“You could be killed” is fine. (Edit: “you may be killed” is also fine. My error misquoting.)
I don’t believe this is a mistaken attempt to warn against drunk driving.
I think it’s an alternative warning about a different danger, from people going out to drink, getting too drunk to make safe decisions, and staggering home down the middle of the street, whereupon they are run over by vehicles.
The drivers of which may also be drunk, or perhaps just unwary, as they round a bend and encounter an unforseen person who then dodges the wrong way or not at all.
There’s also a danger of passing out in the middle of the road, cosplaying as roadkill until you become it, but that’s more of a vodka problem.
Some states/countries have an assortment of warnings to choose from, like with cigarettes. The font is large so you don’t have to put all of them. An average drinker sees them all eventually.
This actually sounds plausible.
We also have the cigarettes thing.
(But alcohol are standard warnings: pregnancy, age restrictions - no driving warnings interestingly)
Better drive, then…
Now, earnestly:
Could this just be a translation error? There is also another slight semantic error in there, if I’m not mistaken (be/get).
“You could be killed” is fine. (Edit: “you may be killed” is also fine. My error misquoting.)
I don’t believe this is a mistaken attempt to warn against drunk driving.
I think it’s an alternative warning about a different danger, from people going out to drink, getting too drunk to make safe decisions, and staggering home down the middle of the street, whereupon they are run over by vehicles.
The drivers of which may also be drunk, or perhaps just unwary, as they round a bend and encounter an unforseen person who then dodges the wrong way or not at all.
There’s also a danger of passing out in the middle of the road, cosplaying as roadkill until you become it, but that’s more of a vodka problem.
Be/get: interesting, I thought there to be a major difference (one describing a state already in, the other the process leading there).
.
What bugs me for this interpretation, is that the warning about drunk driving would then be completely missing. That doesn’t make sense somehow.
Some states/countries have an assortment of warnings to choose from, like with cigarettes. The font is large so you don’t have to put all of them. An average drinker sees them all eventually.
This actually sounds plausible.
We also have the cigarettes thing.
(But alcohol are standard warnings: pregnancy, age restrictions - no driving warnings interestingly)