Quote:
|
I just like the result of BC law, it has reduced deaths
|
For the last freaking time, you can't make that claim. The statistics you're using compared a single year versus a five year average. Do you not understand how that methodology is flawed and could lead to incorrect conclusions? Do you also not understand how correlation does not necessarily mean causation?
Here is the statement you're looking at:
Quote:
|
The government says preliminary data shows 68 people died in alcohol-related vehicle crashes between Oct. 1, 2010 and Sept. 30 this year, compared to 113 deaths on average in each of the previous five years.
|
And from that you draw the conclusion that this new law has definitively reduced alcohol-related vehicle fatalities.
What if the individual year-by-year numbers were this (I'm just making these numbers up as an example to show how the stats could be misleading):
Year 1: 150
Year 2: 130
Year 3: 110
Year 4: 95
Year 5: 80
5-year Average: 113
Year 6: 68 (40% lower than the 5-year average)
So, is the new law the cause of the decline in drunk-driving deaths seen in Year 6 compared to the 5-year average, or is the decline just a continuation of a downward trend that was already occurring even before the new law?
Even if there wasn't a downward trend prior to Year 6, perhaps the decline can be attributed to the huge amount of press attention surrounding the bill and had nothing to do with the law itself? Or maybe it's because cops are spending more time enforcing drunk driving checkstops in the wake of the new law, particularly because the government has a direct financial incentive (licence reinstatement fee cash grab) for them to do so? Do the stats that show a decline in drunk-driving deaths after the law went into effect control for any of these and other factors?