  In the field of road safety epidemiology, it is common to use responsibility
analyses to assess the effect of a given factor on the risk of being
responsible for an accident, among drivers involved in an accident only. Using
the SCM framework, we formally showed in previous works that the causal
odds-ratio of a given factor correlated with high speed cannot be unbiasedly
estimated through responsibility analyses if inclusion into the dataset depends
on the accident severity. The objective of this present work is to present
numerical results to give a first quantification of the magnitude of the
selection bias induced by responsibility analyses. We denote the binary
variables by X the exposure of interest, V the high speed, F the driving fault,
R the responsibility of a severe accident, A the severe accident, and W a set
of categorical confounders. We illustrate the potential bias by comparing the
causal effect of interest of X on R, COR(X,R|W=w), and the estimable odds-ratio
available in responsibility analyses, OR(X,R|W=w, A=1). By considering a binary
exposure, and by varying a set of parameters, we describe a situation where X
could represent alcohol or cannabis intoxication. We confirm that the estimable
odds-ratio available in responsibility analyses is a biased measure of the
causal effect when X is correlated with high speed V and V is related to the
accident severity A. In this case, the magnitude of the bias is all the more
important that these two relationships are strong. When X is likely to increase
the risk to drive fast V, the estimable odds-ratio underestimates the causal
effect. When X is likely to decrease the risk to drive fast V, the estimable
odds-ratio upperestimates the causal effect. The values of the different causal
quantities considered here are from one to five times higher (or lower) than
the estimable quantity available in responsability analyses.
