Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones, new federal data show

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 281 posts

Re: Stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones, new federal data show

#71

Post by odonnellryan »

criley2 wrote: post #6
riggins wrote: post #2

But what about their propensity to drive really slow?

>But what about their propensity to drive really slow? You mean like a bicycle, moped, a new parent driving extra slow, an elderly driver, or any other street legal slow vehicle does? I understand that drivers assume the speed LIMIT is a speed suggestion, and experience road rage when driving under the limit, but there is nothing -- nothing -- illegal or unsafe about staying under the speed limit. If there is somethi…

It's definitely unsafe if you're traveling much under the speed limit on a major highway.

Most important thing when driving is to be predictable. It's predictable to be traveling plus or minus 10 mph from what is posted.

It isn't predicted to be traveling 30mph+ below the speed limit.

(no comment on being high, just saying, it's super dangerous to be doing 30-40 on a 65mph road).

Re: Stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones, new federal data show

#72

Post by ssully »

beat wrote: post #7

Alcohol has two synergetic problems for drivers... it reduces reflexes and increases confidence, simultaneously. Less capable, and more aggressive. No wonder it's so awful for drivers. Marijuana doesn't significantly impair reflexes (as generations of musicians have shown). As for judgment, it tends to make users more cautious, not more aggressive. They're not trying to get around that car in front of them to blow th…

Your pot/music comparison to show reflexes being unaffected doesn't really work when the music industry has a long history of drug abuse of all kinds, including alcohol. It's not very hard to find stories or even videos of musicians being drunk and playing great shows. It is almost a cliche to have images of legendary musicians drinking from bottles of hard liquor while on stage.

Re: Stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones, new federal data show

#74

Post by Carrok »

curiousgeorgio wrote: post #58

You can distort the data all you want, or in this case, put it in an absurd context to try and prove a point, but the fact remains - the legalization of marijuana is not without negative consequences. I'm surprised no one here has mentioned AAA's findings (legalization followed by a 2x increase in fatal marijuana-related crashes): http://newsroom.aaa.com/2016/05/fatal-road-crashes-involving... EDIT: Link to the study…

The study you linked has the same error that almost all of these 'studies' have. "The percentage of drivers involved in fatal crashes who recently used marijuana more than doubled from eight to 17 percent between 2013 and 2014." So they are testing the blood of deceased people, finding the presence of THC (which can remain the blood for weeks), and calling them 'marijuana-related crashes'.

So quite literally by their own definition, someone could smoke some weed, a week later get drunk, go driving, crash, and now this is a 'marijuana related' crash?

I don't buy it.

Re: Stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones, new federal data show

#75

Post by rufus-overhead »

beat wrote: post #7

Alcohol has two synergetic problems for drivers... it reduces reflexes and increases confidence, simultaneously. Less capable, and more aggressive. No wonder it's so awful for drivers. Marijuana doesn't significantly impair reflexes (as generations of musicians have shown). As for judgment, it tends to make users more cautious, not more aggressive. They're not trying to get around that car in front of them to blow th…

I disagree. Marijuana can impair reflexes significantly, at least for some individuals. My high school drivers education class (1979) had an electronic device used to measure brake reflex time. The device had simulated accelerator and brake pedals. A red lamp would light to signal the need to brake. I believe the average response time for most teens was around 250ms. I smoked pot nearly everyday during this period of my life. On the day our class was put to the brake response test I showed up high, as usual. I scored over 1 second on the response test. The instructor at first thought I was putting him on. He reset the device and had me try again. The response time was the same. I'll also admit that during this time I had episodes where I would "zone out" while driving high on pot. I would not remember a significant portion of the drive I had just undertaken.

My read of the article referenced is that current measurement techniques for Marijuana do not accurately correlate with driver impairment. That's not the same thing as stating Marijuana impaired drivers are safer than ones intoxicated with alcohol.

Re: Stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones, new federal data show

#76

Post by deelowe »

curiousgeorgio wrote: post #58

You can distort the data all you want, or in this case, put it in an absurd context to try and prove a point, but the fact remains - the legalization of marijuana is not without negative consequences. I'm surprised no one here has mentioned AAA's findings (legalization followed by a 2x increase in fatal marijuana-related crashes): http://newsroom.aaa.com/2016/05/fatal-road-crashes-involving... EDIT: Link to the study…

I couldn't find a link to the study. I had a few thoughts on this that weren't addressed:

1) What do they mean by "involving marijuana?" The article jumps straight to THC concentration levels in the blood, but doesn't state that this was what was measured in the (i assume) study they are referencing. "Involving marijuana" could just as easily mean that they found pot or paraphernalia in the car. In previous studies I've read, this was actually the case.

2) Why limit it to just fatal road crashes? Is it because there's no change to nonfatal crashes or perhaps that number went down implying that their assumption of marijuana's influence over driving ability is pronounced and are instead focusing on an outlier to push an agenda?

3) Did the total number of fatalities change significantly? If not, then this is a non-story. Of course there would be more instances "involving marijuana." It's legal now, so there's more people "involved" with marijuana on a day to day basis. This would be no different than saying that the rate of fatal crashes "involving" Tesla automobiles has increased since they were introduced to the market.

All of this may be addressed in the study and this is just a terrible story, but I can't tell from the article.

Re: Stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones, new federal data show

#77

Post by jerkstate »

kdamken wrote: post #62
dubcanada wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also not safe to drive while tired, on any medication at all (including over the counter drugs), while texting, while on the phone, while not looking at the road, with glasses (they could fall off and you'd be blind), with a heart condition, etc etc. I think it's safe to assume you drive very often with things that affect your driving. If pot is proven to not affect your driving to a measurable degree, then the…

Yes, all those things affect your ability to drive. You shouldn't text and drive, but people do it, etc. I would say being stoned is a lot worse than the other things you listed though: - When you're tired, you can have a cup of coffee and wake up a bit and regain some of that focus. You can't drink a red bull and suddenly be way less high. - If you send a text or two while driving, you're not paying attention to the…

> - When you're tired, you can have a cup of coffee and wake up a bit and regain some of that focus. You can't drink a red bull and suddenly be way less high.

Actually, there are terpenes in cannabis that mitigate many of the confusing effects, which can be found in foods such as black peppercorns and pine nuts. Pliny the Elder wrote about this; see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3165946/ So yes, there are ways to get "less high."

Not advocating that driving while high/texting/tired is a good idea, just trying to enlighten about some of the fascinating science behind Cannabis.

Re: Stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones, new federal data show

#78

Post by dragonwriter »

squidfood wrote: post #61
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't what the article was saying. I do find it a bit unfair to compare daily smokers to functional alcoholics, however - there is a definite difference in the way the drugs affect folks. This was the main point of the article. A slight buzz like that of a daily smoker - or someone using for medical reasons - isn't affecting safety, but going more than that and it should be obvious. Be safe and all that. Besides…

The key point in the article is actually the tests used. THC stays in the body long (days/weeks) after you're no longer impaired. If a breathalyzer test on Tuesday picked up the beer you had last Saturday, there'd be no correlation between that test and accidents, either. (and no one would approve of using such a test for law enforcement).

> If a breathalyzer test on Tuesday picked up the beer you had last Saturday, there'd be no correlation between that test and accidents, either.

Not sure that's true: if the alcohol was still in your blood that long, it would still be affecting you and impairing function.

Re: Stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones, new federal data show

#79

Post by curiousgeorgio »

Carrok wrote: post #74
curiousgeorgio wrote: post #58

You can distort the data all you want, or in this case, put it in an absurd context to try and prove a point, but the fact remains - the legalization of marijuana is not without negative consequences. I'm surprised no one here has mentioned AAA's findings (legalization followed by a 2x increase in fatal marijuana-related crashes): http://newsroom.aaa.com/2016/05/fatal-road-crashes-involving... EDIT: Link to the study…

The study you linked has the same error that almost all of these 'studies' have. "The percentage of drivers involved in fatal crashes who recently used marijuana more than doubled from eight to 17 percent between 2013 and 2014." So they are testing the blood of deceased people, finding the presence of THC (which can remain the blood for weeks), and calling them 'marijuana-related crashes'. So quite literally by their…

The study may have flaws (as all do), but it's a whole lot more conclusive than a claim such as "Stoned drivers are a lot safer than drunk ones, new federal data show", a statement obviously trying to imply that marijuana is somehow safe for drivers, when it's obviously not.

One could compare marijuana-related accidents to any number of other dangerous activities and make it look safe in comparison.

Why try and encourage something that is clearly dangerous and irresponsible? This article (especially the headline) is incredibly dangerous and misleading, as it's apparently trying to get people to respond with something like "see, marijuana doesn't harm anyone," when in reality, it does.

Re: Stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones, new federal data show

#80

Post by jerkstate »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #48
JPKab wrote: post #3

As a full supporter of cannabis legalization, I'm also a big supporter of a technology that can instantly detect whether someone's reflexes are impaired by cannabis. Notice that I'm focusing on whether or not they are impaired, as opposed to the amount in their bloodstream. The point being that people that use cannabis regularly for medical reasons don't seem to be impaired by it at all, while newer or more occasiona…

Right now, there is none. Obviously the measurable amount isn't reliable - but that has been known to general users for years. And so much of it is personal - a person going out on the weekend and smoking a lot (much like drinking most weekends or occasionally) is going to be really impaired. A regular smoker, who keeps a slight buzz and gets used to it would have very little effect most times. People around them don…

Police have been doing field sobriety tests that don't rely on chemical detection for a very, very long time. Examples: walk a straight line, follow the light with your eyes, close your eyes and tell me when 30 seconds have passed, stand on one leg, and so on.
Post reply on HN