Drunk driving is a political crime.  Because the facts surrounding the dangers of drunk driving do not support the neo-Prohibitionist anti-alcohol, political agenda of MADD and other temperance organizations, they forced the government to create the category labeled “alcohol-related [accidents, deaths, etc.],” which generates the pumped up [read "phony"] statistics that get legislators, judges, and unknowing citizens in a veritable lather about DUI/DWI.  But “alcohol-related” accidents include any traffic accident, regardless of cause, in which any driver, passenger, or pedestrian has alcohol in their system, or spilled on them, or in which any vehicle has the contents of sealed alcohol containers broken open and spilled due to the impact of the accident.  It has nothing to do with fault or cause of the accident or the death or the condition of the driver.

So, a drunk pedestrian falls in front of a car driven by a totally sober Sunday school teacher coming home from her class and is unavoidably struck, that will go down as an "alcohol-related accident."  Then that stat. will get discussed in the context of drunk driving, and pretty soon you have pneumatic numbers utterly at odds with the comparatively de minimis numbers of accidents actually "caused by" a "drunk driver."

Yes, yes, we all have anecdotal examples of someone we know or have heard about who was hurt or killed by a drunk driver.  Anecdotal examples, in far greater numbers, exist of people wrongfully shot, tasered, arrested, or billyclubbed by out-of-control cops, and that makes right-thinking people more mad than MADD ever could get.   Where's the societal and jury and judicial outrage about that?  Government propaganda stokes the fires of drunk driving rage, but quenches the fires of its own outrageous conduct.  That is why jurors have to start to be considerably more conscientious about their founding role to protect us from out-of-control government.