Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounded Simple
Correlation is not causation.
That figure is for alcohol-impaired deaths, defined as deaths in accidents in which one or more driver had a BAC of 0.08% or higher. (At least you didn't use the absurd "alcohol-related" stats.) This doesn't mean the driver who was at fault had the high BAC. In fact, it doesn't mean a driver was at fault at all. Further, and more importantly, it ignores the pretty well established fact that people who are very drunk (for our purposes, let's say 0.25%+) are
much less able to drive well, and much more dangerous, than those with lower BACs, lumping them all together. We don't know from those stats how many of those deaths involved people who were a little tipsy and how many had drivers who were blacking-out drunk.
(An interesting note in that regard: there are not many more alcohol related deaths than alcohol impaired, suggesting [if the curve is smooth] that most of the deaths are from drivers who are much higher than their cutoff BAC level.)
Another very important thing we don't know from those stats is how many of those deaths were the "drunk" drivers themselves. If someone drives while impaired and dies as a result, I don't think too many people will be getting worked up about that. For example, driving a motorcycle without a helmet is supremely dangerous, but I doubt you, or most people here, think doing so is immoral.