I would imagine that drunk walking has less of a chance of killing others though. This doesn't even have to be by-standers. For example, with 4 drunk teenagers in a car, it just takes 1 drunk teen to kill 4. On the other hand, if you have 4 drunk walking teens, that kind of outcome is far less likely.
Are we comparing same levels of drunken-ness here? What about the difference between 4 drunk teens each walking alone vs. 4 drunk teens walking in a group (where it's possible to look out for one another)?
The difference between drunk walking and drunk driving is that, while a drunk walker is a danger only to himself, a drunk driver is a threat to others.
A drunk walker careening into traffic poses no threat? Must note the "level" of drunkenness; motor skills at acceptable level but "above" limit per-law? You can still get public intoxication fines / jail, as well as a DUI if you hop on a bike (also highly dangerous).
This is of course bullshit. There is however, an interesting paragraph (StGB § 323a) that says you can go to jail for up to 5 years for being intoxicated if you get drunk deliberately and then commit a crime but are deemed criminally incapable.
European teens do drive - but it's not fashionable.
USA teens _have_ to drive. The party is spread out (multiple locations in suburbia) and the vehicle is the symbol of empowerment.
Obviously, mixing heavy or inexperienced drinking with driving is a recipe for death.