Statistics Don't Lie; Politicians Do

Maryland just loves its fascism. On the heels of a statewide smoking ban and potential bans on drive-up liquor store windows and trans fats, a Democratic lawmaker is now pushing a bill to require mandatory drug testing of all driver's license applicants under 21 years of age.

The legislation, introduced by Delegate Marvin E. Holmes, Jr. of Prince George's County, would require the Motor Vehicle Administration to test the breath and blood of driver's license applicants under 21 for alcohol and controlled substances. A positive test would result in the suspension of driving privileges for six months, although the applicant would be entitled to a hearing.

[...]

Holmes said he was spurred by reports of drunk driving and youth drug abuse in his district.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 3,467 drivers age 15 to 20 were killed nationally in 2005. Of those, 28 percent had been drinking.

Of course, it sounds like the only opposition Holmes is getting from Maryland bureaucrats and police officers is criticism that the state doesn't have the personnel or equipment to handle the logistical requirements of such testing. Thankfully the Maryland ACLU weighed in with complaints about the widespread civil liberties abuses this type of program would effect.

Unfortunately, this report doesn't give a good sense of how Holmes's program would work. It explains that the MVA would conduct drug testing, implying that license applicants under 21 would be tested at the time of application. But then it goes on to say that a positive test would result in driving suspensions. However, if a 16-year-old is applying for the first time, she could obviously stay clean long enough to pass an alcohol or drug test, rendering the program entirely useless. But if young drivers could have existing licenses revoked, this seems to indicate that police would be able to conduct these tests on the roadways without probable cause.

Whatever the case, one must conclude that this bill is little more than a natural outgrowth of current drunk-driving legislation, namely that which endorses wholesale violation of our liberties with the installation of sobriety checkpoints that allow government agents to hassle motorists on mere suspicion alone. We would be fools to believe that laws targeting young drivers wouldn't eventually be expanded to include everyone.

So what are the facts?

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among 15- to 20-year-olds, but let's look at some facts.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Young Drivers Traffic Safety Fact Sheet for 2006 (.pdf), there were 12.6 million drivers between 15 and 20 years old in 2005. If 3,467 of these drivers were killed, that means roughly .028 percent of all drivers between the ages of 15 and 20 were killed in car accidents -- hardly indicative of some epidemic. (Keep in mind this doesn't address how many of these deaths were actually alcohol-related but reflects total deaths.)

In 2006, the number of 15- to 20-year-olds killed in motor vehicle accidents was 3,490, which is more or less consistent with 2005 numbers given that 2006 total driver data are not available. However, according to the NHTSA, in 2006 "25 percent of the young drivers (15 to 20 years old) who were killed in crashes had a BAC of .08 g/dL or higher." This means that of the 3,490 drivers between the ages of 15 and 20 who were killed in 2006, only 873 were legally intoxicated. Put another way, less than one-hundredth of one percent (< .007%) of drivers between the ages of 15 and 20 were legally drunk when they were killed in a motor vehicle accident.

Perhaps the most interesting statistic in the NHTSA's fact sheet is the one indicating that 12.9 percent of all drivers involved in fatal crashes were between 15 and 20 years old in 2006 (this seems to take previous driving record and license status into account -- percentage of all young drivers involved in fatal crashes appears to be 13.2). While politicians like Mr. Holmes can grab onto these numbers to make a case for cracking down on young drivers, arguing that they're involved in a greater percentage of fatal accidents than their representation in the population, let's check out some other age groups.

In 2006, drivers 21 to 24 years old comprised 5.7 percent of the population while being involved in 11.4 percent of all fatal crashes; drivers 25 to 34 comprised 13.5 percent of the population while being involved in 19.8 percent of fatal crashes; and drivers 45 to 54 made up 14.5 percent of the population while being involved in 16.3 percent of fatal accidents. In fact, percent involvement in fatal accidents doesn't start to even out with motorists' percentage representation in the total population until age 55 and up.

Everything considered, these NHTSA data don't seem to indict so-called young drivers any more than they do older motorists, especially if we're going to try to argue that 15- to 20-year-old drivers constitute some reckless bunch of drunks that has to be reigned in by the state. Just the opposite, while every driving death is a tragedy and my argument is probably little consolation to someone who's lost a loved one to such an accident, the fact remains that less than one-hundredth of one percent of young drivers nationwide are killed as a result of drunken driving.

In short, life involves risk whether we like it or not. And we can be killed by driving just as we can be killed by cancer, heart disease, skiing, or playing sports. If anything, young drivers should be expected to be more involved in motor vehicle accidents than older drivers due simply to their relative inexperience, but even this doesn't seem to be supported by the data.

But then again, self-righteous politicians don't necessarily need to rely on statistics if they can count on gullible citizens to fall for their emotional mind games.

Comments

[TJ]

3,467 deaths out of 12.6 million drivers is 0.028%, not 2.8%

[trevor]

That's what I get for using the calculator on my computer, hurrying, and not noticing the e- function.

Thanks for the catch.