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

Over 40% of deceased drivers in vehicle crashes test positive for THC: Study

facs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 523 posts

Re: Over 40% of deceased drivers in vehicle crashes test positive for THC: Study

#321

Post by phito »

hattmall wrote: post #277
graeme wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the population of dead drivers with over the limit THC is 40%, and this dramatically exceeds the population average, that would strongly suggest the THC level IS an indicator of either: 1. Impairment from THC, or 2. Worse than average driving and risk management skills in those who use the drug

It's seat belts. People who die in wrecks are overwhelmingly not wearing seat belts. I would think marijuana users as a group probably have average seat belt usage, but people who don't wear seat belts probably have much higher than average marijuanna usage. Roughy 92% of people wear seat belts. But that 8% of people that don't wear setbelts makes up 50% or more of all fatalities. From my personal experience it seems…

How are people not wearing seatbelt? I've never seen a car that doesn't make a constant annoying noise if you're not wearing it while driving. Do they mod the car to disable this safety system? That seems too far stretched...

Re: Over 40% of deceased drivers in vehicle crashes test positive for THC: Study

#322

Post by rafabulsing »

Nasrudith wrote: post #266
sallveburrpi wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zero degree of impairment is only possible if we don’t have access to 2 tons of murder box. I think the way cars dominate roads and our public spaces and how they are being used is inherently dangerous. I know this is going to get downvoted by people who cant imagine an alternative but it’s possible all the same.

I don't think you understand what "inherently dangerous" actually means. FYI murder requires intent, otherwise it is just manslaughter. Your indoctrination is showing by your turns of phrase.

Cars are inherently dangerous, though. They're multi ton hunks of metal moving at high speeds. That's dangerous from literally any angle you can imagine.

There are ways to make it less dangerous, sure. But they're never 100% safe. Which makes them, by definition, inherently dangerous. That's... What those words mean.

Re: Over 40% of deceased drivers in vehicle crashes test positive for THC: Study

#323

Post by flaminHotSpeedo »

> Researchers analyzed coroner records from Montgomery County in Ohio from January 2019 to September 2024, focusing on 246 deceased drivers who were tested for THC following a fatal crash.

This paper would need to go into way more detail to be at all useful.

40% is a staggering number, which makes me suspect that all it measures is Montgomery County police's pretty good track record for deciding when to test someone for THC during an autopsy

Re: Over 40% of deceased drivers in vehicle crashes test positive for THC: Study

#324

Post by laughing_man »

>The rate of drivers who tested positive for THC did not change significantly before or after legalization (42.1% vs. 45.2%), indicating that legal status did not influence the behavior of those who chose to drive after use.

That being the case, I'm not sure what the policy prescription should be here, if any.

Re: Over 40% of deceased drivers in vehicle crashes test positive for THC: Study

#325

Post by scottyeager »

phito wrote: post #321
hattmall wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's seat belts. People who die in wrecks are overwhelmingly not wearing seat belts. I would think marijuana users as a group probably have average seat belt usage, but people who don't wear seat belts probably have much higher than average marijuanna usage. Roughy 92% of people wear seat belts. But that 8% of people that don't wear setbelts makes up 50% or more of all fatalities. From my personal experience it seems…

How are people not wearing seatbelt? I've never seen a car that doesn't make a constant annoying noise if you're not wearing it while driving. Do they mod the car to disable this safety system? That seems too far stretched...

Older cars don't have these systems. Also they are easy to bypass with a dummy buckle. There are counties where seatbelt usage is far less common than the US.

Re: Over 40% of deceased drivers in vehicle crashes test positive for THC: Study

#326

Post by seanmcdirmid »

graeme wrote: post #244
bookofjoe wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DEAD people

If the population of dead drivers with over the limit THC is 40%, and this dramatically exceeds the population average, that would strongly suggest the THC level IS an indicator of either: 1. Impairment from THC, or 2. Worse than average driving and risk management skills in those who use the drug

Do we know what the THC levels are in (1) drivers who didn't die, and (2) the population in general?

It could just be that 40% of the population is over the limit on THC all the time. Unless we can compare this against something else, and we can somehow normalize the comparison for other factors like age, I don't know how we can use the data.

Re: Over 40% of deceased drivers in vehicle crashes test positive for THC: Study

#327

Post by crustaceansoup »

phito wrote: post #321
hattmall wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's seat belts. People who die in wrecks are overwhelmingly not wearing seat belts. I would think marijuana users as a group probably have average seat belt usage, but people who don't wear seat belts probably have much higher than average marijuanna usage. Roughy 92% of people wear seat belts. But that 8% of people that don't wear setbelts makes up 50% or more of all fatalities. From my personal experience it seems…

How are people not wearing seatbelt? I've never seen a car that doesn't make a constant annoying noise if you're not wearing it while driving. Do they mod the car to disable this safety system? That seems too far stretched...

Just click the belt in with no one occupying the seat and sit on top of it.

Re: Over 40% of deceased drivers in vehicle crashes test positive for THC: Study

#328

Post by dyauspitr »

Aurornis wrote: post #159

Some helpful context: The number of Americans age 12 and older who report using any marijuana product at least once in the past year is around 20% (Source https://apnews.com/article/marijuana-cannabis-alcohol-use-di... ) if I use one of the highest reported use numbers I can find. Even if you dismiss all of the questions brought up in these comments like the use of mean levels instead of median, not accounting for to…

The n for the group is only 246 though. That’s very biased depending on where the stats are from.

Re: Over 40% of deceased drivers in vehicle crashes test positive for THC: Study

#329

Post by dyauspitr »

jjice wrote: post #6

Feels like a low sample size, but I'm not statistician or doctor. That said, almost everyone I know that consumes THC has no qualms driving while doing it, and many of them also at work. It's a huge peeve of mine.

Everyone I know, a pretty successful group of people, have no qualms driving when stoned.

Re: Over 40% of deceased drivers in vehicle crashes test positive for THC: Study

#330

Post by Panzer04 »

hattmall wrote: post #277
graeme wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the population of dead drivers with over the limit THC is 40%, and this dramatically exceeds the population average, that would strongly suggest the THC level IS an indicator of either: 1. Impairment from THC, or 2. Worse than average driving and risk management skills in those who use the drug

It's seat belts. People who die in wrecks are overwhelmingly not wearing seat belts. I would think marijuana users as a group probably have average seat belt usage, but people who don't wear seat belts probably have much higher than average marijuanna usage. Roughy 92% of people wear seat belts. But that 8% of people that don't wear setbelts makes up 50% or more of all fatalities. From my personal experience it seems…

It seems much more straightforward to me to assume impairment. This is the obvious corollary, not seat belts.

It could be seat belts, of course, but I don't think that's the obvious conclusion.

Post reply on HN