But, he’s not “drunk” – so it’s ok!
The driver (loosely used) in the video above was almost certainly sober. But his form of impairment (incompetence? senility?) is not socially stigmatized, much less savagely prosecuted. Mind, I am no defender of “drunk” driving. I’m critical of anyone who can’t control their car for any reason. Unlike Clovers, who only care about people’s BAC levels – their actual driving being irrelevant.
It seems to me that if your driving can’t be faulted – if you can keep your car between the yellow line to your left and the white line to your right – if you apply the brakes in sufficient time to slow the car before rear-ending the car up ahead that’s stopped for a red light – and so on – this constitutes proof of unimpaired driving. No matter what your BAC may be, whether you’re on the phone, eating a burger, driving with just your knees – whatever.
Pilots multi-task routinely – and most of them manage not to crash their airplanes. There are also drivers who can multi-task. Why should they be penalized for it as such? Why not wait until their driving gives good reason to impugn their judgment? If they weave across the double yellow, if they seem unable to smoothly operate – then fine, pull ’em over. But this business of fetishizing arbitrary BAC levels (lowered to the point of cruel absurdity) is … cruel and absurd.
Meanwhile, there are drivers like the one above – and nothing is done about them. Clover’s notion of “safety” is incredibly myopic.
The fulsome scurvy truth is that if cops were dealing with people as individuals rather than categories – if they were out and about and watching people’s actual driving as opposed to herding them through “checkpoints” – it’d be a lot safer out there. Because objectively poor (and thus, dangerous) drivers would be taken off the road or at least, chastened. Which would tend to encourage better driving, generally.
But don’t expect Clover to grok such common sense. It is like expecting your dachshund to appreciate Ozymandias.