Intoxicated Driving

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I am discussing intoxicated driving with someone, and he insists that driving sober is statistically worse than driving drunk because the percent of people dying in accidents while sober is greater than the number of alcohol-related accidents. I believe his goal is to imply that drunken -driving is less serious and comparatively not really a big problem because of that.

To me, this seems like he's trying to twist a conclusion out of the statistics dishonestly to attack critiques of drunken-driving.

I might be wrong, but what I believe he's ignoring is that, assuming the stats provided were true, although more people get into accidents while sober, sobriety isn't the casual factor behind it. It's just coincidental. At most, he would be showing that there are cumulatively greater chances of dying to other things that can cause accidents that happen to coincide with being sober, like incompetent driving.

Am I wrong, or is there another way to approach this besides what I already have? I don't see how individually, being drunk would be better than being sober.


Edit: to me, intended point is like saying because you have a greater percent of people who happen to die by coincidence, sitting on their couches, it's therefore more dangerous to sit on your couch than licking a ball of plutonium. After all, more people die when doing one vs the other.

[starslayer]

He's a dumbass. What you should be looking at is the percentage of alcohol-related accidents that were fatal versus the percentage of sober accidents that were fatal. That would give you an instant check on what is actually happening here.

In any case, he fails at statistics, because he is comparing two different measures that cannot be compared: percentages and raw totals. If I were to throw rocks at windows, say, and I break 50% of them, breaking a grand total of 100, but every year in the US 200 windows accidentally get broken by people working near them with hammers, for a percentage of maybe .1%, does that mean that working near a window with a hammer is more likely to break it (i.e., is it statistically worse)? No! Even though I broke fewer windows, I broke a far higher percentage of the ones I aimed at. That is, throwing a rock at a window is far more likely to break it than pounding a nail into the sill is.

At most, he would be showing that there are cumulatively greater chances of dying to other things that can cause accidents that happen to coincide with being sober, like incompetent driving.

You are right, for alcohol is just one factor among many that can cause an accident. So far as I know, however, it is far more likely to cause an accident than any one of those other factors.

[Dark Hellion]

He is twisting the stats. Sure more sober people get in accidents, but how many hours of driving do sober people do compared to those who are intoxicated. A drunk is far more likely to get in an accident per minute driving than a sober non-distracted individual. I don't have specific statistics to support that, but anyone who has ever drank will not deny it unless they have a motive.

[Darth Wong]

I am discussing intoxicated driving with someone, and he insists that driving sober is statistically worse than driving drunk because the percent of people dying in accidents while sober is greater than the number of alcohol-related accidents. I believe his goal is to imply that drunken -driving is less serious and comparatively not really a big problem because of that.

In the simplest terms, he is assuming that the number of drunken man-hours behind the wheel is just as high as the number of sober man-hours behind the wheel. He's either an idiot or a liar; the vast majority of driving man-hours are sober, so drunk driving could easily be ten times more dangerous than sober driving without causing drunk driving accidents to exceed the total number of sober driving accidents.

This reminds me of the imbeciles who argued that military deployment to Iraq was safer than living at home, using similar logic.

[Ghost Rider]

Your edit is exactly what he twisting. He's using this idea:

• 132 people have died this week by auto accidents
  
  10 people have died in drunk auto accidents

Thus trying to use the conclusion of 132>10, but he's not showing the percentages and thus the stats could easily look like:

• 132 out of 58,983 died this week by auto accidents
  
  10 people out 115 have died in drunk auto accidents.

He's either a complete idiot or bald faced liar. We know that drunk driving causes more accidents because it impairs many of the needed motor control that requires safe usage of said vehicle. The best way is to push him to demonstrate to you comparable totals, not just how many deaths. Your bit of licking a ball of plutonium and couch sitting is a clear example of what he is trying to force as his side of the arguement.