Fatal Accident Reporting System

Proof That You Are 20 TIMES More Likely to be Killed by a Sober Driver than a Drinking Driver

Forty Eight Million DUI Arrests And Half a $TRILLION Did Not Even “Save” 5,400 Lives

Total Number of Lives “Saved” Is 0.01% of the Number of DUI Arrests

0.1% of Those Arrested For DUI Were *Involved* in a Fatal Accident

0.01% of those Arrested Might Have *Caused” a Fatal Accident

Discussion of the  FARS FIASCO


  • Drivers in England With NO Roadblocks Are THREE TIMES Safer Than Ours.
  • World Health Organization: Each One Point Increase in IQ Saves 9 Lives per 100,000 Vehicles.
  • Highly Publicized Ancient Roadside Study is Wrong: 24%, not 4%, drink and drive.
  • Police Reported Alcohol Involvement LESS THAN FOUR PERCENT!
  • Why We MUST Crack Down on Teetotalers.
  • FARS 1998 Database, Drunk Drivers are at MOST Seven Percent.
  • FARS 1999 Database, Drunk Drivers Are 6.8 Percent to at most 7 Percent.
  • FARS 2001 Database, Drunk Drivers are at MOST Three Percent.
  • FARS 2008 Database, Drunk Drivers “Cause” 2% of Fatal Crashes.
  • Study of Thousands of College Students: 49-59% Drink & Drive.
  • Age Versus Time of Day of Accident: Young Drivers More Dangerous than Drunk Drivers.
  • Excellent Critique of MADD’s DUI Campaign.
  • Why Do We Still Have a Motor Vehicle Fatality Rate 3 Times Higher Than Countries Who Never Benefitted from MADD’s Wisdom?

The analysis by Connolly, Kimball, and Moulton (1989) mentioned above suggests that female drivers have both a higher overall crash risk and a higher alcohol-related fatal-crash risk. Combined data from FARS and the 1986 National Roadside Breathtesting Survey suggest that the relative fatal-crash risk of a female driver with a BAC of 0.10% or more could be of the order of 50% higher than it is for a male driver at the same BAC. Of course, estimates based on these two unmatched data sets are, as indicated above, are only very rough, but they are consistent with prior case-control studies (see Jones and Joscelyn 1978).

9,549 drunk drivers, or 3090 TOTAL (not just drivers) “alcohol involved”?

Why is there a THREE FOLD discrepancy in the FARS database search results?

The ONLY explanation for these EXTRA 6,459 alcohol related drivers in fatal accidents is that they PRESUME that drinking drivers are over-represented in fatal accidents, they REJECT all the data which disputes that, and then pervert the data to force it to match their misguided preconceptions.



FARS database search results are for ALL 81,620 crash victims in 2015, not just drivers

They exclude 842 drowsy driving accidents which are mysteriously missing from this database; as well as  2,193 accidents which the police report that drugs were a factor, but where alcohol was not; and 3,450 due to texting.
Police reported alcohol involvement = 81,620 – 67,900 = 13,720

BAC test = 7,963
PBT = 853
Behavioral = 392
PAS = 111
Observed = 4,308
“Other” like saliva = 93
Not reported = 67,900

Of 8,071 PEOPLE who the police reported as “alcohol involved”, BAC testing proved:

116 were “not reported”
669 were “test not given”
235 were “results unknown”
70 were “no actual value”
157 were “unknown if tested”
556 had a bac = 0
66 had a bac lower than 0.011

1,505 were non-drivers
2,193 drugs rather than alcohol were reported by the police to be involved
824 due to drowsy driving (which are suspiciously absent from this data base)
Total actual alcohol involvement of just drivers = 1,750





Police Reported Alcohol Involvement

Of the 37,502 drivers involved in fatal accidents in 2015, 6,418 or 17% of them were reported by the police to be �alcohol involved�

Of 7,974 PEOPLE who the police reported as “alcohol involved::

116 were “not reported”

669 were “test not given”

235 were “results unknown”

70 were “no actual value”

157 were “unknown if tested”

556 had a bac = 0

66 had a bac lower than 0.011

2,193 drugs rather than alcohol were reported by the police to be involved

824 due to drowsy driving (which are suspiciously absent from this data base)

Total actual alcohol involvement of ALL VICTIMS [not just drivers] = 3,090


Note that out of 81,620 PEOPLE (not just drivers) involved in fatal accidents in 2015, a mere 7,963, or 9.8% of them, actually had their BAC measured.

AND that of them, 4,505 had a BAC lower than 0.11, 1 was not tested, 72 were not tested, 42 had unknown results, 53 had no actual value, and 10 were not known if they were tested, leaving us with 4.0% of them, or 3,280 PEOPLE (not just drivers) who had a BAC greater than 0.11.

Can you please explain how do we get from there, to the 9,649 in your table who are DRIVERS with a BAC greater than 0.8?

Magic, eh?

The above graphs are hot off the very same FARS database this MISLEADING chart was based on.


Another problem with the above table which claims that there are 9,549 drunk drivers involved in fatal accidents each year is, that if you just take the time to search the FARS database, you fill find the following figures for 2015.

TOTAL police reported alcohol involvement of ALL victims [not just drivers] = 7,974
MINUS bac “not reported” = 116
MINUS “test not given” = 669
MINUS “results unknown” = 235
MINUS “no actual value” = 70
MINUS “unknown” = 157
MINUS bac lower than 0.011 = 620
MINUS drugs rather than alcohol were reported by the police to be involved = 2,193

MINUS drowsy driving accidents (which are suspiciously absent from this data base) = 824

EQUALS actual alcohol involvement of ALL VICTIMS [not just drivers] = 3,090

Drugs 3,672 vs. Alcohol at 3,090

Of 59,761 involved in fatal accidents, 32,538 were drivers, of whom 3,672 were reported by the police as “drug involvement”.
Of those 3,672, the alcohol test results were:

BAC = 0 = 1,701
“not reported” = 39
“test not given” = 283
“results unknown” = 108
‘no actual value” = 18
“unknown if tested” = 43

Number with BAC > 0.011  (those who were under the influence of both drugs and alcohol) = 1,479

Number where drugs were the only factor in the accident = 2,193

 If you search it by person type versus police-reported alcohol involvement this is what you get:

Driver who the police reported were alcohol involved = 6,418
All other drivers [read: not alcohol involved] = 31,084
iow, you are about five times more likely to be killed by a sober driver than a drinking driver

Alcohol involved passenger = 288
Alcohol involved pedestrian = 997
Alcohol involved bicyclist = 85

Of 7,064 Non-Occupants, 1,699 had a BAC greater than 0.011

  • 1,390 males
  • 309 females

“Traffic fatalities in alcohol-related crashes fell by 1 percent from 1998 to
1999. The 15,786 alcohol-related fatalities in 1999 (38 percent of total
traffic fatalities for the year) represent a 30 percent reduction from the
22,404 alcohol-related fatalities reported in 1989 (49 percent of the total).”

The FARS database itself proves thata the second statement above is an egregious misrepresentation of the data.  Researching a number of different years in this database indicates that the general trend of drinking and driving is that about ten percent of the more than 100,000 people involved in fatal accidents each year are reported by the police as alcohol involved.


  • 37% are determined by blood alcohol testing to not have had a bac > .10%, relegating ONE THIRD of these to false arrests

  • 33% are “Not a Fatality”

  • 32% are not drivers of motor vehicles: they are passengers, pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, etc.

  • 27% are young drivers who NHTSA reports have such a high fatality rate that drinking and driving has negligible [read: zero] impact on their already high accident rate

  • 17% SHOULD be attributed to drowsy driving even though NHTSA estimates only 4% are

  • 1% are attributed to drug involvement

This is 147% of all the people involved in fatal accidents who police report each year are alcohol involved.  So where is the drunk driver who the above statement implies is the one who allegedly causes 38-49% of all fatal accidents each year, or as Justice Roberts puts it, 14,000 accidents annually?  And what about the role of women drivers who NHTSA claims are 50% more likely to have a fatal accident than men drivers, versus drinking men drivers with a BAC of 0.12 who are only 30% more?  Or Hispanic drivers whose brethren in Mexico are, according to the World Health Organization, 5 TIMES more likely per car than the average American driver to have a fatal accident, or Blacks whose brethren in the Central African Republic who are 590 TIMES as likely?

There is some overlap between these various factors which is why they add up to 147% of the Police Reported Alcohol Involvement.  For example, if 2% of the drowsy drivers were also young drivers, then the total would be only 145%.  And if half of those who were not a fatality were also passengers or pedestrians, then the total would be only 127.5%.  And if the 1% who are drug involved were also young drivers, then the total would be only 126.5%.

How many fatal accidents are left over to be blamed on drunk drivers as the cause of (not just involved in) these accidents?  None?

Is it even remotely possible in your mind that drunk drivers are the SAFEST drivers?

Research it yourself.  There are many different ways to view it and you might get a more accurate reading, or discover other factors that have been overlooked.  If you do, please let us know so it can be included on the above list.

Of Ten Thousand Police Reported Alcohol Involvement Cases Annually

  • 33% Are “Not A Fatality”
  • 43% are Non-Hispanic
  • 42.5% are White
  • 5.2% are Hispanic
  • 5.2% are Black

There are two key things missing from the following analysis of the FARS database:

  1. Marijuana users who are 25% more likely to have an accident, and are 16% of fatal accidents.
  2. Drowsy drivers who are now reported to be more dangerous than drinking drivers.
  • Of all of the 102,382 people involved in fatal accidents each year:
    • 12,642 or 12.3% had a BAC > 0.01.
      • 905 or 0.9% of these were listed as “Alcohol not Involved”.
      • 2,339 or 2.3% were listed as “Not Reported”.
      • 2,395 or 2.3% were listed as “Unknown”.
      • 7,003 or 6.8% were listed as “Alcohol Involved”.
      • Of these, 5,738 or 5.6% of all those involved actually did have a BAC > 0.10
    • 9,925 or 9.7% were listed as “Alcohol Involved”
      • 504 or 0.5% had a BAC = 0.
      • 39 or 0.04% refused the test.
      • 770 or 0.8% were not given the test.
      • 929 or 0.9% had unknown test results
      • 680 or 9.7% were listed as “Unknown”
      • 7,003 or 6.8% are known to have had a BAC > 0.01
      • Of these, 5,738 or 5.6% of all those involved are known to have had a BAC > 0.10
  • Of the 5,738 people (not just drivers) involved in fatal accidents who had a BAC > 0.1 which were “alcohol involved”:
    • 994 or 1% were passengers.
    • 5 were occupants of vehicles which were stationary.
    • 1,215 OR 1.2% were pedestrians.
    • 118 were bicyclists.
    • 42 were other than drivers.
    • 584 were driving motorcycles, ATV’s, golf carts, mopeds, farm equipment, or snowmobiles.
    • This leaves 2,780 truck or passenger car drivers in “Alcohol Involved” accidents who had a BAC > 0.10, or 2.7% of all of those involved in fatal accidents.
  • Compared to truck and passenger car drivers in fatal accidents who were known to have had a BAC > 0.10:
    • THIRTY SIX TIMES (36X) as many involved drivers who did NOT have a BAC > 0.10.
    • SEVEN TIMES as many fatal accidents involved drivers who were known to have had a BAC = 0.
    • TWENTY ONE TIMES (21X) as many fatal accidents involved drivers who were not even given the test.

Drowsy Driving

In 2008, there were 1,799 drivers whose accidents the NHTSA attributed to drowsy driving, which is 2.7% of the 66,244 drivers who were involved in fatal accidents. 87 of the accidents involving the 2,247 drivers with a BAC > .10 or 4% of them were attributed to drowsy driving. However, this is not a fair assessment of the real effects of drowsy driving.  If NHTSA is willing to admit that drowsy driving was the REASON that 2,660 SOBER drivers had a fatal accident, for what reason would they not notice that most of the fatal accidents involving drinking drivers occur at a time when THESE drivers are also drowsy?  For example, they estimate that only 4 of the drivers with a BAC = 0.20 were driving drowsy and that 434 were NOT.

Can you imagine having 15 drinks and NOT appearing drowsy to at least SOME of these experts?  I cannot, and believe that attributing 17% of police reported alcohol involvement to drowsy driving is extremely conservative.


Women and Black Drivers

Because women are 50% to four times more likely per mile driven to have fatal accidents than men, and because the United Nations reports that Black drivers are 100 to one THOUSAND more time per car to have a fatal accident than White drivers, failing to take these vast differences in driving ability into account greatly skews the data.

When counted by race, of 84,026 persons involved in fatal accidents in 2008, 46,669 were not a fatality, 7,763 were marked “blank”, and 2,966 were marked “unknown”.  Of the 26,628 fatalities whose race was known or specified, 21,939 or 82.4% were White,13.4% were Black, 23,355 or 87.7% were non-Hispanic, and 2,241 or 8.4% were Hispanic.



This author was involved in a minor accident in the middle of nowhere, in the middle of the night, with only one witness–a police officer who clearly saw that the reason for the accident was the other driver failing to stop for a stop sign until he was in the middle of the road and slammed on his brakes way too late.  The officer asked “have you been drinking”, and being young and naive I acknowledged that I had had a glass of wine with lunch, 11 hours earlier.  He wrote “HBD” on the ticket, which is the only comment he wrote about this accident.  When my insurance company heard this, no explanation was needed–they were going to pay for the accident no matter who was at fault because it was ME who “had been drinking”.

This accident became one of the 4% which was counted as “police reported alcohol involvement” even though alcohol clearly had nothing to do with it.  But in searching the FARS database, there’s no way to establish how many accidents are mis-reported like this because there is no option for the police to report the TRUTH about what they actually witnessed. This is a KEY factor which could be as much if not more than fifty percent of all of these types of reports.



MADD mania was started by the most irresponsible parents imaginable, people who always blame society for all their problems and NEVER take responsibility for their own mistakes, failures, and bad parental decisions. It was their own STUPID parental decisions which caused all their own grief, and now the grief of 48 million Americans who’ve been arrested for DUI, NOT for making bad parental decisions (as they have), NOT because they committed a “crime”, but because they MIGHT have had enough to drink to MAYBE increase their probability of having an ACCIDENT that the FARS database proves that the VAST MAJORITY of them NEVER even had. Over the last three decades, the MAXIMUM number of drivers who MIGHT have been responsible for CAUSING a fatal accident is (45,000/year x 30 years x 4% = ) 54,000, with SOBER drivers ONE HUNDRED RESPONSIBLE for the other 1,296,000 fatal accidents.

Had we NOT arrested FORTY EIGHT MILLION AMERICAN CITIZENS for DUI, is it even remotely possible that MORE than 54,000 drinking drivers would have been *responsible* for causing a fatal accident? Most emphatically NOT. But just for grins, let’s make the HUGE leap of faith that this figure would have been DOUBLE that, and that this massive witch hunt actually SAVED 54,000 lives.

Is it even close to being worth THIS MUCH to save so few lives? This would STILL mean that (48,000,000 – 108,000 / 48,000,000) = 99.775% of those ARRESTED were ARRESTED for a “crime” [read: accident] they NEVER committed [read: for you liberals out there, this means that the DAMAGE that all 47,892,000 of these drivers arrested for drinking and driving, COMBINED, inflicted on society was ZERO], and who we know with absolute, utter mathematical certainty never will have a fatal accident.

Add to that the fact that every other country which outlawed random alcohol breath testing actually saw their fatality rates drop, some by as much as two thirds. Countries like England now have ONE THIRD the fatal accident rate per car that we do, and we have a huge amount of evidence that the PRIMARY CAUSE of our very high fatality rate is random alcohol breath testing itself.

Cost per Life “Saved”

Each one of these DUI arrests is estimated to have cost the arrestee at LEAST $10,000 when all factors are combined (PLUS 90,000 suicides motivated by DUI arrests), making the combined costs of this colossal hoax more than $480 BILLION. How many lives were ACTUALLY saved? The most optimistic estimate, even if we did not KNOW that this program INCREASED rather than reduced our motor vehicle fatality rate, is 10% of the 54,000 lives, or 5,400 lives. This is an average of $89 MILLION per live “saved” ($480 billion / 5,400 lives “saved”) making this not only an extreme violation of basic civil and constitutional rights, but a HUGE waste of money as well. The MAXIMUM contribution of MADD per 100,000 of the arrested population is that 11 WERE prevented from being involved in (not necessarily CAUSING) a fatal accident which means conversely that 99,989 per 100,000 were NOT involved AND could NEVER have been involved no matter how many might be arrested.


How Else Could $89 Million Be Spent To Save Just One Life?

How smart can our rulers be to spend $89 BILLION per life “saved” based solely on the assumption that they know precisely how much EACH of us must drink to raise our BAC level to *exactly* 0.10, and that at that level EACH of us have precisely the same increased risk of *causing* a fatal accident, and that there are NO other factors responsible, not even those numerous factors which drove SOBER drivers to cause the other 96% of all accidents? How else could we the people (and taxpayers) apply $89 million to save ONE life? What other group per 100,000 people should we arrest based on the *presumption* that they are equipped to commit a future crime which we know with absolute mathematical certainty that 99.775% DID not commit and WILL not ever commit, not even over the next 3 DECADES?

Where else is it recorded in human history that so many were arrested for a victimless “crime” based on a *presumption* that they might have increased their odds of having an *accident* simply by their dietary choices?  Our Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they got wind of this–it would make King George look like a pussy cay by comparison.

It’s known by instructor pilots that garlic slows down reaction times so much that they order student pilots not to eat garlic for lunch. Might we be more successful at saving lives from traffic accidents by simply ARRESTING 48 million putative garlic eaters simply on the suspicion that they might have an accident which could be considered a future “crime”?

The FBI tells us that they know with absolute certainty based on PAST performance that black male youths between the age of 16 to 24 WILL commit homicide at a rate of 300 per 100,000 making them FAR MORE deadly than drinking drivers. Why not arrest ALL blacks right out of the box based on the CERTAINTY that they are 27 TIMES more likely to murder someone than a drunk driver is to cause a fatal accident? At the moment of the formation of MADD, had we instead redirected this half a TRILLION DOLLARS towards segregating the 1% of the population who are black male youths from everyone else, 51% of the murders committed since 1980 would not have taken place, which we know with absolute certainty would have saved 367,200 American lives.


Bottom Line

The following is a detailed breakdown the number of PEOPLE with a BAC (blood alcohol content) greater than 0.10 according to the 2009 FARS database:

Police reported alcohol involved = 8,791

Costly BAC analysis proved more than ONE THIRD (39.4%) did NOT have a BAC greater than 0.10 = 3,459

Confirmed by costly BAC analysis to have a BAC greater than 0.10 = 5,332

– 874 Motorcycles = 4,458

-710 Passengers = 3,488

-978 Pedestrians = 2,770

-675 Police reported drugs were a factor = 2,095

-800 cell phones a factor = 1,295

– 13 Mopeds, 3 small ATVs, 10 Off-road vehicles, = 1,121
17 snow mobiles, 4 farm equipment, 14 golf carts
9 unknown, 10 personal conveyances, and 94 bicycles

-2,265 not wearing a seat belt was a factor = -1,144

-2,374 young drivers = -3,515

-1,494 drowsy drivers = -5,009

Unfortunately, the remainder were intentionally killed by the legendary, maniacal, suicidal, anti-social drunk driver.


Ignoring the above facts, and ASSUMING that 10% of all fatal accidents involve a driver with a BAC greater than 0.10 (drunk drivers), that 90% involve only drivers with a BAC < 0.10 (sober drivers), and that only 30% of all drivers IN GENERAL have a BAC greater than 0.10:

  1. Which driver are you most likely to be killed by?  A drunk driver or a sober driver?
  2. By how much?
  3. Per mile, which is the most dangerous driver?
  4. By how much?

By jacobisrael