
I grew up in a rural area and can confirm. But I haven't lived in a rural area for a long time, so ass-u-me-d that had changed along with the changes I've seen in urban and suburban areas. Guess not. OTOH, the roads can be pretty empty in rural South Dakota.
The article covers why it might not be a great idea.
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...
The argument against was basically that drinking is bad, and that if people can safely get home after drinking, more people will do it. If that's the best argument the opposition had, I can see why this bill passed unanimously.
> 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've often wondered why this wasn't the case before, though I understand many state alcohol agencies (i.e. TABC where I live) discourage drinking incentivization.
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."
> It’s an all-too-familiar scene in Sacramento. A group of friends heads to midtown for a night of partying and drinking, but one friend has to miss out on the fun and stay sober to be the designated driver.
> 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.
Depends on where you live. In a place like San Francisco, people will drive to events because mass transistor starts to suck after midnight. A person who knows they will get a free or discounted ride home may take Bart (as an example) to the event.
You wouldn’t be able to prove or disprove the existence of incentive, but I’m sure the rule means that you can’t offer vouchers contingent on alcohol purchases, as in “buy at least 3 drinks and we will give you a voucher.”
I suspect that designated drivers are economically worse than sponsored rides. A designated driver is a person not buying drinks and yet still taking a spot in your capacity. If you can sell $1000 more drinks by sponsoring rides, and those rides cost $500, it's totally worth sponsoring rides.
Soon, analytics will find the teetotalers that are buying tickets and automatically tack on a surcharge so that their non-drinking spot is amortized at a rate that is determined by the average revenue generated by a drinker. Past ticket holders who have shown themselves to be exceptional at both consuming alcoholic beverages may be eligable for a reduced price ticket.
You make this seem like a bad thing, but as someone who doesn't drink a lot, I would prefer to pay a surcharge rather than deal with a 2 drink minimum.
On the other hand, you can sell a parking spot if there's a DD. I don't know the going rate, but it's at least a couple drinks' worth ($45 spot = 3 x $15 beers)?
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.
From a strictly economic perspective: Free rides homes may mean charging overtime for the spot because they leave their car there overnight and also selling more liquor.
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?
Totally agree that it's not just a pure business decision. I was just responding to the sentiment of the GP that indicated that stadiums might be supporting plans like this because more drinkers means more revenue. That isn't to say they want people to drive drunk — this was just comparing getting people home via DDs (who don't buy alcohol) or getting more drinkers in the stadium and getting them home safe on uber/lyft.
Except that you're paying for a lot of overhead for those parking spots year round... Not just during the event. Everything from infrastructure (land, buildings), personnel, etc. That's a heavy, real cost to the stadium and surrounding community compared to a few drinks. And that space could be better utilized for shops and housing.
Levi's Stadium in particular has horrible traffic accessibility (you can get there easily until the 4th quarter but good luck getting out of the area quickly afterward).
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.
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.
Not-so-fun fact: you cannot redeem the wristband for water. You literally have to get soda.