When I was 15 and in high school, I was required to take one semester of driver's education as part of the basic curriculum of all students. This practice is all but gone in many schools across the U.S. but during the 70s and well into the early 90s when I was in high school, the course was alive and well. We all looked forward to this semester our sophomore year because it was the first step we embarked on towards the freedom that a California state Driver's License offered us.

Part of the excitement of Driver's Ed was the mystery that surrounded the infamous "Red Asphalt." Red Asphalt is a series of instructional driver's education videos produced by the California Highway Patrol. And to put it bluntly, all it did was feature gruesome scenes of bloody accidents, most of which were caused by drunk or speeding drivers (or both). Before Driver's Ed, we'd only heard about the film, which supposedly featured bodies cut in half, strewn on lawns, cars a wrangled mess of metal with blood splattered on the windshields and seats ... and all we had to frame our own reactions of the film, were those reactions of students older than us. Some were overly dramatic and claimed to have had to walk out of class; others were sadistic and took it all in gladly. In either case, it was the talk of the school whenever the sophomore class had seen the film that particular week.

Below is an 8 minute clip of the original Red Asphalt, though I can't recall if this was the one we saw in 1992/1993. I doubt it, but even if we had a more updated version, what they would have updated would be the statistics... the general idea of the video is nicely conveyed in this short clip, should you wish to take a gander.



So not only did we have a semester's worth of learning California driving laws, but this was mixed in with curriculum focused on scaring the living sh*t out of us by outlining every possible factor that could result in a deadly accident the minute we stepped foot behind the driver's wheel. I'm not condoning nor am I criticizing this tactic, I'm simply stating how it was presented to the general student population at our school, and from what I hear, how it was presented in general in the State of California.

Further to this semester of education and scare tactics, our school also hosted "Drunk Driving Awareness Week" once a year. This involved assemblies where we'd hear first hand about how real people were affected one way or another by drunk driving, movies featuring images of drunk driving accidents and also included what was left of a car on our school's front lawn. This was an actual car that had been involved in an alcohol related collision, mangled doors, shattered windshields, dried blood - the whole nine yards - on our front lawn so that every day for a week, we saw it on our way into the building. I have memory of the cars looking something like this every year:


Perhaps not this exactly, but similar enough that I recall thinking "How did anyone survive that?"

And so, if it isn't already obvious to you, my conclusion about all this is that, in the early 90s at least, California CLEARLY favored educating teenagers about the rules of the road while at the same time, scaring us into never wanting to step into a car either as a driver or a passenger for the remainder of our lives. And at least with this teenager, fear tactics work their "magic" in such a way, that I'm like one of those dogs who wears those collars that send electrical charges through them whenever they bark.

As we got older, the messages surrounding driving under the influence continued. They evolved into more sophisticated messages of the "Friends Don't Let Friends Drive Drunk" nature and stopped featuring gross, bloody scenes that bordered on resembling bad Hollywood movie types. The bottom line being that in California, we were constantly fed, via the formal education system or the media, messages that it was simply NOT OK to drink and drive. Even if one had done it, that person carried with them the GUILT learned through all of the above, because it's embedded in our brains that no matter how you slice it, it's.just.plain. wrong. And trust me, I've seen that guilt scare the few people I know who have driven drunk into NEVER doing it again. Those are the happy cabby people (i.e. they take taxis left and right a la Paris Hilton post jail stint).

THEREFORE, dear blog reader, you can simply IMAGINE my disgust at the seemingly culturally accepted tendency in Chile to drive regardless of the number of drinks one has consumed. I'm not talking about evidence on the news (which, believe it or not, shows bloodier scenes than in the U.S.!) but occasions I've witnessed FIRST HAND of this acceptance. The "no he's fine, he hasn't had a drink in an hour and I just gave him a cup of coffee." Or "no she's fine, she lives just about five blocks from here, and I asked her to call us when she gets home." And I've experienced FIRST HAND being in the car with someone DRIVING who has whipped out a can of beer to drink it while driving (that time, I made him stop the car, I got out and told my two cousins who were in the back seat, after refusing to get out with me, peace out. Baby don't play that game.) The shadiest part about that story is that the guy driving is a DETECTIVE for the Investigations arm of the Law Enforcement here in Chile. Nice, right?

No one wants to be the "mala onda weon" who tells an inebriated - or even buzzed - friend that maybe he shouldn't be driving. AND no one wants to be the "mala onda galla" who tells her friends she's only having two drinks because she has to drive home. That would be met with immediate looks resembling "WTF is wrong with you? Did you have a lobotomy, is that it?" If someone WERE to stick to their guns and not drink or continue to drink (and be responsible, at that!) I'm certain the general public would immediately disregard him/her as someone cool and fun. And God forbid promoting the idea of designated drivers here in Chile. Not once in my personal experience have I ever been to any social gathering here where someone merely stated "Nah, I'm good. I'm the DD tonight." Unless that person was a pregnant or nursing woman, everyone drinks and there is simply no limit.

Anyhoo, what's the moral of my story today? Nothing really. I can only do so much to change perceptions, which is limited to those directly around me, and even then, I can only influence so much. I'm not condoning scaring teenagers in Chile from getting behind the wheel because as it is, a good lot of them never learn to drive and when they do, it's later on in life. Nor am I saying that California had it right because God knows I've witnessed those same Californians doing some stupid, stupid things related to drinking and driving. I'm not sure that in general, those scare tactics used in my high school even worked. Yeah, they worked on me for the most part but that's because my mother's M.O. as I was growing up was the use of scare tactics. Thus it's the sure way to discipline me. The whole notion of "If you do/don't do ABC, then XYZ will happen (to you)." Gets me every time!

Plus, can I also attribute all this "awareness" to the fact that California as a state is all about making us aware? Aware of the effects, aware of the surroundings, aware of the aftermath, aware of the consequences. We're an aware bunch in CA, or at least, our government aims for that. Does that mean Chileans are, in comparison, unaware? No. I think they're a very aware bunch as well ... it's just that they're quick to forgive or turn a blind eye to something they are aware is bad.

THIS is the biggest issue I have with the culture right now.

Labels: California, Everyday life, Tangents