| So many alternative explanations unmentioned: 1. Drink/drugs impair your judgment, making you more likely to commit fraud if you were on the fence, or the impulsive sort. 2. Drunk drivers get into multiple accidents, but some are able to keep evidence of impairment off the record (buddy on the force or the insurance co, etc.) 3. Drivers doing drugs that aren't detectable on the spot, and clear the body quickly, reducing evidence of drug use in crashes. 4. More people are likely to do drink/drugs at night, so if 1-3 are true, we should expect to see more crashes at night. Likewise for a lack of witnesses (fewer passengers or bystanders). Most importantly, statistics are completely absent from the article. Does OP have any evidence these numbers wouldn't fit the correct random distribution? I know the point of fraud is to appear natural, but if done well, that means evidence has to be collected by other means, and this kind of analysis is only a weak signal. |