Live data from Hacker News

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

washingtonpost.com

101–110 of 281 posts

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

#101
post #96

I'm on vacation in Colorado right now, and you can point out the stoned drivers. They tend to drive slow and passive, they fear the merge, and spend lots of time stopped at stop signs making sure they really are stopped and not going to crash. The impression I have is that their judgement and reactions are definitely impaired, but in a stark contrast to the invincibility and carelessness of alcohol induced drivers.

You noticed this just on vacation eh? As a CO resident, maybe you just haven't noticed how shitty our drivers are ;)

It's purely anecdotal, but I point them out to my sister who has lived here for several years, and she confirms "Yes - definitely stoned."

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

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> on any medication at all (including over the counter drugs) I assume you mean any medication which may impair you. There are lot's of medications which people should take before driving, like anti-seizure, antipsychotics, heart control, blood sugar control, and so on. It will typically tell you on the label if it is safe to take and operate heavy machinery. Although I'd always suggest taking it the first time while…

> There are lot's of medications which people should take before driving, like anti-seizure, antipsychotics, heart control, blood sugar control, and so on. anxiety, depression, etc... there's some overlap here, some people use cannabis to prevent/control seizures, to treat anxiety or depression, and don't feel side effects. The experience of the common person who has tried cannabis once or twice and turned away isn't…

> You wouldn't say that a person with ADHD shouldn't drive on ADHD meds, but for anyone else, that would be effectively like driving on cocaine.

I thought it was pretty interesting actually, the big chart in the linked article suggests that stimulants actually lower the likelihood of an accident compared to a baseline.

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

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes and they are incredibly inaccurate and rely entirely on subjective judgement from the cop's perspective.

Full disclosure: I have been pulled over and arrested for "driving while ability impaired" (essentially the non-alcohol DUI)

When I was going to school in upstate NY, I was pulled over as I drove my friend home. The cop thought we smelled like weed (fair enough, my friend had some on him, I was sober and not holding). So he pulls me out of the car and makes me do a "field sobriety test" which consisted of the following (no joke):

-Standing on one leg for 10 seconds

-Walking in a straight line in the dark while he flashed a light at you like a strobe

-Having to close your eyes and then open them when you "thought" 30 seconds had passed

-Having to recite as much as the alphabet backwards as you can

I'm not a coordinated person in general but I had never been pulled over or issued a traffic ticket before. But they then use this circus act as the basis to say "Hey, time for a blood test because you might be high" and then they take you to a hospital. You can refuse the blood test but you get your license suspended for like a month immediately and I needed to drive to work and school. I hadn't smoked in a bit so I thought I'd be good for the blood test and that I'd be fine in court. Of course, it's fallacious to use the blood sample because it can have trace THC from days ago. So you, like I did, can get slapped with a charge based on the fact that you smoked last weekend and then - how dare you - decided to drive days after the fact.

I had to go to court and then was found guilty based on this erroneous evidence. I had to go to "addiction counseling" where the psych told me I exhibited absolutely no addictive symptoms yet I still had to attend. I got one of my scholarships revoked simply based on the charges against me. I had to pay fines and then sign statements at the end of my "counseling" that I would refrain from drug use and be a productive member of society (it actually was worded like that).

I'm not really sure what the solution is. It will be interesting to see what the accident rates / fatalities from stoned drivers are in the coming years. All I know is the current system is a farce and only used to drive revenue to the state.

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

#104
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I am curious, did smoking every day affect you permanently in any way? I have used cannabis recreationally a few times, and each time I feel slightly mentally impaired (slow thinking) for days afterward. It has completely scared me off from using it further.

I smoked every day for years, quit ages ago. I don't feel any permanent impairment at all.

Having known a lot of older daily smokers (decades) and older alcoholics, alcohol is a lot more damaging, both mentally and physically. I've never seen anyone die in their 40s from marijuana, but I've seen a few people eventually lose that battle with their liver or their kidneys from alcohol. Older alcoholics can be almost shockingingly stupid, too - far worse than young alcoholics.

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

#105

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…

Your analogy is terrible. Marijuana is not comparable to anything you can buy over the counter. Unless you chug a bottle of cough syrup and then drive, which is just as illegal as driving drunk or stoned.

Actually I think there are a lot of things over the counter that affect you more than marijuana.

Have you taken Dramamine (the regular drowsy version)? If I take 1 pill I can sort of keep awake but I wouldn't try to drive unless it was an emergency. Taking 2 pills makes me so drowsy that I would not drive safely by any chance.

Those are the recommended dosages by the way, so no need to consume the whole bottle or box of that like with cough syrup. And that's just one of the myriad of different things you can get over the counter that can easily impair your driving.

So yes, I think the analogy is right to a degree (like all analogies). Even though marijuana does definitely change the way you perceive things and thus driving might not be something recommended to do, the GP's point is that a lot of people already drive under the influence of a lot of other substances, some of them potentially much more dangerous than marijuana.

Obviously part of the problem is that different people will react differently to marijuana, so like stated elsewhere in the thread, a regular user (like a functional alcoholic) might be able to drive "ok" and have no accidents but someone that is trying it for the first time, getting a particularly potent batch and then trying to drive is going to increase the chances of an accident greatly.

That doesn't mean I condone being fucked up (with whatever) and driving, but the GP has a point in that we are already living in a world where people are driving and doing other dangerous things while under the influence of "stuff". That also explains partly why driving is so dangerous and why so many people die each year from a driving-related incident.

Edit: So maybe we shouldn't be single-ing out marijuana as "the" bad stuff that causes accidents while behind the wheel and take a more "big-picture" kind of view. One of the reasons why self-driving cars are a good idea.

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

#106

I'm on vacation in Colorado right now, and you can point out the stoned drivers. They tend to drive slow and passive, they fear the merge, and spend lots of time stopped at stop signs making sure they really are stopped and not going to crash. The impression I have is that their judgement and reactions are definitely impaired, but in a stark contrast to the invincibility and carelessness of alcohol induced drivers.

As someone who lives in Colorado, you'd be surprised how many of those people are just "Colorado drivers". I keep asking my mother in law "why are you doing 15 under; you're not even high?" "Oh, it's just so pretty, I wouldn't want to pass everything so quickly". >_We also call this "meditating while driving" and "'This isn't my bike!? How do I drive something with 4 wheels?'"

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

#107
post #25
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>At least in the US you can get a ticket As a US citizen I will tell you this is false. We have basically no national traffic laws. Your local state, city or other local government may have passed a law like this. For example, in my area, it was made illegal to stay in the left lane moving more slowly than those behind you -- you must yield to the right if they want to go more quickly. But some 99% of Americans do no…

Texas has a rule that you may not impede traffic by going below the limit. http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/transportation-code/transp-sect-...

>except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law - See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/transportation-code/transp-sect-...

Trivial to argue that reduced speed is required for safe operation in this case, the research in this very article may be useful in that defense

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

#108
post #42

Do not read this and think it's okay to drive high. It's not. Do not drive high. Call an uber or something. I worry that people read studies like this and suddenly justify going out and driving while impaired. Driving is an incredibly dangerous activity on its own. Doing it when you're stoned is a stupid and risky move, and comparing it to how much more dangerous drunk driving is doesn't make it less stupid. If you'v…

> but I don't think it's okay to pretend that it's safe to get high and go driving.

I agree, but I also think it's more nuanced than that. Sure, at the extremes you're totally right. Though take a daily smoker who doses themselves with a predictable and regular amount... that person is very likely not impaired, or at least not more impaired than somebody who's behind the wheel while they're tired.

I think the reality is very complicated... and that makes accurate laws really hard to create. It certainly is easier to just say "you can't have any THC in your body while you're driving"... but I don't agree with that and I don't have a better suggestion honestly.

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

#109
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

I've seen the result of a driver unexpectedly doing just over 35mph on a moderately busy 70mph motorway. Not nice. I don't even think 35mph is that much slower really - trucks are at 56mph and they get along fine but 35ish resulted in all sorts of crazy last minute swerves. It's generally wise not to do anything other drivers will find surprising and I guess 35mph on a motorway falls in that category.

Around here, roads that have a maximum speed that fast generally have a minimum speed in the 45MPH range too.
Post reply on HN