2 ms·
Not trying to argue about anything in the article, especially as I have absolutely no idea about French hunting culture, but the article doesn't actually say th
by Delk 4y ago
Not trying to argue about anything in the article, especially as I have absolutely no idea about French hunting culture, but the article doesn't actually say that. It says that, according to a hunting lobby, "91% of breathalyser tests after hunting incidents are negative" (emphasis mine).
Assuming that alcohol increases the risk of accidents, the percentage of hunters who have drunk should be higher in cases where there is an accident than it is generally, so the percentage of hunters who have drunk would be lower in the general case.
- EdwardDiego 4y agoThat 9% is assuming that the data gathering is perfect, that all people responsible in such an incident are breathalysed (it's not unknown for someone else to claim to be the driver/hunter in alcohol related incidents), and that the alcohol measurement took place soon enough to be useful. And all that aside, if you can reduce that 9%, then that's less death and suffering, so why not do so?
- Delk 4y agoYeah, it still sounds large. As I said, I wasn't really commenting on that. I was commenting on the fact that someone seemed to be deducing a number they can't deduce based on the article they said it was from.