One of the flaws is causation:
"In the early 1980s, when grass-roots safety groups brought attention to drunk driving, many states required a 0.15 BAC rate to demonstrated intoxication.
But over the next 24 years, Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other groups pushed states to adopt the 0.08 BAC standard, the last state falling in line in 2004.
The number of alcohol-related highway fatalities, meanwhile, dropped from 20,000 in 1980 to 9,878 in 2011, the NTSB said."
What they are assuming is that "alcohol-related highway fatalities" dropped by half only due to lowering the limit. I highly doubt this is the only reason.
We could say, that during the same time the federal maximum speed limit was rasied from 55 to 65 and later repealed. Therefore, was can make the statement that higher speed limits reduce the number of alcohol-related highway fatalities.
I would submit that looking at overall traffic fatalities in 1980 there 22.485 deaths per 100,000. In 2011, there 10.38
Lets compare the numbers:
9,878/20000 = 49.39%
10.38/22.485 = 46.2%
Isnt strange, if the cause of reduction in deaths alcohol-related highway fatalities is attributed to lowering the acceptable limit and strict enforcement of the limit, that overall traffic fatalities dropped by almost the same amount (if you evaluate all years, I doubt there is a statistically significant difference)?
Basic data analysis shows that it is highly likely something other than reduced BAC and enforcement has caused the reduction.
Twice a week? 14 times a month?
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.
Last edited by DanaT; 05-14-2013 at 12:05..