Slashdot Mirror
Are Phone-Addicted Drivers More Dangerous Than Drunk Drivers? (axios.com)
After crunching data on 4.5 billion miles of driving, road-safety analytics company Zendrive concludes there's a new threat which just last year claimed the lives of 6,227 pedestrians: drivers "under the influence of a smartphone."
The study points out that drunk driving fatalities peak after midnight, while distracted driving happens all day, conluding that distracted driving is now a bigger threat than drunk driving. schwit1 shares this report from Axios: "Phone addicts are the new drunk drivers," Zendrive concludes bluntly in its annual distracted driving study. The big picture: The continued increase in unsafe driving comes despite stricter laws in many states, as well as years of massive ad campaigns from groups ranging from cell phone carriers to orthopedic surgeons. "They hide in plain sight, blatantly staring at their phones while driving down the road," Zendrive says in the study.
And it's a growing problem. Over just the past year, Zendrive, which analyzes driver behavior for fleets and insurers, said the number of hardcore phone addicts doubled, now accounting for one in 12 drivers. If the current trend continues, that number will be one in five by 2022.
The report concludes drivers are 10 percent more distracted this year than last -- and that phone addicts have their eyes off the road for 28% of their drive. Yet when asked to describe their driving, 93% of phone addicts said they believed they were "safe" -- or "extremely safe" -- drivers.
One even insisted that they never texted while driving, "but I like to FaceTime my friends while driving since it makes time go by faster."
The study points out that drunk driving fatalities peak after midnight, while distracted driving happens all day, conluding that distracted driving is now a bigger threat than drunk driving. schwit1 shares this report from Axios: "Phone addicts are the new drunk drivers," Zendrive concludes bluntly in its annual distracted driving study. The big picture: The continued increase in unsafe driving comes despite stricter laws in many states, as well as years of massive ad campaigns from groups ranging from cell phone carriers to orthopedic surgeons. "They hide in plain sight, blatantly staring at their phones while driving down the road," Zendrive says in the study.
And it's a growing problem. Over just the past year, Zendrive, which analyzes driver behavior for fleets and insurers, said the number of hardcore phone addicts doubled, now accounting for one in 12 drivers. If the current trend continues, that number will be one in five by 2022.
The report concludes drivers are 10 percent more distracted this year than last -- and that phone addicts have their eyes off the road for 28% of their drive. Yet when asked to describe their driving, 93% of phone addicts said they believed they were "safe" -- or "extremely safe" -- drivers.
One even insisted that they never texted while driving, "but I like to FaceTime my friends while driving since it makes time go by faster."
The idiots who cannot let go of their fondleslabs should not be allowed to drive.
At lease the drunk drivers are doing their best to look at where they are going
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
In fact I'm driving to the grocery store as I type this. One thing people fail to reali
Distracted driving gets blamed for all sorts of things. Many accidents are just that: accidents.
Humans are fallible. We can't be expected to drive 100% of the time "in the zone" like we're piloting an F16 through a hostile airspace. Just not going to happen. So we all have to make reasonable concessions to divide our attention among all the things that matter.
Myself, I never write texts or respond to emails while driving, I only read them. That kind of thing is a reasonable concession and keeps me and my family/friends safe while allowing me to stay in the loop with work and whatnot. More people need to maintain reasonable concessions.
Is the standard for "drunk drivers" so close to sober and unimpaired that we criminalize behavior that isn't dangerous? Or less dangerous than tuning the radio or having a conversation with the passengers?
Fuck Yes
I can get in an accident with someone who's texting -- or otherwise fiddling with their phone -- at any time of day. Drunks drivers are mainly a problem at night. That there are almost certainly many more texters behind the wheel than drunks makes the problem even worse.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
E.g. the one's who feel entitled to just keep going even though the light turned yellow and even red well before they entered the intersection? But they're special, and in a hurry, so they just keep going.
The light's been green for the other direction for a good few seconds but the twits are still sailing through in a parade of three or four red light runners. You don't need a phone to be a menace to other drivers.
Drunk drivers are at least attempting to drive and pay attention.
Have gnu, will travel.
Stand at a busy corner and watch the drivers making left turns who are clutching a phone. It's scary how many I see.
That's not what objectively means.
1/3 of deaths being alcohol related is terrifying. It means that if we could get people to stop drinking and driving the numbers of fatalities would more or less instantly drop by a third. Considering how many different things there are that cause fatal car crashes, having something make up a third of it is a pretty big deal.
Other common causes are inattention, mechanical failure, animals, weather conditions, exhaustion, other drug impairment and I'm sure there's others.So,even with such a short list, it's fairly clear that driving while impaired due to drunkenness should be a high priority in terms of enforcement.
Hands off the phone and you win. Otherwise prepare to get royally ass fucked in court and in jail.
* They pollute (including production of batteries on pure EVs, which is a very bad one btw)
* They can kill people inside and outside of the car, including children! Think of the children!
* Drunks can't drunk drive if you have no vehicles
* Can't have distracted driving either
* Robbers use them to ram buildings and get away and things!
Cars obviously are pretty bad things! And won't politicians think of all the childrens lives that would be saved if they were banned! I'm so glad we have a sensible world! Lets ban cars today!*
* This is a sarcastic comment. Unfortunately I know people exist that are stupid enough to take the above seriously. Those people shoud consider 're education'.
That's not what related means. You need to understand the difference between "alcohol related" and "caused by alcohol." They are not at all the same thing. Suppose I have a glass of wine with dinner (and am still under the legal limit.) While driving home, I stop at a red light. As I'm sitting there waiting for the light to turn green, someone who has not been drinking plows into my rear end and knocks me into the stream of passing traffic. My car is struck by one of those vehicles and I am killed. They perform my autopsy and detect alcohol in my system. I died in an alcohol related automobile accident.
... who are also drunk!
Considering how often during my MERE 10 minute commute from home to work and back again, and I see people screwing with their phones at nearly every light.
It's a major problem. Enforcement of laws needs to take it up a notch and the fines need to be severe. People are not learning a goddamn thing.
Maybe a truly devastating fine of some ferocious amount will get people to think twice. They're not right not.
Generally speaking most people are not drunk all day long. But texting happens all day long
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Since 1995, if you factor out the 2008-09 recession, there's been a continued slow decline in fatality rate. The dip during the 2008-09 recession also seems disproportionately large compared to past recession-linked dips. The 1973-75 recession happened at nearly 2x the fatality rate, so you would expect its dip to be 2x as large. But the 2008-09 dip is nearly the same absolute size. (The post-recession rebound after 1973-75 is nearly 2x as large.)
NHTSA has been claiming credit for this decrease, citing improved crash safety testing and standards. But I wonder if it's more the effect of GPS becoming commonplace to where it's now ubiquitous in all new cars, and people whose cars don't have GPS navigation just use their phones. In the days before GPS, it was common to drive with a folded map on your steering wheel, trying to figure out where you were and how to get to your destination. Way more dangerous than texting while driving IMHO.
Except instead of willful ignorance on drunk driving ("Get off our backs - everybody does it, and it's not that dangerous,"), it's the selfish "phone drunks".
Like drunk drivers, they're really easy to spot. They subconsciously drive a little slower while (in any lane). They fade in and out of their lanes - especially on freeway curves. They do it with extra good posture (perhaps they think that helps them navigate safely?) The worst ones are the ones holding their phones up in front of their faces and talking at them, trying to watch the road with peripheral vision - with no shame.
After a few more high profile deaths and political pressure, and a few of those "after school special" movies about cell phone driving killing children, we'll see an overly strict set of punitive laws that nail cellphone users while they drive (by the 2030s).
Maybe driverless technology will finally be the real solution for those who have to be able to "to FaceTime my friends while driving since it makes time go by faster." (Oh man... And least she was honest. And yeah, $100 says it was a she (under 25). Most dudes would never admit to that, and only someone that young would be that vain and foolish about life...)
And at least in principle, talking on a hands-free phone is not going to be *significantly* different from talking with a passenger in the back seat of car. Some differences may exist due to a passenger possibly being able to react to what is going on around the car as well, but I expect that these would be relatively minor, particularly since visibility from the back seat is generally reduced compared to where the driver sits.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Over here accidents are considered to be alcohol-related if the driver is over the legal limit, and if the accident is deemed to be caused or exacerbated by the intoxication (in order words: not an accident that would have happened if the driver were sober). Of course the latter point isn't always clear, in which case they'll err on the side of it being DUI-related.
As for phone use while driving, statistics do show that hey have caused a massive increase in accidents, but the actual accidents in this case are almost all rear-enders and other more or less serious fender benders; deaths caused by driving while on a cellphone are rare. I see most distracted drivers on the highways rather than in areas with cyclists or pedestrians, so I wonder how they arrived at this figure.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
If you totally banned Alcohol, that would still leave 66% (the vast majority) of traffic deaths.
Banning alcohol would ot stop people from drinking and driving. It would stop them from drinking legally, and then driving.
Sometimes dangerous, but frequently "in the way". I can tell a phone user as I approach from behind before I can directly see them using it: He's the one who's driving slower than everyone else, weaving out of the lane, or who doesn't see that the light has turned green, causing others to get caught by the red light - basically wasting everyone's time due to their selfish habit.
Fed up one day, I held the horn at one before she finally looked up at me (ignoring horns, really?). I pretended to text in midair so she could see me - she flipped me off... At least I know she can use more than her thumbs.
The OP's point is predicated on "totally" banned alcohol, yet you are talking about an unqualified banning.
Do some introspection: Why did your mind feel comfortable to remove this word?
People focus on phone usage and the mind boggling edge cases where people were caught doing things like watching TV while driving, but really a huge percentage of accidents overall are caused by other, far harder to police, causes of distraction.
For example one study found that monkeying with the radio, climate and other car controls is the leading cause. That was followed by distractions from passengers, particularly when a parent has kids in the car. For all the push to use wireless headsets or in-car phone audio systems (instead of talking on the handset), just plain talking on the phone, regardless of method, was also near the top. IIRC, texting was actually fairly far down the list.
On a similar counter-intuitive note, multiple studies have found that driving while sleep-deprived, even people that have had only one "bad night" and missed a few hours off their regular sleep schedule, suffer a drop in driving performance equal to someone just over the legal limit for alcohol in the USA (0.8).
These things are why regardless of whether a society of nothing but fully autonomous vehicles is possible, I am totally behind the idea of having a society of nothing but vehicles with crash avoidance/warning systems, automatic braking, automatic lane maintenance, rear obstacle detection and so on. Those things are absolutely achievable with the current state of technology at a reasonable cost and even if they aren't "perfect', any significant reduction in accidents would be worth it.
As for phone use while driving, statistics do show that hey have caused a massive increase in accidents, but the actual accidents in this case are almost all rear-enders and other more or less serious fender benders;
Well, except for my previous vehicle...t-boned by a teenage texter cruising through a red light at ~60mph. Rolled me right over on the roof, totaled truck.
And it wasn't a 'last second red thing. Rather, she had a full 10 seconds of red light, with no one looking out the window.
Luckily, neither of us were seriously hurt. The only real damage was to my wallet, for a replacement vehicle.
I'm reading this on my phone as I'm driving right now, pretty easy to multi-task actually
I won't even cross when there are cars in the right-hand lane at a corner unless the driver has fully stopped at the corner and looked right at me (so I know they know I am there). This even applies to when I have the signal light to cross (as opposed to no traffic lights), because I could be stepping out into the street and still have someone speed up to the corner, slow a little, then turn and pass right in front of me.
Plenty of people slow down as they reach the corner, while looking at the phone by their lap, glance up to the left to ensure there's no oncoming traffic, then look back down and make their right-turn without looking for pedestrians. Since I don't drive, I get in a lot of walking, and see this all the time.
First reason is that Betteridge's law of headlines says so
Second reason, you can't reason with drunks, they are either tired or aggressive and can't follow directions.
Also, phone-junkies can follow a conversation an don't go ballistic if you tell them that they just Instagrammed one too much. If all else fails, you can send him a message on his phone, that will get his attention.
Not even close.
The Mythbusters did an episode on this several years ago. The short answer is yes, futzing around on your phone is just as dangerous (or close to it) as driving drunk. So don't do it, moron.
And also, on a related note, to my old roommate: No, weed doesn't make you a better driver. That's why we always hid your keys, idiot.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The Try Guys did a series that involved driving drunk, high, sleep deprived, and while using their phone. Sleep deprived and using their phones were the worst.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSpF9abRmFbZumbvzc3arbDxi5lQjyMB7
In the days before GPS, it was common to drive with a folded map on your steering wheel, trying to figure out where you were and how to get to your destination. Way more dangerous than texting while driving IMHO.
I don't know a lot of people who stared at paper maps while driving. You'd look at it, figure out where to go, and then drive.
I do see people staring at their GPS while driving every single day.
I don't respond to AC's.
I think you are ignoring pedestrian accidents that are mentioned prominently in this article. Yes rear enders have increased but so have car person and car bike accidents. Those are obviously much more dangerous.
My brother almost lost his leg to some idiot unlicensed, uninsured driver looking at his phone on a right turn. Didnâ(TM)t even see my brother walking just plowed over him and then tried to run. Good thing he was so confused by his phone dropping and reached for it which caused him to hit a pole.
Get everybody drunk before they drive so they won't be able to use their goddamn smartphones while driving.
I got hit once while walking in South Florida. The driver was not on his phone but rather was making an illegal last-second turn, which happens all the time in the lawless state of Florida. But I did notice other times a lot of people would text and drive. Maybe 40-50% of the drivers on the 30 mph streets. Then I moved to California, and I saw far fewer drivers using their phones while driving. Now I live in the Netherlands. I never see anyone texting while driving, and I rarely see anyone holding their phone on a call while driving. Much safer here.
I am a motorcyclist, the task is intrinsically dangerous, by some estimates I am about 34x more likely to die per mile driven than a person in a car. Accordingly, I am VERY aware of what other drivers are doing, and those most dangerous to me are the ones who are NOT PAYING ATTENTION. I'll take a drunk driver anytime over a kid staring at a phone. I have been driven of the road, into the center median at 70 miles per hour by a idiot staring at a screen on the expressway.
...well I was going to say apples with oranges but it doesn't suit this site. They both negatively affect you, some people have a higher threshold for alcohol, some people have spare cycles to spare while doing multiple complex things. At the end of the day if you see someone weaving and jerking on the road then they are obviously over their limit and ability to drive safely and should be pulled up and straightened out.
If my wife or child were killed in an accident, I would be devastated. An accident is an accident.
If I found out that it was the result of drunk driving or some idiot on a cell phone, then as far as I am concerned, it's not an accident. That person might find themselves getting really intimate with a wood chipper feet first.
Even rear-enders can cause injury. Shit, I barely got bumped once unexpectedly, my neck was achy for a couple of days. Others I know off suffered much more after being rear-ended.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Even when paying attention, I've almost hit pedestrians a couple of times. It's easy to miss something while trying to look everywhere, especially if there are blind spots, caused by passengers head or another vehicle.
Pedestrians who blindly walk into traffic are asking for a Darwin award, even if they are in the right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
They are both equally bad and dangerous. This is like asking, "Which is deadlier, death by hanging or death by boonga-boonga?"
This space unintentionally left blank.
Your abuse and/or ignorance of statistical analysis is staggering.
Due to the nature of driving, many accidents are simply not preventable. Everyone is doing everything correctly, nothing in the cars fails, but accidents still happen. This is why people designing self-driving cars have to deal with the moral quandary of what the car should do when an accident is unavoidable.
Accidents caused by drunk drivers are 100% preventable. It doesn't matter that they comprise a minority of overall accidents. Also, your assertion that 66% is the "vast majority" is an overstatement. This isn't politics. 2/3 is a significant majority, but 1/3 is also a significant minority. In fact, it is likely the largest single factor that contributes to car accidents. (With a bit of arithmetic, you can easily deduce it must be at least 1st or 2nd.)
Why don't you ask some of the best predictive statisticians in the world about the significance of 30%.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Found the drunkie!
The reason that they decided the accident was alcohol-related was that you were over the legal limit, and you're lying about that part of your story.
Probably what happened is that your lawyer argued the test was unreliable, and you've been method-acting that story ever since. But no, you were not under the legal limit. That is why you got in trouble.
You're probably even drunk right now!
Here's to the all of the nutters who chime in at every opportunity to say self-driving cars are inherently unsafer and more unreliable than people live-streaming, texting, putting on makeup, eating breakfast, watching movies, drunk, high, or simply exhausted while attempting to pilot their 2-ton wrecking ball with little regard to others.
Yes, Phone Drivers are [Way] worse [and more dangerous] than drunk drivers!
There are more Phone Drivers on the road! And, the Phone Drivers are at all hours -- morning, lunch time, afternoon, evening, early morning. Drunk Drive are few and far between for me and are generally limited to late night and early mornings in my locale.
The most horrifying sight is to look in my rear view mirror and see the driver or the driver and passenger texting away on their phones while their car is creeping toward my car. God, I avoid the times when local high schools let out and these types of misfit drivers are released in mass onto the streets!
You're engaged in a red herring.
If you totally banned Alcohol, that would still leave 66% (the vast majority) of traffic deaths.
What does "alcohol-related" mean, anyway? The driver was the designated sober driver ferrying his drunk buddies home? There was a six pack someone purchased on his way home from work? You had a pint an hour ago? What?
I bet the number of people who drive under the influence regularly and yet never cause any problems is frighteningly enormous.
Driving drunk is stupid, but it's objectively a scapegoat.
I text or drive drunk pretty regularly and I have far more close calls texting than I ever do while drunk
According to the National Safety Council, texting while driving is by far the most dangerous way to use a phone while driving - but even talking on the phone distracts drivers so badly that they can miss up to half of hazards as important as red lights and pedestrians crossing the road in front of them.
Note, too, that their tests have established that texting only while stopped at red lights still leaves drivers distracted for nearly half a minute after they put their phones down and resume driving.
That's why I only use my phone for turn-by-turn navigation by voice when I'm behind the wheel - and I input my destination and start the directions before I leave my driveway or the parking space from which I depart.
When I'm driving, I let all calls go to voicemail, as well, because none of them can possibly be as critical as the task of driving defensively. I take my responsibility for controlling a ton or more of mass moving at high velocity among other such vehicles (that I always assume are being driven by irresponsible cretins) as seriously as if my life, and the lives of my passengers, other motorists and their passengers, and pedestrians and bystanders depended on it.
It's also the reason I merge onto highways at the current speed of traffic on that road - because entering a freeway at a lower speed than the vehicles already on it is dangerous. That's why I survey traffic conditions on the road I'm entering as I'm negotiating the onramp, rather than blindly assuming that the other drivers will courteously leave me room to merge and graciously adjust their own speed to accomodate mine.
They won't.
You should always assume that every other driver on the road is actively suicidal - and determined to take you with him. It's the only way to be even marginally safe.
Other than taking off and nuking them from orbit, that is ...
Check out my novel.
So cellphones kill more people by far then "assault rifles."
Groups like MADD are actually modern day prohibitionists. We now haveillegal levels at a point where a person actually isn't under the influence. But don't worry folks, if a Drunk driver kills you you re much more dead that if Chad kills you whie LoL'ing his friends.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Do you mean to tell me that people driving and not watching the road are a problem? Double check your math on that one buster.
With a bit of arithmetic, you can easily deduce it must be at least 1st or 2nd.
Not quite. It is common that an accident has multiple "related" issues (alcohol related, speed related, driving related, weather related, seat belt related, poor car maintenance related, etc.). As such, you can not deduce it must be at least 1st or 2nd. In fact, you can absolutely assume it isn't 1st, because 1st would be "driving related". 100% of all driving accidents are driving related, and 100% preventable by not driving.
Back in the day, I had to be REALLY comfortable with the car I was driving before I would even try listening to the radio.
1/3 of deaths being alcohol related is terrifying.
This factoid, in isolation, means nothing.
How many people drive after drinking? If it is 1/3, then alcohol is having no effect on accidents. "Alcohol related" doesn't mean "drunk", just some amount of alcohol.
There are about 30k traffic fatalities in America. If 10k are "alcohol related", that is about 1 for every 30,000 people. You are a hundred times more likely to die from heart disease. So exercise and a better diet will have way more effect than driving sober.
No, he was correct. Alcohol related only means someone had alcohol in their system - not that it was a major or even minor factor in the crash. That also means the number of alcohol related accidents is inflated because of the simple fact that a drunk person stopped at a stop light is often found at fault in an accident, when the other sober person violates traffic laws and causes the accident. They say it's the drunk person's fault for simply being on the road. When in reality it wasn't. Happened to my cousin.
By that, I'm assuming you meant to say that if a third of drivers on the road have recently consumed alcohol, then it is having no effect. It seems unlikely that the percentage of drivers who have recently consumed alcohol is anywhere near that high, so it is pretty likely that alcohol caused some percentage of those accidents, though determining precisely what percentage is challenging.
By contrast, only about 7% of fatal accidents in people under 35 test positive for THC. Yet about 13% of U.S. adults used marijuana in 2017. This suggests that perhaps pot smoking makes you a safer driver — probably because it's hard to have a fatal accident when you're only driving 5 MPH. :-D
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Who would ever expect a pedestrian would be in a crosswalk?
No, he wasn't right. Alcohol is a central nervous system depressant. The legal limit is the point where they consider the danger to be so high that they will no longer accept your personal judgment on the matter.
Having any alcohol in your system is going to impact how you drive and your reaction time to some extent.
It's dishonest to suggest that it's arbitrary or inconsistent. The same thing happens if you're sleep deprived or appear to be distracted.
It would help if they stuck to the crosswalks and even then the city has added flashing lights to the ones in the middle of the block to help with the lack of visibility caused by parked cars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
This is dishonest. Any amount of alcohol in your system is going to impact your judgment and reaction time to some extent. The reason why they call it alcohol related is that you can know for sure what would have happened without the alcohol.
I'm practice the are always multiple factors that lead to a crash, suggesting that alcohol didn't play a role just because something else was the last straw is rather ridiculous.
We do not know the context in which the OP stated the 33%, so I took it at face value. You bring up a good point about multiple causes not being mutually exclusive.
In fact, you can absolutely assume it isn't 1st, because 1st would be "driving related". 100% of all driving accidents are driving related, and 100% preventable by not driving.
I disagree. We're already talking about car accidents, so that comes as a prior, and the goal of the analysis is specifically to discriminate that prior from other causes. Basically what you're saying is that car accidents are car accidents. True, but meaningless and uninformative.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Crosswalk, right of way, you turning - yeah, those pedestrians are walking into traffic! You're 100% at fault in all States, guaranteed. If you're not sure it's clear - then slow down and confirm. YOU have the yield to pedestrians legally in the crosswalk. YOU have the ability to maim and kill. YOU are the only solution. Slow down, confirm. A few seconds won't kill you - but it could kill someone else.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I never mentioned crosswalk or turning, more like pedestrian stepping out from behind parked vehicle into traffic. Intersections are usually easy as you're moving slow though a pedestrian going against the light can still be an unexpected nightmare.
And yes, on top of hitting someone, there's the legal shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Hit someone stepping out between cars, in the middle of the block? You're not going to go to jail...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Still not good and probably need a lawyer and possibly witnesses to avoid the worst of the legal stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
You can expect adults to not step out like that.
You can't expect teenagers and children to do the same.
So unless you think the smaller ones are irrelevant the only solution is that the one in the car has the responsibility to not run people over and if the sight is obstructed by parked cars they have the responsibility to drive slow enough to be able to stop anyway.
Nope. Been driving, texting, and talking for nearly 20 years. Zero accidents because I pay attention. But most people are idiots. Here's a novel idea though: stop with the pre-crime bullshit. If someone gets into an accident and they were on their cell phone, *then* charge them with a crime. Stop allowing the government to line their pockets when no one was harmed and no property was damaged.
Sorry, no. If you're doing something that is statistically very likely to cause someone death or serious injury, it's important to dissuade you before that happens. Stop being a selfish moron. The only thing you should be doing while driving is driving.
Any amount of alcohol in your system is going to impact your judgment and reaction time to some extent.
No. That is not how drugs interact with humans. Under a certain amount drugs will have no therapeutic effect (and over a certain amount they become toxic).
So relatively small amounts of alcohol (relative to body mass, and your CYP2E1 gene expression, etc.) will have no impact on judgment or reaction time whatsoever.
If Vito the Mobster kills Paulie the Snitch by drugging his scotch then shooting him, and decapitates him and puts him in the trunk. While driving to the new stadium to put him in the foundation, he stops at a red light. Gramps is on the same road. He falls asleep and hits Vito in the back. The police show up. The causes listed for the crash will be "Alcohol involved, speed related, and following too closely" The statistics are lies.
Learn to love Alaska
Accidents caused by drunk drivers are 100% preventable.
All accidents are preventable. But if I drive to the store, buy pretzels and beer, then forget to take the beer out. My sister drives the car tomorrow, and an old person falls asleep and runs the red, killing both. The beers will likely rupture in such a violent crash, so the "cause" on paper will be recorded as "alcohol involved" even with both drivers testing at 0.0% BAC. Open container and smells of alcohol are sufficient.
Learn to love Alaska
I have definitely seen cars swerve into the bike lane with nary a backward glance. The last guy to do it was driving one-handed with his eyes on the phone in his other hand.