My number is wrong, I just made it up. I think that actually number is more like 99.95% for a person with a .08.

My point is that if you didn't care about moral hazard, the odds are overwhelming that you will make it home safe even if you drive drunk.

I'm not condoning, just explaining drunk driving logic.

That 1/3 road deaths is artificially inflated because if you had 1 drink and well under the legal limit it still counts as alcohol related fatality.

> That 1/3 road deaths is artificially inflated because if you had 1 drink and well under the legal limit it still counts as alcohol related fatality.

As it should. 1 drink is enough to impair your ability to drive.

EDIT: I'm probably wrong, someone else in the comments posted data showing risk only increases after .03 BAC.

> I think that actually number is more like 99.95% for a person with a .08.

But it isn't the .08 drunk drivers killing people, it is the .16+ BAC drunk drivers killing people.

I find the fact that people believe this to be really quite frightening.

Sure, you feel great after a few drinks, that is kinda the point. But you are still impaired. Driving is not an activity where confidence helps. Reaction time matters and that goes down from your first drink.

I don't see how that is artificial. It is well known that your abilities are impacted long before you reach the legal limit.