A Safer Choice Is Not Always a Safe Choice

Santa Rosa City Council member Eddie Alvarez deserves credit for refusing to drive his car after drinking in downtown Santa Rosa.

He recognized that getting behind the wheel could endanger innocent people, so he locked his car and began what he described as a two-hour walk home. At that point, he had made a responsible decision.

But elected leadership requires more than choosing an option that is less dangerous. It requires recognizing that our conduct was still unsafe, accepting responsibility without qualification, and showing the community that we have learned from the experience.

That is where Alvarez’s public response falls short.

According to The Press Democrat, Alvarez was arrested after riding a rented bicycle while intoxicated in a heavy rainstorm. A California Highway Patrol spokesperson said a sergeant observed him run a red light, hit a plastic construction barrier, and fall. Prosecutors later charged him with public intoxication. The charge was dismissed after he completed 45 self-help sessions under an agreement with the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office. He was not convicted in this case.

Those facts deserve to be reported accurately.

So does the distinction Alvarez has emphasized: he was riding a bicycle, not driving a car.

But that distinction does not resolve the question of responsibility.

Safer Does Not Mean Safe

California law treats riding a bicycle while intoxicated differently from driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

The California Vehicle Code makes it a misdemeanor to ride a bicycle on a highway while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, with a maximum fine of $250. The law also generally gives bicyclists the same rights and responsibilities as drivers, including the obligation to follow applicable traffic laws.

Because a bicycle has far less weight, power, and speed than a car, an intoxicated cyclist generally poses less danger than an intoxicated driver.

But less dangerous is not the same as harmless.

In his public Facebook statement, Alvarez acknowledged that he was intoxicated and riding rapidly through dark streets in heavy rain. He wrote that he wanted to pedal faster despite large raindrops striking his eyes. He also said that stop signs and traffic lights were not enough to make him slow down.

Alvarez described a maneuver on Dutton Avenue in which he turned with traffic, made a 180-degree turn into the opposite lane, and continued without slowing. He explained that he would not attempt the maneuver in a car or on a bicycle during the day, when traffic would prevent it.

After hearing the officer’s emergency siren, Alvarez said he looked back and turned the handlebars in the opposite direction. In his account, he struck large red guardrails and landed on the ground.

The CHP and Alvarez described the barrier differently, but both accounts agree on the key point: He lost control of the bicycle and fell.

Fortunately, no one was seriously injured.

But the absence of an injury does not prove there was no danger. It means the danger did not lead to its worst possible outcome.

An impaired cyclist can enter a vehicle’s path, forcing a driver to brake suddenly or swerve into another lane. A cyclist can strike a pedestrian, fall into traffic, or create an emergency for police officers, firefighters, and medical personnel. If a motorist strikes and kills an impaired cyclist, the driver may also carry lasting guilt and emotional trauma, even when the collision was unavoidable.

The risk may be smaller than that posed by an intoxicated driver, but it is still a risk imposed on others.

There Were Other Choices

Alvarez largely defends riding the bicycle by comparing it with the more dangerous alternative of driving drunk.

It was not.

He had already begun walking home. He could have continued walking. He could have called a rideshare, contacted a friend, waited somewhere safe, or asked the bar to arrange transportation.

In his statement, Alvarez acknowledged some of those alternatives. After saying he would do the same thing again under similar circumstances, he added that he might instead continue walking or call an Uber.

That contradiction is important.

Riding a bicycle while intoxicated was never the only alternative to driving.

People sometimes defend questionable conduct by comparing it to something worse.

“I could have done more harm” is not the same as “I acted responsibly.”

Alvarez made the right choice when he refused to drive his car. He made the wrong choice when, while intoxicated, he climbed onto a bicycle and rode rapidly through dark, rain-soaked streets, intentionally disregarding traffic controls.

Both statements can be true.

Transparency Is Not the Same as Accountability

Alvarez deserves some credit for publicly discussing the incident.

He admitted he had been drinking. He acknowledged that California law prohibited riding a bicycle while intoxicated. He described the CHP officers as professional and said that drinking was no excuse for treating them disrespectfully.

Those are meaningful admissions.

But transparency is more than telling people what happened. Accountability requires understanding why the conduct was wrong and committing not to repeat it.

Instead, Alvarez’s statement repeatedly downplays the incident.

He describes the ride through Roseland as beautiful. He jokes about crashing, the person who drew his blood, and CHP turning into his Uber for the night. He criticizes the newspaper’s headline and insists that riding a bicycle while intoxicated should not place him in the same category as people who drive drunk.

He is entitled to point out that riding a bicycle while intoxicated is legally and practically different from driving a car while intoxicated.

But that legitimate distinction is weakened by his attempt to use it to prove that he did not endanger the community.

His own account describes the danger.

He was intoxicated. It was dark. Rain was falling. He was riding as fast as he could, disregarding stop signs and traffic lights, making unusual lane changes, and ultimately losing control of the bicycle.

Most troubling, Alvarez wrote that he would do it again under the same circumstances, though he immediately added that he might walk or call an Uber instead.

He also said that at 2 a.m. he may not stop at any stop signs or traffic lights and that “sobriety doesn’t influence this.”

That is not a reassuring defense from an elected official. It suggests that intentionally disregarding traffic laws is not limited to the night he had been drinking.

The strongest statement Alvarez could have made would have required only a few sentences:

I made the right decision not to drive my car, but I made the wrong decision to ride a bicycle while intoxicated. My actions endangered me and could have endangered others. I accept responsibility and will make a safer choice in the future.

That would not have required public humiliation.

It would have demonstrated leadership.

Elected Officials Are Human

As a former City Council member and a mayor, I know that elected officials are not perfect.

They have personal lives. They make mistakes. They occasionally exercise poor judgment.

Holding public office should not imply that every mistake leaves a lasting mark on a person’s character.

The public should also be careful not to demand performative shame. Alvarez does not need to act as if his life or public service has been defined by a single incident.

But elected officials accept responsibilities that extend beyond the council chamber.

Their behavior impacts public trust. Their statements reflect their understanding of accountability. Young people and community members observe how leaders react when faced with challenges, embarrassment, or being proven wrong.

Public office turns personal conduct into a public lesson, whether the officeholder intends it or not.

The lesson should not be that good leaders never make mistakes.

The lesson should be that good leaders acknowledge mistakes without making excuses, learn from them, and change their behavior.

A Question of Trust

The legal case against Alvarez was dismissed after he met prosecutors’ conditions. That outcome should be respected. This essay does not argue that he should be punished again or removed from office.

It is an argument that his public explanation should have shown more humility and self-awareness.

Alvarez wrote that he knew what he was doing, understood the consequences, and could look in the mirror without shame. He closed by assuring residents that he would not put his community in harm’s way.

Those statements are difficult to reconcile with the conduct he described.

Recognizing wrongdoing does not require shame. However, it does require an honest assessment of the risk.

The public does not need perfection from Alvarez.

It needs reassurance that he recognizes the difference between avoiding the worst choice and making a responsible decision.

He still has the opportunity to provide that reassurance.

He could acknowledge that riding while intoxicated was unlawful and unsafe. He could make clear that walking or calling for a ride would have been better choices. He could encourage residents to plan ahead, use rideshare services, or contact someone they trust when they have been drinking.

He could turn an embarrassing incident into a useful public safety message.

That would demonstrate more strength than continuing to defend his actions.

Why This Matters Today

Public trust is not damaged only by corruption, criminal convictions, or abuses of power.

It can also erode when leaders refuse to acknowledge what community members can clearly see.

Alvarez made a responsible decision by refusing to drive his car after drinking. That decision may have prevented a tragedy.

But he followed it with another decision that was unlawful and dangerous. Riding rapidly through dark, rain-soaked streets, deliberately disregarding traffic signals, and eventually losing control of the bicycle was not a responsible way to protect the community.

The public does not need Alvarez to shame himself.

It needs him to understand the risk, accept responsibility, and make it clear that he will choose differently next time.

A safer choice is not always a safe choice.

Recognizing that difference is not weakness.

It is leadership.