We have anti-drunk-driving programs where I live, and they work. These comprise of surprise, out of the blue road blocks and spot checks. They work. Ergo, at

We have anti-drunk-driving programs where I live, and they work. These comprise of surprise, out of the blue road blocks and spot checks. They work. Ergo, at least some of this can indeed be solved. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14679/c-g/c-g1-1-eng.gif https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article... That's a drop to 1/3, in 30 years. Further, drunk driving used to be much more accepted. In the "old days", cops would often let people go if they were drunk, but seemed OK at driving. Now there is absolutely zero tolerance for drunk driving, which also means that if there is an accident/death, and even the hint of alcohol, it is now labelled as 'drunk driving'. This is partially to reinforce the (needed) narrative, but also because cops hate to see this sort of thing, and therefore, it increases the penalties when someone dies. This inflates the statistics, yet the rate is, as seen, extensively reduced. Beyond spot checks, you now have a very low tolerance for any alcohol in the blood. Down to 0.05 where penalties start, meaning that even a full grown man worries about drinking a beer (recall, we have stronger alcohol content in beer in Canada) and driving. These sorts of things, and more, can dramatically change the landscape... regardless of human nature. I agree however, that there will always be outliers. Those that do not comply. However, you're trying to link "Driving cars", with "See all the ills they cause!", which I deem to be highly unfair and non-logical. You could point to any other thing, knives, guns, chainsaws, ladders, and explain how due to human nature, these things will sometimes be used for ill. While this is true, it is a nasty trick, in order to get ones personal peeve resolved.