ALONG with the pervasive blue lights and significant police presence all around Grounds, the SafeRide program is one of the hallmarks of the University’s security system. The University can be proud of its system on the whole, but SafeRide’s built-in exclusivity leaves a gaping hole in the protection it offers to University students. The refusal to transport intoxicated students clashes sharply with Safe Ride’s stated purpose to “provide a safe passage for students who would otherwise have to walk home alone at night.”
A student walking alone at night is at even greater risk when intoxicated than he is while sober. He has a diminished capacity to protect himself, diminished judgment about potentially risky situations, and is much more likely to be exploited by another person — in short, all of the risks that SafeRide attempts to counteract are magnified. Of course, one could accurately point out that inebriated students have brought the increased dangers upon themselves, but depriving them of SafeRide, even if does not intend to do so, nevertheless represents an inappropriate manner of punishing them. Their recklessness should not warrant being dismissed and scorned as they make their way home at the end of the night.
What’s particularly disconcerting about the realization that intoxicated students cannot use SafeRide is its unintended effect on their alternative plans. I can’t help but think that students would be much more likely to drive, either their car or a friend’s, for the sake of expediency as well as safety. In other words, by shunning those who have had too much to drink, we endanger not only them but others as well.
Other University transportation options are steps in the right direction, but because they are incomplete, SafeRide must be an available outlet for all students. Many students are out later than 2:30 a.m., when the buses stop running on weekends. Too few people know about the taxi service the University provides, in which the fare can be charged to the school and repaid later. However, even if the University made students more aware of this worthy service, it’s not sufficient to eliminate SafeRide as an option for certain students.
In justifying the ban, University Police Department Captain Mike Coleman expressed several valid points to me. Intoxicated persons could distract the driver and increase the chances of an accident or could contaminate the van with vomit, he said, two issues that raise serious liability concerns. Furthermore, the illegality of public intoxication and underage consumption raise thorny issues about the police condoning crimes.
Naturally, these justifications have merit, but they still fail to convince me that it’s better for SafeRide to deny transportation rights home to intoxicated students. I’d much rather sign a form at the beginning of the year absolving the University of any potential liability for damages incurred while using SafeRide than know I wouldn’t be able to get a ride if I ever needed one at a desperate time. Such a system might require the additional expense of ID card readers to verify that students had signed such a form, and SafeRide might then have to deny entry to visitors, but I believe the gravity of the situation warrants those changes. One needs only look at the police blotter that appears in The Cavalier Daily to understand the threat of crimes against a person that occur in Charlottesville, a threat that is only magnified when someone is under the influence of alcohol.
Clearly, the safety of other students riding SafeRide must be paramount. Yet the prohibition unfortunately assumes that all inebriated students act the same way — belligerently and dangerously. Certainly there are those that do, and one could make a strong argument in favor of banning them from SafeRide for the overall well-being of the other riders. But plenty of inebriated students do not pose nearly the risks to others that they would bring upon themselves by walking home alone at night. I’ve known tipsy but controlled friends who have feigned as much sobriety as possible to be allowed to ride, an act both understandable and a bit sad.
Underage and excessive alcohol consumption are, perhaps unfortunately, ingrained features of college life, and it is foolish to scorn the miscreants when doing so dramatically increases their chances of incurring harm. Providing safe travel to an inebriated student’s home (naturally, the service need not extend anywhere else) does not condone their behavior, but rather sends the admirable message that the University will do everything in its power to protect all members of its community.
Grant Johnson is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint Writer.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
