It’s budget time again, and that can only mean one thing: the return of the biennial haggling over one of the A.S. Council’s most contentious programs: A.S. Safe Ride.

Faced with pressure to cut money from the service, defenders of the program often try to take the easy way out, pointing to the service’s usefulness to sober, morally upright students.

“”Historical data indicates that several participants who used the A.S. Safe Ride service had not consumed any alcohol,”” the service’s flier proclaims defensively.

Let there be no misunderstanding: Safe Ride is used almost exclusively by intoxicated students stuck in the hinterlands of San Diego without a designated driver. While “”several participants”” undoubtedly have used the service while sober as a judge, many more than several have been trashed off their asses.

Whether the Safe Ride service actually encourages this kind of behavior has been a matter of continual debate between UCSD students, councilmembers and administrators. Zero-tolerance advocates have put forward the same arguments typically lobbed against any service acknowledging that vice (and fun) exists, such as condom handouts or needle exchanges. If we try to accommodate students who behave irresponsibly, their reasoning goes, aren’t we saying that it’s OK to behave that way?

It is important to recognize that many students will get themselves trashed and stranded whether Safe Ride exists or not, just as many people will have sex whether they have free condoms or not. It would be nice if everyone considered who would be designated driver long before they decided whether to splurge on the expensive tequila; and it would be nice if all students were willing to pony up for a cab ride home instead of taking a risk with their lives (and the lives of others) by driving drunk.

But the unpleasant truth is that many students don’t plan ahead, and many will drive while intoxicated. It’s not as if they aren’t aware of the risks: The near-ubiquitous “”friends don’t let friends drive drunk”” advertising campaign of the past decade or so has clearly hammered home the dangers of driving while inebriated (along with every junior-high health class in the state). But many students will still drive while intoxicated before they drop $20 on a cab ride home.

Accordingly, even cynical bean counters should recognize that the automotive, legal and medical costs of a single serious accident (to say nothing of the risk of injury or death) are much greater than the $28,000 sunk into the Safe Ride program this year.

This year, the proposed A.S. budget cuts funding for the service in half – down to only $10,000 – citing a lack of interest in the program. But not too long ago, the service was so popular that the A.S. Council was forced to provide emergency funding and add administrative restrictions on how often it could be used.

Citing lack of interest is a bit disingenuous. What percentage of students tune in to KSDT? How many have used the Challenge Course? Perhaps we shouldn’t even bother with a May Ball next year – or A.S. elections, for that matter.

The primary factors deciding whether students will use Safe Ride – or any A.S. service – are student interest in the service, student awareness of the service and the service’s ease of use. Before the council makes judgments about student interest, both of the other factors should be examined.

In 2004, the council tossed around the idea of getting the required Safe Ride waiver on the TritonLink portal, a move that would have made the service much easier to use (and probably more popular through word-of-mouth advertising). The idea was vetoed by Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Joseph W. Watson, a strident critic of the Safe Ride program, and never picked up since. Luckily, the A.S. Council has its own Web site and two Web designers – and perhaps the incoming vice chancellor will be more pliant.

In the meantime, the council might ask Watson to update the student affairs site in the interest of accuracy: The 2006-07 student services handbook said the “”Triton Taxi”” service (changed to “”A.S. Safe Ride”” three years ago) offers one ride per academic year (in fact, it offers three per quarter).

Safe Ride could also be made much easier to use. Instead of the quarterly safety waivers that Safe Ride users must fill out now, a yearly waiver would keep students from having to come back to the office every quarter. Or, since Safe Ride really is just a kind of insurance program, an opt-out system could be set up along the lines of the USHIP health insurance plan. All current students would be automatically enrolled in the service. Instead of requiring separate stickers for Safe Ride and the city bus service offered by Transportation and Parking Services, students could be automatically enrolled in each program, with a sticker issued by the registrar certifying a student is currently enrolled – killing two birds with one stone.

As with any insurance plan, it’s easy to think that the money spent on Safe Ride is simply being poured down the drain, and that funds should be diverted to more pressing A.S. priorities. But like any form of insurance, it takes a tragic accident to show the true worth of the plan.

Hopefully the council won’t need a horrific accident to remind them of the value of Safe Ride.