Drunk drivers sustain less injuries during a car crash compared to sober drivers

Question

"Because of their impaired perception and reaction time, the drunk driver doesn’t prepare for impact. Ironically, the alert, sober driver who braces for the crash is making their body more stiff and brittle right before the moment of impact. Therefore, they are more likely to sustain serious injuries. Meanwhile, the drunk driver stays relaxed and pliable."

Comments

This is a very well-thought-out article to back up the claim drunk drivers sustain fewer and less severe injuries during a car crash. They rationalize why, provide evidence, and link many sources to back up their claim. I'm concerned a reader may be inclined to drink and drive after reading this article if they misinterpret the claim. It's way more dangerous to drive under the influence because you are more likely to get in a crash. However, if you do get in a crash being drunk will cause you to face less injury.

---

The main claim made in this article that drunk drivers are more likely to survive a car crash is misinformation. The sources listed inside the article contain uncited information and occasional spelling and grammar errors. The article references a study, although the link does not send the reader directly to the study.

Answer 1

The claim that "Drunk drivers sustain less injuries during a car crash compared to sober drivers" is likely misinformation. 

The origin article uses a study from the University of Illinois Chicago to back up the bulk of its claim. They also link an article within the first sentence: https://www.thedrive.com/news/3704/first-responders-tell-us-why-drunk-people-are-more-likely-to-survive-a-collision, which does not seem to be from a reliable source and contains a lot of outdated and debunked information. The link for the UIC study within the article brings you to another article (not the actual study): https://www.livescience.com/24979-alcohol-injury-outcome.html. This article just goes over what the study found. The actual study: https://today.uic.edu/alcohol-provides-protective-effect-reduces-mortality-substantially-after-injury has the same information and essentially states that alcohol changes the way your heart pumps and regulates its blood which could be crucial when dealing with trauma injuries from car crashes. This claim is also somewhat dangerous as it can lead readers to believe that they should drive drunk or that it is okay to do.

Comments

That's a very interesting perspective. Although the first statement you disputed was not 100% true, it still had some truth in it based on the way you handle trauma when having alcohol in your system.

Answer 2

This article is exaggerated and not fully truthful. The study done at UIC that is discussed how the body responds to trauma while under the influence but does not discuss drunk driving. It also does not discuss how many car crashes are due to drunk driving and the overlap in injuries/death. The facts that are given in the article are correct but not presented correctly and overexaggerated.

Comments

While I do agree that the article is exaggerating, it may be helpful to find some sources that could help you make your claim. Finding one source to back up your claim is good, but having two or more is even better, because you'll have more evidence to use.

---

This is a strong distinction you are making.  The facts presented in this article are accurate, just they way they are presented is misleading. The study you talked about focuses on how the body physiologically responds to trauma under the influence of alcohol, not the real risks of drunk driving. This spreads misinformation. You pointed out where data was missed was very important. Overall  your critique highlights an important idea that its not just about if the facts and information given is accurate, but more about how it is presented and with how much context it includes. With this, even true facts have a chance of being misleading based on how they are presented.

---

I agree with your thoughts on the article. I would add a bit more evidence to make your claim even stronger. The more evidence will help your argument become a lot more convincing to anyone that thinks differently.

Answer 3

While the article looks and feels well thought out as they link an abundance of sources throughout, they are all repeating the same information. The studies done weren't extensive and were outdated. Not only that but they link an article: https://www.livescience.com/24979-alcohol-injury-outcome.html that contradicts their point. Stating that drunk drivers are less likely to have injuries in a crash because of the physiological effects of the blood-alcohol content, not due to the loosening of muscles. Additionally one of their linked "articles" is actually a podcast talking about the claim: https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/odds-favor-drunk-trauma-victims-09-10-01/. The article also fails to mention the correlation between drunk drivers and accidents in the first place. Not even discussing the fact that drunk drivers are much more likely to get hurt in car crashes because they're more likely to cause them, as stated in the National Library of Medicine: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6676697/#b38-63-78. 

Comments

Your feedback it really helpful on explaining the truth behind this article. Looking at the sources you put I can see that they had misinformation about why the crashes happen and it was not stated in the article. I think that was a good piece of information to share supporting your reasoning.

---

I really appreciate the thought that went into your response. It is clear that you went through the article meticulously and were able to point out the aspects that were misleading and outdated. I think your response is very helpful to people who just read the article at face value and don't click on or look into the sources provided. As they could easily be fooled by the argument that the article was trying to portray.

---

Your use of many, varied sources is very appreciated when a lot of these answers do not have very many claims to back up what they are stating. I do agree that most of the other articles mentioned fail to provide any sort of nuance that comes with discussing this topic. The time that you took to make sure you were getting accurate information is greatly welcomed in this conversation.