"Fueled by alcohol"? Well, get that crap out of the gasoline, then.
How many involved some dipsh*t messing with a cell phone ("smart", or otherwise)?
As far as "any alcohol" in their system, is this another push for another revision downward of the legal limits? That might include 0.01 or 0.005% BAC to cross the threshold of 'alcohol involvement'. Which means an accident caused by anything from mechanical failure, infrastructure collapse, to another driver on their phone would be considered 'alcohol involved', provided they had a detectable amount of alcohol in their system. I think that is bogus.
While the 28% over the legal limit may be a valid concern, claiming nearly half when just over a fourth were actually legally drunk (BAC= or > 0.08%--two to three drinks for most folks), or half that for holders of commercial drivers' licenses (0.04%--a second beer is too many) isn't accurate.
Put that in perspective. I quit drinking nearly 30 years ago, and think most folks can hold their mud well enough to drive if other factors aren't involved. But nowadays, people aren't learning to drive, half the time the vehicle is involved in everything from traction control to antilock braking, to shifting gears, and will do even more for the people behind the wheel--which leaves them free to be distracted in other ways.
Or better yet, over half of those accidents where kids were killed did not involve any alcohol at all, much less as a causative factor.
I;m not for people driving impaired, but let's have some honesty.
