Ed Haas

NHTSA admits Misinterpretation of Alcohol-Related Traffic Fatality Statistics by some Data Users

August 17, 2004 -- In a letter I received on August 15, 2004, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has admitted that the statistics compiled by NHTSA under the heading of alcohol-related traffic fatality are on occasion, being misinterpreted by data users. This wasn't news to me, but still, it's nice to finally get some of my arguments validated. Although NHTSA did try to minimize the frequency of the misinterpretation of their statistics, I am of the belief that once is enough, especially if the misinterpretation becomes misrepresentation to our lawmakers.

I challenged NHTSA to prove that they were not in violation of the Data Quality Act. The Data Quality Act establishes guidelines designed to maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information that federal agencies disseminate to the public.

Responding to my challenge, Susan White, Chief Information Officer for NHTSA offered the following thoughtful comments.

"NHTSA uses the term alcohol-related as a term of art (underline added) in reporting of data for use in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)."

"Alcohol-related is a convenient term (underline added) used to categorize the incidence of alcohol presence from reviewing law enforcement crash reports either from known alcohol test results or from an imputation method when reports fail to contain the necessary data. NHTSA does not collect information to determine the actual cause of the crash or the fatality (underline added)."

Even in plain-English, use of the term related is not translated to mean cause (underline added)."

"In addition, the panel noted that the term alcohol-related is occasionally misinterpreted (underline added) by data users."

"Acknowledging this occasional misinterpretation (underline added), NHTSA plans to take further actions to educate users and clarify NHTSA's use of the term alcohol-related. Among these actions will be the introduction of a new fact sheet in the near future that will detail the roles and BAC levels of those killed in alcohol-related crashes."

"We appreciate your attention to the accuracy of data regarding alcohol-related crashes. We agree that the information of this importance needs to be communicated as clearly as possible (underline added)."

So who are these data users that might be misinterpreting the alcohol-related traffic fatality statistics? They are members of MADD, police departments, highway patrol, and insurance companies, along with some attorneys, politicians, and newspaper editors. What troubles me most about some of these data users is their apparent lack of interest in any statistical evidence that might weaken their chances of convincing lawmakers to pass even harsher DUI laws. Isn't it the primary goal of DUI laws to reduce drunk driving traffic fatalities in the United States? If so, then why is there any need whatsoever to work with questionable, misleading, misinterpreted, or misrepresented statistics? Why are some of these data users angered by the idea that drunk driving might not be responsible for as many deaths as they once thought? What if it were to be discovered that of the approximately 17,500 alcohol-related traffic fatalities reported in 2003, only half actually were caused by a confirmed, legally intoxicated driver?

I can see the headlines now - Drunk Driving Traffic Fatalities Plummet 50% Overnight! Of course on page A-16 between the horoscopes and weather map would be this headline - 1.5 Million People Arrested for DUI in 2003 Demand a Recount!

Your donations sustain the Muckraker Report Archive. Please donate.