I have significant issues with that chart. The source is the authors own work and it's not referenced or published anywhere else. The single reference is a 23 year old CDC report from which the author has extracted ICD codes from incomplete data charts that this report uses as a limited reference.

He also missed the fact that "Other and Non specified" categories include ICD codes that directly specify falls. Just falls from or to various circumstances that aren't covered by the basic W codes.

It's a bad chart, "They appear not to," would be more accurate, but I tend to think this chart was made with appearances as a priority over accuracy and understanding.

Alright, a different and more recent source shows it being significantly closer but still with motor vehicles leading: https://www.nsc.org/in-the-newsroom/nsc-statement-on-new-cdc...

Well, if you accept their notions of "preventable" and the categorizations that result. A vehicular death from DUI is still preventable in the vehicular category? Are we suggesting the vehicle was the primary cause or the alcohol? Are we trying to make vehicles safe enough for drunks to drive? If not, then this scheme is a little out of whack for what I was trying to get at. Or what anyone who doesn't have an prejudiced agenda against vehicles would want to know.

Those statistics also include pedestrians who got hit, and motorcyclists who met the end of their road. Those two together are 32% of the total. Again, is the vehicle at fault here, or risky behavior? Which are we trying to measure?

At face value, you are right, though; however, it's still pretty close and the rate of change suggests a crossing. In either case, I know which hazard I would consider more pertinent to avoid in my own daily life. You can drive defensively and just not drink, you can't exactly climb a ladder defensively no matter how sober you are.