3 ms·
That 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 c
by EdwardDiego 4y ago
That 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.