Two drinks will put a small person over 0.08. And even one drink consumed before a person gets involved in an accident will cause that accident to be "alcohol related" even if the person who had the drink was in no way at fault when the accident occurred.
One thing to beware of is a phenomenon I call 'statistical homeopathy'. The more remote a causal linkage the stronger the claimed effect.
For example, suppose that accidents were only called 'alcohol related' if they were materially caused by a driver whose BAC was 0.20 or above. There would then be some number of 'alcohol related' accidents each year.
Now redefine 'alcohol related' accidents to include those where an at-fault driver had a BAC of 0.10 or above. Under that definition there will be more 'alcohol related' accidents per year.
Now redefine things further and include any accident in which any participant, whether or not that participant was at fault (or even driving), had a BAC of 0.01 and there will be even more 'alcohol related' accidents.
Note that in the original case, the causual relationship was probably pretty strong. In the latter case it's pretty weak. Nonetheless, the weaker the causal relationship the stronger the claimed causation.
But if they're going to go that far, why not go all the way? Declare an accident to be 'alcohol related' if anyone within a mile of it has ever consumed a drop of alcohol in their life. Lo and behold--99.9% of accidents are "alcohol related"! We must ban the demon run!
"Two drinks will put a small person over 0.08."
Please define 'small person'. How many pounds?
"And even one drink consumed before a person gets involved in an accident will cause that accident to be "alcohol related" even if the person who had the drink was in no way at fault when the accident occurred."
Ok take your example and cut into thirds... saying 2/3 of the deaths are only related in the way you relate.
That means that over 5000 people STILL died as a result of drinking and driving. There is no way to spin out the fact that drinking and driving combine to create death and destruction.
"Now redefine 'alcohol related' accidents to include those where an at-fault driver had a BAC of 0.10 or above."
See my last paragraph.
"In the latter case it's pretty weak."
Over 5000 deaths ( not including injuries) is pretty weak?
Sorry you feel that way.
I guess you fell 9 11 was pretty weak too then right? After all only a bit more than half that died that day, and by your standards that would be pretty weak, right?