• Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    “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.

    • Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Be/get: interesting, I thought there to be a major difference (one describing a state already in, the other the process leading there).
      .

      I think it’s an alternative warning about a different danger

      What bugs me for this interpretation, is that the warning about drunk driving would then be completely missing. That doesn’t make sense somehow.

      • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

        • Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          This actually sounds plausible.
          We also have the cigarettes thing.
          (But alcohol are standard warnings: pregnancy, age restrictions - no driving warnings interestingly)