Alcohol and driving a deadly combination

Connecticut needs to think about more than alcohol to fight drunken driving.

This is an uncomfortable truth about Connecticut: Most of the ways people socialize involve driving to a location, consuming alcohol and then driving away.

There are exceptions. Some people abstain completely or for that occasion, and a few of us live in walkable, transit-friendly areas. But the overall pattern holds.

Given that, it’s a wonder drunken-driving deaths aren’t higher than they are.

The issue has come to light again over news that state Rep. Quentin “Q” Williams was well over the legal limit for drunken driving when he was killed in a highway crash Jan. 5 after leaving the governor’s inaugural ball.

Williams wasn’t at fault in the crash. Another driver, also legally drunk, was going in the wrong direction and crashed into Williams’ car, killing them both. Wrong-way crashes have gone up dramatically in recent years in Connecticut, for reasons no one can quite pin down, though alcohol is often a factor.

Regardless, anyone getting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol is a danger to themselves and everyone else on the road. We’ve all seen enough public-service announcements over the years to know that.

This incident was followed by another involving a lawmaker, state Rep. Robin Comey, who was charged with drunken driving after a crash in Hartford on March 16. No one was hurt in that case, but again, that’s pure luck.

These two occasions have raised uncomfortable questions about a culture of drinking among lawmakers. Few seem to believe it’s any worse in the Capitol than anywhere else, which is damning in itself. If legislators were a party-happy group who were frequently acting recklessly, it might be more comforting. But instead, they’re just like everyone else.

And that’s the problem.

Gov. Ned Lamont, when pressed on the question of whether alcohol should have been flowing so freely at his inaugural ball, turned the issue to one of personal responsibility. “I don’t think you can regulate yourself to paradise here,” he said. “I just want everybody to be smart, to be careful and act like an adult.”

He’s right, as far as it goes. But it would be smart to rethink the idea that an open bar is in anyone’s interest. It’s fun while it lasts, but there’s a price.

There are many public policy debates that can seem abstract, as if what we’re talking about doesn’t affect real people. How much money goes here, what gets bonded, who’s funding this debt, etc. But the choices our representatives make have an impact on all of us.

It’s a choice to live in a state dominated by cars. It’s a choice to have driving be the only way to get around. It’s a choice to lack options beyond the highway.

If we lived in a state that prioritized mobility without the need for driving everywhere, a lot would be different. For one thing, drunken driving would go way down on our list of concerns. Hop on the bus, sit on a train, get yourself home in one piece. No need to put anyone at risk.

Alcohol consumption always comes with risks. If driving was taken out of the equation, we’d all be safer.