Drunk Driver Survives Accident--Confirmation Bias?

[Richard_Parker]

I think it’s a pretty common belief that drunk drivers somehow survive the accidents they cause at much higher rates than the people with whom they collide.

I’ve heard various explanations, all of which sound false to me: the drunk driver’s sheer drunkenness somehow keeps their body limp and therefore safe (?!); the drunk driver usually sees the accident coming, so while he doesn’t have the reaction time to avoid it, he is often able to crash in such a way that damages him less; etc.

I can imagine some more plausible reasons. Maybe drunks are more likely to collide in certain ways that are favorable to them (like t-boning another car, or the like). But the more likely explanation for this myth would seem to be simple confirmation bias.

So is there something more to this than confirmation bias?

[Bearflag70]

I had dinner once in a Texas trailer park and the owner said about a friend, “Thank God he was drunk when he rolled his truck, otherwise, he might have been really hurt.”

That’s my proof.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Richard Parker

I think it’s a pretty common belief that drunk drivers somehow survive the accidents they cause at much higher rates than the people with whom they collide.

I’ve heard various explanations, all of which sound false to me: the drunk driver’s sheer drunkenness somehow keeps their body limp and therefore safe (?!); the drunk driver usually sees the accident coming, so while he doesn’t have the reaction time to avoid it, he is often able to crash in such a way that damages him less; etc.

I can imagine some more plausible reasons. Maybe drunks are more likely to collide in certain ways that are favorable to them (like t-boning another car, or the like). But the more likely explanation for this myth would seem to be simple confirmation bias.

So is there something more to this than confirmation bias?

How about, before we bother to see why this might be true, or thought to be true, we get some evidence on whether or not drunk drivers are more or less likely to survive/be seriously hurt in accidents they cause than their victims? :smack:

[Dinsdale]

Sorry to offer nothing but an anecdote, but all I’ve got is my buddy who got hit head-on by a drunk. The drunk died, my buddy did not.

[Critical1]

the reason a lot of drunks survive is the whole relaxed state they tend to be in. talk to an emt some time. I love hearing about people who tense up so much that they rupture their lungs when the impact hits, (ok I dont love it, but its interesting) on the flip side it seems almost any head injury a drunk gets ends up being fatal or permanent. the booze lets the brain swell more or something.

now weather or not this adds up to more drunks surviving than victims I dont know.

[HMS_Irruncible]

Could be a few things. When drunk drivers die, nobody runs their mug shots in the newspaper or talks about their prior offenses. When your child gets killed by a drunk driver who is killed, there’s no buzz about whether he’ll get what he deserved or not. The matter is closed, in terms of current events. And statistically speaking, of all drunk drivers killed in accidents, none has ever been charged with DUI. The activist judges are shockingly lenient on dead people.

But let one luckless bastard run over a child and stagger unscathed out of a pancaked Mustang… no matter how many years have passed, it still seems like it was yesterday.

[Richard_Parker]

@DSYoungEsq

How about, before we bother to see why this might be true, or thought to be true, we get some evidence on whether or not drunk drivers are more or less likely to survive/be seriously hurt in accidents they cause than their victims? :smack:

Thanks for the useful response.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

Drunk drivers are, by definition, in the drivers seat of the car. Many of their victims are passengers in a car. Until recently, the drivers seat had more protective hardware than the rest of the car. For example, passenger-side air bags were just an option until recently.

So possibly this equipment protects a driver (drunk or sober) vs. a passenger.

[Richard_Parker]

@t-bonham@scc.net

Drunk drivers are, by definition, in the drivers seat of the car. Many of their victims are passengers in a car. Until recently, the drivers seat had more protective hardware than the rest of the car. For example, passenger-side air bags were just an option until recently.

So possibly this equipment protects a driver (drunk or sober) vs. a passenger.

Ah, that’s a good point. Is there a good place to find statistics on this sort of thing?

[Mr.Slant]

Check out NHTSA crash results.
In every car I’ve ever checked out, you had MORE, not less, damage to the test dummies in the driver’s seat than in the passenger’s seat.

[Rick]

I have heard that drunks actually die at a higher rate than sober drivers. But with that said, I have seen drunks survive accidents that I thought for sure were a fatal.
About 25 years ago, a drunk hit a parked 1 ton van parked across the street from my house. He hit it hard enough, this fully loaded van (construction work) was punted about 15 feet. His full sized Chevy was destroyed to the windshield. The hood of his car was pretty much intact, but in the center of the road.
I woke up when the accident occurred, looked out the window, and started putting on my clothes. I went out fully prepared to deal with either a fatal or a serious injury (I had my almost trauma level first aid kit with me)
A police officer was leaning in the car saying “Are you OK?”
WTF?
The officer stepped back and this drunk got out of the car and staggered to the curb. Not a scratch on him. Didn’t even hit the windshield. Totaled two cars, and not a scratch. No seat belts either.
:eek:
I have no fucking clue how he survived.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Richard Parker

I think it’s a pretty common belief that drunk drivers somehow survive the accidents they cause at much higher rates than the people with whom they collide.

While I’d rather be strapped inside the collision vehicle than be run over by it . Does that make sense?

[mhendo]

From Confronting Drunk Driving: Social Policy for Saving Lives, by H.R. Ross:

Finally, despite the belief that drunk drivers usually kill innocent people, most of the drunk drivers’ victims are the drivers themselves, their often drunken passengers, and drunken pedestrians and cyclists.

p. 2

And, from this report (pdf) about drunk-driving in Madison, Wisconsin:

The person who dies in a fatal accident involving a drinking-driver in Madison is most often the driver himself. The second most likely victim is a passenger of the drinking driver. In the period from 1975 through 1980, only two persons who were neither an at-fault driver nor a passenger in the at fault vehicle were killed in an accident clearly attributable to a drinking-driver.

<snip>

As the table so clearly indicates, drinking-drivers in Madison more often kill themselves (62% of all victims in an accident in which a drinking-driver is at fault) than someone else.

The passenger of a drinking-driver is the second most likely victim. We distinguish passengers in an at-fault vehicle from passengers in the vehicle hit by an intoxicated driver, who we refer to as “innocent” because we assume the former entered the drinking-driver’s vehicle on their own volition, knowing that their driver was’ intoxicated. Using this distinction, totally innocent victims (i.e., those persons obeying the law and not putting themselves at risk) were involved in only two of the drinking-driver cases. One was the passenger in a vehicle hit by a drinking-driver. Another was a pedestrian. Both cases occurred in the last half of 1980, and both received a great deal of publicity.

<snip>

These data lead us to conclude that, at least in Madison, drinking-drivers might be more aptly compared to suicides than murderers. Such a finding should not be construed as diminish ing the seriousness of the drinking-driving problem. The death of one “innocent” person in Madison as the result of a drinking driver is a matter of concern. Moreover, the loss of lives, whatever the cause, is a matter of community concern. And whether the “suicide” takes another life in the course of taking his own is largely a matter of chance. We believe, rather, that this finding simply indicates that the problem, at least in Madison, is somewhat different from common perceptions of it. One major consequence, we suspect, is that the high percentage of victims (93%) who are in some way responsible for their own deaths works against developing and sustaining long-term efforts to control the drinking-driver.

By contrast, only 31% of the victims in the “at-fault, not a drinking-driver” cases were either at-fault drivers or passengers in the at-fault vehicle.

pp. 22-23

[Richard_Parker]

Thanks mhendo!

[DSYoungEsq]

So, as I was trying to point out, the supposition of the OP is incorrect.

[Una_Persson]

100 points for mhendo.

[msmith537]

@Critical1

the reason a lot of drunks survive is the whole relaxed state they tend to be in. talk to an emt some time. I love hearing about people who tense up so much that they rupture their lungs when the impact hits, (ok I dont love it, but its interesting) on the flip side it seems almost any head injury a drunk gets ends up being fatal or permanent. the booze lets the brain swell more or something.

Sounds like bullshit to me. Most likely they rupture their lungs when the dashboard goes through them.

One reason drunk drivers may survive more often is that a significant number of DUI accidents are side impact collissions. In other words the drunk runs a stopsign or red light and T-bones a car. It’s pretty well understood that the car hit from the side is usually much worse off than the one impacting from the front. The side impacted car has no engine block or crumple zones between the occupant and the impact.

[An_Gadai]

@mhendo

From Confronting Drunk Driving: Social Policy for Saving Lives, by H.R. Ross:And, from this report (pdf) about drunk-driving in Madison, Wisconsin:

I don’t fully understand the first quote, if the pedestrian the drunk driver hit was also drunk they some how weren’t innocent?

[Q.E.D]

@DSYoungEsq

So, as I was trying to point out, the supposition of the OP is incorrect.

Where in the OP is this alleged supposition?

[Qadgop_the_Mercotan]

@Critical1

the reason a lot of drunks survive is the whole relaxed state they tend to be in. talk to an emt some time. I love hearing about people who tense up so much that they rupture their lungs when the impact hits, (ok I dont love it, but its interesting) on the flip side it seems almost any head injury a drunk gets ends up being fatal or permanent. the booze lets the brain swell more or something.

I’d like to see a cite for this. It contradicts a lot of what I know about trauma.