[HN Gopher] Over 40% of deceased drivers in vehicle crashes test...
___________________________________________________________________
Over 40% of deceased drivers in vehicle crashes test positive for
THC: Study
Author : bookofjoe
Score : 150 points
Date : 2025-12-20 16:07 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.facs.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.facs.org)
| SilverElfin wrote:
| I'm not surprised so many deceased drivers were under the
| influence of THC. I see people smoking and vaping at stoplights
| all the time. I am however, surprised this study claims
| legalization didn't change the rate. Anecdotally, on the west
| coast, I've seen far more of this, and also people casually
| smoking in public spaces (parks or train stations or whatever)
| since legalization.
| didibus wrote:
| That could mean that THC is not causative, just coincidence.
| fn-mote wrote:
| Obviously the study is not claiming that rates of THC use in
| general remain the same.
|
| One possible reason: the "new recruit" people who are now
| willing to use cannabis BECAUSE it is legal are also rule-
| following by being willing to stay off the road after using it.
| Perfectly plausible to me.
| delecti wrote:
| Are they necessarily smoking and vaping cannabis though? My
| vape is visually pretty similar to a tobacco vape, and vaping
| doesn't usually have much odor either way (unless it's scented
| vape juice, but I'm not terribly worried about cognitive
| impairment from bubble gum).
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| And what share of the remaining 60% were killed by the initial
| 40%?
| kube-system wrote:
| And likewise, what share of that 40% were killed by the other
| 60%? Fault was not evaluated here.
| neoCrimeLabs wrote:
| I am curious what percentge of the general populous test positive
| for THC. It would give better context to a dead drivers testing
| positive for THC.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| > It would give better context to a dead drivers testing
| positive for THC.
|
| No it wouldn't.
|
| People make those excuses because it's weed, but you would have
| never posted that on an article about alcohol.
| root_axis wrote:
| > _you would have never posted that on an article about
| alcohol_
|
| Well of course not, as the two drugs have completely
| different intoxication side effects.
| neoCrimeLabs wrote:
| Wasn't so much looking for an excuse, so much as more
| information.
|
| Why did you automatically assume the point of bias?
| fn-mote wrote:
| No need to be judgmental about statistics. They are just
| facts.
|
| A similar result about alcohol would be the (hypothetical)
| statement that the rate of drunk drivers in fatal accidents
| was constant before and after the enactment of Prohibition.
|
| I do agree that the fact that fatal THC% stays constant
| before and after legalization is a surprise.
| watwut wrote:
| It absolutely would. If 40% of people test positive for THC,
| then this would mean there is no effect. I find it unlikely
| 40% of people test positive for THC, but yes, it does matter.
| gpm wrote:
| That wouldn't actually mean no effect, you need 40% of
| people _driving_ to test positive for it to be no effect.
| It 's unlikely the population driving is equivalent to the
| population at large - for one there's a set of responsible
| people who won't drive while high. For another weed use
| isn't randomly distributed through the population but
| correlated with certain subsets, which probably have a non-
| average rate of driving just by coincidence.
|
| (Not that it really matters since I don't buy for a second
| that anywhere near 40% of people/people-driving are high at
| any given time. I also don't put much faith in numbers in
| the abstract of a a yet-to-be-published study...)
| meroes wrote:
| There is a case for the two populations to be quite
| similar.
|
| THC in the blood doesn't mean actively high for habitual
| users, which would be most users if THC consumption is
| high. It means recent use, but not clear impairment.
| xienze wrote:
| The article is not saying 40% of all drivers tested
| positive, it's stating that 40% of people who died in a car
| accident tested positive, at pretty high levels too.
| leptons wrote:
| The levels described are actually pretty low. The "legal
| limit" is so low for THC that anyone who's had THC in the
| previous days could test positive, even if they aren't
| "high" at the time of driving. It isn't quite the same as
| the BAC legal limits for alcohol. And it doesn't account
| for body weight, tolerance, and other factors that
| definitely contribute to how a driver reacts no matter
| how long it's been since they consumed THC.
|
| And the study doesn't seem to differentiate between the
| different types of THC either, some of which are not
| psychoactive at all and which people use to relieve pain
| and anxiety. There's quite a lot of people using non-
| psychoactive THC which wouldn't impair driving.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > It's stating that 40% of people who died in a car
| accident tested positive, at pretty high levels too.
|
| It doesn't say anything about the distribution, only that
| the "average" (presumably, the arithmetic mean, a measure
| particularly sensitive to distortion by outliers) was at
| a particularly high level.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| > If 40% of people test positive for THC, then this would
| mean there is no effect
|
| Can you explain what you mean by this?
| SecretDreams wrote:
| Yes, it would be useful. When controlling for variables, you
| normally want to compare against a baseline.
|
| If 40% of the whole population has THC in them, we'd need a
| control population (maybe from earlier when thc was less
| prominent) to see if per capita deaths has meaningfully
| increased. I'd do the same study, tangentially, for tech
| workers to see if productivity has changed when controlling
| for other variables.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| No it wouldn't.
|
| That would be true if you looked at a variable which is not
| influenced by driving, like the percentage that wear red
| jumpers, but one would hope that not everyone is reckless
| enough to be highly intoxicated and drive.
|
| This is again THC apologizism, nobody would even begin to
| suggest this if we were talking about alcohol.
| ModernMech wrote:
| > nobody would even begin to suggest this if we were
| talking about alcohol.
|
| When we talk about alcohol, we explicitly separate
| presence from impairment using blood alcohol
| concentration. We set legal thresholds because studies
| show a sharp increase in crash risk above those levels,
| relative to sober drivers. If alcohol were evaluated by
| merely asking "was alcohol present?" we would massively
| overestimate its causal role the same way THC is being
| overestimated here.
|
| The problem with THC data is not that baseline
| comparisons are illegitimate; it's that we lack an
| agreed-upon, time-linked impairment metric comparable to
| BAC. THC metabolites persist long after intoxication, so
| presence alone is a weak proxy for risk.
|
| So applying baseline controls to THC is not "apologism",
| it's applying the same evidentiary standards we already
| demand for alcohol, so the opposite of what you said.
| epistasis wrote:
| > "An average level of 30.7 ng/mL generally means those people
| must have consumed marijuana at some time close to driving.
| This isn't about residual use; it's about recent consumption."
|
| If we are at 40% of the population being high at any given
| moment I think we are having extremely serious societal
| problems around mental health. Occasional use is not a big deal
| IMHO, but if a person is spending 40% of waking hours impaired
| that person has some serious unmet psychological needs.
| fn-mote wrote:
| This reading doesn't make sense. There's no way to
| extrapolate from this to any statement about 40% of the
| population, and even 40% of the day is a serious misread imo.
| epistasis wrote:
| I'm replying to a comment suggesting that this data may be
| close to population levels rather than something different
| in the autopsy population.
|
| I'm arguing that if the population data looks anything like
| the autopsy data, it would imply a massive epidemic of THC
| overuse.
| squigz wrote:
| > it would imply a massive epidemic of THC overuse.
|
| Not really, due to THC content in the body not being a
| reliable indicator of impairment or even time since use.
|
| If BAC were more like THC levels, I suspect the data
| would show 40% or more of the population has consumed
| alcohol - or, in your words, is drunk "at any given
| moment"
| epistasis wrote:
| My quote from a specialist disagrees with your assertion.
| Have anything to support your statement?
| tasty_freeze wrote:
| I don't think it is that simple. I would wager $$$ that dead
| drivers tend to skew younger, mostly young men who think they
| are great drivers, drive way too fast, pass with little margin,
| etc. Young people probably skew higher for THC use as well.
|
| Having said that, I think that effect explains only part of the
| 40%, but can't explain all of it.
| jjice wrote:
| 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.
| losteric wrote:
| Wow, pretty much no one I know drives under any influence
| regardless what they use.
|
| I wonder how many of these people were under the influence of
| alcohol and other substances.
| DontchaKnowit wrote:
| There is a very common sentiment among weed users that it
| doesnt really count as far as driving goes. Stoners will be
| repulsed and outraged by drunk drivers and then think nothing
| about going for a "blunt ride"
| SecretDreams wrote:
| Even though their sentiment is wrong, I get why they would
| feel that way. Marginally drunk vs marginally high
| certainly feel* very different in how they would impact my
| own ability to drive.
|
| That said, I don't do either. I also wouldn't take any
| amount of weed while working, but I'd feel comfortable
| having a beer during lunch if appropriate (work
| lunch/celebrate, e.g.).
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| I drove high a few times when I was younger and I had to
| set my cruise control to 25mph to make sure I was going
| fast enough haha never again. I just use before bed now or
| occasionally during the day if I know I won't have to drive
| anywhere.
| seizethecheese wrote:
| My friend group in college were heavy weed users, and
| generally all of them drove while high. I remember one
| saying he enjoyed it because he felt like he was driving a
| space ship. I asked if he still thought it was safe to
| drive, given that impression, and he said yes.
| sa-code wrote:
| The number of times I've heard "I'm good" honestly breaks my
| heart. Only to have people call me "Hermoine" etc (I am a
| straight cis man). I wonder what's the best way to talk about
| this
| lostmsu wrote:
| Report to police anonymously and have them stopped might be
| an option. If you can't convince them the money might.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Feels like a low sample size
|
| Its not a sample, it is the whole universe of analysis. (If you
| treat it _as_ a sample of, say, US drivers killed in accidents
| in the same period, then errors due to sample size are probably
| the least of its problems.)
| moefh wrote:
| We don't know that. We don't even know if there's selection
| bias.
|
| The article says the research was "focusing on 246 deceased
| drivers who were tested for THC", and that the test usually
| happens when autopsies are performed. It doesn't say if
| autopsies are performed for all driver deaths, and it also
| doesn't say what exactly is "usually".
|
| If (for example) autopsy only happens when the driver is
| suspected of drug use, then there's a clear selection bias.
|
| Note that this doesn't mean the study is useless: they were
| able to see that legalization of cannabis didn't have impact
| on recreational use.
| epistasis wrote:
| Based on the headline, I was guessing it was any amount of
| positivity, and may be close to the population level, but it's
| actually impairment levels of THC:
|
| > In a review of 246 deceased drivers, 41.9% tested positive for
| active THC in their blood, with an average level of 30.7 ng/mL --
| far exceeding most state impairment limits.
|
| Since COVID in CA, it feels like driving has become far more
| dangerous with much more lawlessness regarding excessive speeding
| and running red lights, going into the left lane to turn right in
| front of stopped cars, all sorts of weird things. But I can't
| tell if my anecdotes are significant. It seems that Ohio's
| impaired drivers have been consistent through the past six years
| though.
| QuadmasterXLII wrote:
| reading the paper, I'd say this is a case of hoofbeats meaning
| horses- people are just getting high and crashing.. Although,
| this seems like a case where the average is very vulnerable to
| a 'spiders georg' type distortion, especially because of the
| tolerances people build.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| Wow, this is amazing, you managed to read a paper that is not
| published? Impressive!
| Y_Y wrote:
| > "average person eats 3 spiders a year" factoid actualy just
| statistical error. average person eats 0 spiders per year.
| Spiders Georg, who lives in cave & eats over 10,000 each day,
| is an outlier adn should not have been counted
| Benjammer wrote:
| >Since COVID in CA, it feels like driving has become far more
| dangerous with much more lawlessness regarding excessive
| speeding and running red lights, going into the left lane to
| turn right in front of stopped cars, all sorts of weird things
|
| NYC has had the same effect since COVID, and over the last year
| or two it's gotten to the point where every single light at
| every busy intersection in Manhattan you get 2-3 cars speeding
| through the red light right after it turns. I bike ride a lot
| so I'm looking around at drivers a lot, and for the most part
| the crazy drivers seem to be private citizens in personal cars,
| not Uber or commercial/industrial drivers.
| SecretDreams wrote:
| Could we verify this against data? Surely if people are
| trying way worse post covid, that would show up compared to
| pre covid data by way of accident, fatality, and ticket
| issuances, e.g.?
|
| To the OP, I'm not sure I buy into it being tied to THC which
| seems to be the implication. Canada isn't seeing this trend,
| afaik.
| epistasis wrote:
| Those who are autopsied due to traffic deaths clearly show
| a massive amount of THC impairment.
|
| But the data here _also_ show that it 's a consistent level
| before and after legalization of cannabis in Ohio. So
| legalization of cannabis in Ohio did not cause a big
| increase in impairment-levels of THC in those who died in
| traffic.
| nothrabannosir wrote:
| Funny I ride a bike in Manhattan & BK (but only post COVID)
| and I very rarely experience cars going through reds. IME
| cars here respect traffic lights and stop signs. I try and
| count cars actually running a red ("speeding" through it) and
| it's rare, say 1/mo tops. Ymv I guess :)
|
| They do not, though, give an owl's hoot about yielding to
| straight traffic when turning. I suspect NY drivers are on a
| big group chat encouraging each other to cut off cyclists and
| pedestrians, by turning into their lane whenever they see
| one, and promptly parking there for an hour.
|
| And there's the "squeeze", and "crowding the box". Almost
| like no car here is truly allowed to ever really stop so
| they're always gently rolling, just a little, juuuuust a
| little, just, maybe, I know it's red but maybe just a lil
| squeeze into the intersection, maybe, squeeze, ...
|
| I don't know how to explain it but if you've been here you'll
| recognize it I'm sure.
| VerifiedReports wrote:
| The worst are assholes "blocking the box" while there is
| space to pull forward along the curb or even the
| neighboring lane. This should be a tripled fine, simply for
| the monumental level of douchebaggery displayed.
| eastbound wrote:
| I remember seeing a PSA that it was legal to park (one row
| of cars only) on bike lanes in specific situations: In
| emergencies, when being arrested by cops, to get medecine
| for a sick relative, nearby schools at school time to pick
| up the children, to drop off a delivery, to pickup bread at
| the bakery when it's very short, and when nearby car parks
| are full. I think it was on April Fools.
| macNchz wrote:
| It's a very widespread problem, I think, and probably has a
| complex mix of causes, but my perception as a NYC runner,
| cyclist, and driver is that there's a fairly small percentage
| of extremely antisocial drivers who we allow to behave badly
| with relative impunity, which itself moves the Overton window
| of driving behavior towards aggression/chaos, so to speak.
|
| Very frequently when there is a newsmaking incident in which
| a driver runs people over in some egregious fashion, it turns
| out that they got dozens of speed camera tickets per year. We
| _know_ who these people are, we just don't seem to have any
| motivation to actually do anything about it.
|
| The city has published research on this, showing drivers who
| get 30+ speed camera tickets in a year are _50x as likely_ to
| be involved in crashes with serious injuries or death, but
| efforts to actually do something about their behavior are
| consistently stalled or watered down. Other research points
| to various causes, including backed up courts and decreased
| enforcement generally.
|
| https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pr2025/nyc-dot-advocate-
| fo...
|
| https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc-driver-
| behavi...
| spamizbad wrote:
| Yeah I feel like the United States could dramatically
| improve its road safety if it kept maybe 1-3% of its
| drivers off the road permanently.
| cultofmetatron wrote:
| the problem is that our urban planning is so F@#$ed that
| taking away someone's ability to drive is tantamount to
| sentencing someone to poverty. In most of the country,
| you are completely dependent on a car to hold down a job,
| get groceries and pretty much anything else. In most
| other countries, not having a car is a mild to moderate
| inconvenience you can work around.
| dns_snek wrote:
| That's not a good reason. Other forms of criminality and
| reckless behavior don't get this kind of extreme
| leniency.
|
| People shouldn't have their license taken away over 1
| speeding ticket but there need to be escalating
| punishments that include license suspension, community
| service, jail time. If someone works their way through
| all of these and still ends up speeding then they can't
| be trusted to drive a vehicle on public roads.
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| Drivers licenses in most if not all of the U.S. are a
| joke, and people will still drive with suspended
| licenses, especially if they have to for work. Driving on
| a suspended license should allow the state to impound
| your car, though, then it would be respected.
| epistasis wrote:
| Jail time should also be considered too, for repeat
| offenders.
|
| Cars are a weird sort of thing, where they both are the
| justification for a surveillance state and lots of
| monitoring, but we also have extremely lenient penalties.
| It's difficult for me to understand how the US arrived at
| our current set of laws.
| estimator7292 wrote:
| Why do we care about _this_ type of sentencing to poverty
| and not every other way we condemn our citizens to
| poverty, homelessness, starvation, and death?
|
| Maybe that shouldn't be the only alternative in our
| society
| cultofmetatron wrote:
| The alternative is that we invest in better public
| transport and walkable infrastructure. then we can both
| increase penalties for driving badly AND raise the bar
| for getting a drivers license in the first place.
| SubmarineClub wrote:
| Sounds like a good reason not to commit traffic crimes
| then.
|
| Start punishing these people severely so that they might
| serve as an example to the rest
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Has that ever worked?
|
| AFAIK, all evidence says that people don't consider
| consequences. If they did, they wouldn't be behaving like
| that in the first place. Punitive punishment feels much
| much better for people who have a specific set of values.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| >the problem is that our urban planning is so F@#$ed that
| taking away someone's ability to drive is tantamount to
| sentencing someone to poverty.
|
| We're talking about NYC, they'll be fine without cars.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| The problem is how do you enforce that though.
|
| The modern world is so cat centric people would rather
| drive without a license than accept to live without a
| car. And until you can reliably catch and jail license-
| less drivers, the bet is worth it for them.
| randerson wrote:
| If they were to catch and jail just 1% of license-less
| drivers, in a visible way, it would be a deterrent to the
| other 99%. But the rate of being caught & punished is
| negligible (at least in the states I've lived in) so
| people know they'll get away with it.
|
| I previously lived in a country where the cops set up
| random roadblocks to check everyone's license &
| registration and look for signs of intoxication. When
| there's a real risk of waking up in a jail cell you're
| less likely to order that third beer. But in the US when
| renewing my tabs I feel like the joke's on me because
| half the cars here seem to have expired tabs or illegal
| plates and nobody ever checks.
| carlmr wrote:
| >it turns out that they got dozens of speed camera tickets
| per year
|
| To me the answer is quite simple for any of these. Treat
| repeated small infractions like bigger and bigger
| infractions. E.g. double the cost every iteration if it
| happens within a specific time frame.
|
| Ok, you speed once? $100. Twice $200. Thrice $400. And so
| on. We only reset if you don't reoffend for any speeding in
| 5 years. If you want to speed 20 times in 5 years, ok, go
| ahead. You pay $52,428,800.
|
| Bonus points for making it start at something relative to
| your salary. People will stop at some point out of self-
| preservation.
|
| If you don't believe high fines work, drive from
| Switzerland to Germany. In Germany the Swiss have no
| problem speeding, because the fines are laughable. While
| south of the border they behave very nicely on the street.
|
| You could extend this to other crimes. Google and Microsoft
| happily pay fines, since it's cheaper than what they make
| from breaking anti-trust regulations. If you doubled it on
| each infraction they would at some time start feeling the
| pain.
| lukan wrote:
| "In Germany the Swiss have no problem speeding, because
| the fines are laughable. "
|
| That is because in germany, cars are a religion
| substitute and just like there can be no speed limit on
| the Autobahn in general, there can be no real enforcement
| of speeding.
|
| The fines actually increased a lot in recent years. Still
| cheap, though. And if there are radar cameras, they are
| often in places where speeding is quite safe to make
| money from fines vs places where speeding is actually
| dangerous (close to schools etc)
|
| It is basically a archaic thing, the bigger the man, the
| bigger and louder his car and the faster he goes. It
| shows status.
|
| So I imagine in New York City it works just the same.
| When the big guys like speeding and the big guys control
| the state .. then how can there be meaningful regulation
| of that?
|
| (To confess, I like to drive fast, too. But not in places
| where kids can jump or fall anytime on the road)
| macNchz wrote:
| I have noticed this going between Switzerland and Italy
| in particular--all of the cars going incredibly fast on
| the autostrada seem to have Swiss plates!
| beAbU wrote:
| Some countries have a points system, where every
| infraction gets points in addition to the fine. At a
| certain amount of points you lose your license. Pretty
| effective dissuade serial petty infringers!
| apothegm wrote:
| Most US states do, too. But people will drive without a
| license because it's the only way to get to anywhere in
| most of the country. And I suspect we're light on
| enforcement for the same reason.
| temp0826 wrote:
| What the heck? How can you get that many tickets and still
| have a license? (Or manageable insurance costs for that
| matter lol)
| ray_v wrote:
| It's simple. People drive without a license. Having a
| license doesn't preclude someone from driving a vehicle
| xnyan wrote:
| I once drove my car a month after it's registration
| expired. I was pulled over twice in the same day on the
| same ride home from work, in two separate counties in two
| separate legal systems. Completely my fault of course. I
| went to the courts of each county on the appointed day on
| my tickets, explained what happened to the clerks and had
| both tickets waved after showing proof of current
| registration.
|
| The only problem was the two counties had shared but not
| integrated records systems with each other, as well the
| state drivers license authority. For two years, my cases
| got jumbled around the three systems, triggering plate
| and license suspensions which lead to me getting pulled
| over four times in that two year period.
|
| It eventually all got sorted out without a lawyer. I
| didn't have to pay for anything beyond the first two
| tickets, and many hours on the phone. What was really
| notable was that by stop number four, from the
| perspective of the cop who pulled me over, I was someone
| who had been driving with suspended registration and/or
| license three times in a row. I was allowed to drive away
| three out of four times including the last time, and one
| time the cop would not let me drive, he waited with me
| patiently until my wife could be dropped off to get the
| car.
|
| Maybe I'm just lucky, but to be honest I was surprised
| how not a big deal it was to anyone.
| deep_merge wrote:
| Perhaps they don't have either.
| macNchz wrote:
| When New York State authorized the NYC speed camera
| program they explicitly precluded it from reporting to
| insurance, and made it not part of the "points" system
| that triggers license suspension if you accumulate too
| many infractions, so all that happens is that you get a
| $50 ticket each time.
|
| If you don't pay the tickets, your car is at risk of
| being booted, but if you don't park on the street or
| choose to obscure your license plate when you do (how did
| that leaf get stuck there!?), there aren't many
| repercussions.
|
| There was an attempt at a program to actually seize these
| cars, originally it would have kicked in at 5
| tickets/year for immediate towing, but it was watered
| down to 15 tickets a year triggering a required safe
| driving class. They sort of half-assed the execution of
| that, then pointed at the limited results and cancelled
| it altogether. There's an effort to pass a state law
| about this, we'll see if it makes progress.
| xnyan wrote:
| Unless you live in NYC or a handful of other places, an
| adult in the US who can't drive (or afford to pay someone
| to drive for them) is in the equivalent of economic-
| social prison. Almost all personal transportation
| infrastructure is designed around car travel, anything
| else is at best an afterthought and at worst impossible.
|
| Don't get it twisted, I agree with you. The US is far too
| tolerant of dangerous driving. We are too dependent on
| cars for travel, and this is a consequence of it.
| temp0826 wrote:
| I'm just shocked that you can have that many offenses and
| not be in jail. I nearly lost my license in high school
| with FAR less than _30_ incidents. That amount of leeway
| just doesn 't make sense at all, you're so obviously a
| danger at that point.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| If they're talking about automated speed cameras I guess
| there's the problem of not being able to correlate the
| plate of the car with a particular human, a bill simply
| gets sent to the owner of the car, but maybe if we
| impounded cars at some point people wouldn't be loaning
| cars out to their licenseless friends
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| For these reasons, many countries have adopted a point-
| based system for driving licences. E.G: in France you have
| 12 points, driving over the speed limit is a fine, but also
| removes up to 6 points depending on the speed.
|
| If you go down to 0 points, your licence is suspended.
|
| If you stay without a fine for long enough, you get back
| points.
|
| Some countries have fines that depend on how much you make.
| Some countries will destroy your car if you really behave
| badly.
| macNchz wrote:
| New York actually does have a points system, but since
| they're tied to the driver's license rather than the car
| itself, you only get them if you're actually pulled over,
| not from cameras. Within NYC there's a fair amount of
| camera enforcement, but comparatively very little by the
| police directly, so drivers whose licenses might
| otherwise be suspended via points are still driving
| around.
|
| The mechanisms for keeping people off the road are also
| just weaker in the US--I believe the penalties for
| driving with a suspended license are comparatively
| lighter, plus if your license is suspended you can often
| still get a "restricted" license that still lets you
| drive to work.
| master_crab wrote:
| I haven't seen driving behavior change in NYC over the past
| two decades.
|
| Also, NYC has a different driving attitude than, say, Dallas.
| What people call aggression is often a difference in
| expectations. Drivers change lanes and merge far more
| assertively than in other parts of the country. As long as
| you aren't causing the car behind you to panic brake, it's
| considered acceptable. Hesitation from drivers tends to get
| more opprobrium than tight merges.
|
| People block bike lanes and the box all the time. It's
| annoying and you shouldn't do it. But a lot of the rage is
| often unjustified. That FedEx truck needs to park somewhere
| and they aren't going to roll over a fruit stand to do it.
|
| It's a dense, packed city. If you can't give and take, you
| are going to hate it here.
| bluGill wrote:
| Traffic safety engineers do not agree with all of those
| things. don't be an agressive driver even if everyone else
| is.
| woodruffw wrote:
| I've lived here my entire life, and there's a significant
| difference between normal "aggressive" driving and many of
| the driving patterns that have emerged post-COVID. For
| example: blocking the box is (unfortunately) somewhat
| normal, while running through red lights and making illegal
| turns has (anecdotally) increased significantly.
| swimorsinka wrote:
| We've seen the same uptick in reckless driving in CO since
| Covid. Reddit Denver complains about it all the time. I think
| it's happening everywhere, and it's not clear why.
| assimpleaspossi wrote:
| Cause there are fewer police watching and there are no
| consequences for these people's actions.
| chasing0entropy wrote:
| One of the lesser known dictatorship plays: the ostensible
| increase of police presence with a proportionate and
| perceptible increase in crime lead the public and local
| governance to embrace harsher rule of law and violations of
| their rights under the auspices therin.
| gretch wrote:
| The running red lights thing is crazy. I think at it's height,
| I would maybe see 3 people do this in a single 20 minute drive.
|
| And not like running a late yellow, but a full on my-light-is-
| green-and-there's-a-guy-in-front-of-me-sideways
|
| It has dropped a bit now though.
| dawnerd wrote:
| I was tboned by someone that swore their light was green. I
| had a dedicated turn. Thank goodness for cameras.
|
| The trend I've noticed this year is turning right from the
| middle lane cutting off people in the turn lane.
| VerifiedReports wrote:
| Are they cutting them off, though? If the street you're
| turning onto has two lanes, it shouldn't be a problem for
| two cars to turn at once. The car on the inside is required
| to turn into the nearest lane (according to any state law I
| know), so why can't the car on its left turn into its own
| lane?
| 1123581321 wrote:
| You're not allowed to double right turn unless it's
| explicitly marked, at least in the US.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Are they cutting them off, though?
|
| Its possible for multiple lanes to turn without anyone
| cutting anyone off, but its also possible for people to
| turn right from the middle lane of the source street into
| the rightmost lane of the target street, cutting off
| people in the rightmost lane of the source street
| attempting to turn, or to make a right turn from a middle
| lane that is not allowed to turn, cutting of a legal
| right-into-any-lane from the rightmost lane when it is
| the only turning lane, so if someone explicitly says
| that's what they see and there is no available
| counterevidence that they are misreporting their
| observation, questioning it accompanied by a description
| of how it is possible for people to turn from multiple
| lanes into distinct lanes in harmony without anyone being
| cutoff is not particularly useful.
|
| > the car on the inside is required to turn into the
| nearest lane (according to any state law I know)
|
| That's the _base_ rule in most jurisdictions, but there
| are places where it doesn 't apply. See, e.g., for
| California: https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-
| veh/division-11...
| VerifiedReports wrote:
| "cutting of a legal right-into-any-lane from the
| rightmost lane"
|
| "its also possible for people to turn right from the
| middle lane of the source street into the rightmost lane
| of the target"
|
| So you've created hypothetical situations that are no
| more useful than mine. I specifically mentioned having to
| turn into the nearest lane. If that's not true somewhere,
| then neither would adjacent turners be allowed. I simply
| asked if they were really cutting the other people off.
| lamontcg wrote:
| If the right lane goes straight, you can't turn right
| from any other lane.
| VerifiedReports wrote:
| Obviously. But the comment said TURN LANE.
| baobun wrote:
| That would be the lane for turning, yes?
| y-c-o-m-b wrote:
| Before this year I had only seen 1 wrong way driver in 30
| years. In the last year alone I've seen 6! I saw one person
| going the wrong direction in a round-about. Another person
| going over the inner portion of a round-about. People stopping
| in the road for no reason. It's insane. The strange driving
| patterns is indeed a major issue. I thought it was maybe a Gen
| Z thing, but often times these people seem to be between 30-50
| in age.
|
| Edit: no offense to Gen Z with my earlier comment btw. My
| reasoning was maybe we're failing younger generations with
| drivers ed so the blame would be on us anyway.
|
| Also I've seen these strange patterns in many states in the
| last year+: Oregon, Washington, Wyoming, Idaho, California
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| Come to Fargo. I see it multiple times a year. Usually right
| after a new semester starts and the farm kids don't know
| about one ways haha
| y-c-o-m-b wrote:
| I'm not talking about one-ways, those are confusing in
| general. I'm talking about clearly marked off-ramps from
| freeways. In one situation the person had to drive over a
| fairly large bump in the median just to enter the wrong
| side of the freeway; again many signs to prevent such a
| thing and they still ended up in that predicament.
| Sometimes miles down the freeway before a cop pulls them
| over. It's terrifying.
|
| I saw another one where the car tried to turn right into an
| off-ramp with a line of cars waiting at the light. Like
| wtf, do you not see the wall of cars and headlights in
| front of you? Where are you going?!
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| Oh. That's completely different and frightening whereas
| what I see isn't too dangerous and is more comical
| darubedarob wrote:
| Its usually drivers license transfers from countries where
| small bribes can "buy" you a license?
| https://wise.com/us/blog/transfer-international-driver-
| licen...
|
| The worst offenders are usually the older generations of
| countries where driving en mass is a recent thing. The old
| red guard uncles and aunties regularly run red lights cause
| who gives a damn about the law when you experienced the
| rule of the mob throughout your formative years. So parents
| and grandparents of students would be my guess.
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| I'm mostly talking about white college students, though I
| can think of one instance of a Nepali colleague's grandma
| hitting sometime in our parking lot and almost hitting my
| car in another incident.
| tiltowait wrote:
| Traffic fatalities increased during the pandemic[1]. AAA
| released a study examining the effects in 2024[2].
|
| [1]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10149345/ [2]:
| https://newsroom.aaa.com/2024/08/the-pandemics-tenacious-gri...
| bko wrote:
| I think it's lawlessness overall. For instance, consider San
| Fransisco traffic citations. Went from around 11k in 2014-2015
| steadily down and then fell off a cliff during covid but never
| recovered (around 1k in 2023).
|
| I remember the sad story of Eric Garner who was killed in 2014
| while being arrested for selling loose cigarettes in Staten
| Island. Today, at least in NYC, you see people parked out in
| front of the same corner every day selling weed and loose
| cigarettes. Same people, out in the open. I'm pretty sure
| that's not a sanctioned dispensary.
|
| Just shows how much things can change in ten years. For
| whatever reason, police and prosecutors just gave up in
| enforcing any kind of laws. Seems like an overreaction to
| whatever problems we had with criminal justice
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/11nbnxw/san_f...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Michael_Brown
| antonymoose wrote:
| I do believe you're mixing up Michael Brown in Missouri who
| robbed a gas station and assaulted a cop and attempted to
| steal his pistol (per your own link) with Eric Garner in New
| York who was choked out by a police officer and subsequently
| died.
| bko wrote:
| Yes, I am. Updated. Thank you
| nomel wrote:
| https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/to-reduce-racial-
| ineq...
|
| Are there any stats for incorrect crime reporting based on
| political leaning?
| roughly wrote:
| I think it's underappreciated the degree to which police and
| LEO have started behaving like political actors. NYC cops
| decided to "strike on the job" when the city started changing
| its stance in the mid-2010s, and in the Bay the cops
| responded similarly to Prop 47 by effectively not prosecuting
| shoplifting and other minor crimes anymore. Similarly, the
| recall of Pamela Price started almost the moment she took
| office and was accompanied by a work slowdown by the OPD in
| the interest of making the crime situation look worse.
| There's other examples, but effectively the police have
| turned lax enforcement into a tool to preclude any shifts in
| policing policies. I've got my own feelings about those
| policies, but when you've got the cops acting like a
| political block that gets to set policies instead of a group
| of city employees tasked with enforcing them, I think that
| should concern the rest of us.
| epistasis wrote:
| It's not entirely new! In 1975 during labor negotiations
| the police detonated a bomb on the mayor's yard, partially
| damaging the front door, and left a note saying "Don't
| threaten us":
|
| https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=DS19750820.2.20
|
| Since then, the SFPF have always had a culture of being
| above the law. The monopoly on legal violence thing can be
| taken a bit too far.
| bko wrote:
| There's probably some of this, but I think it's driven by
| district attorney not prosecuting people. We see people
| that have 20+ prior arrests. How many times can a cop
| arrest the same person and do the paperwork if he's not
| going to be prosecuted? I don't think people are pushing
| police to arrest more people.
|
| > Nearly a third of all shoplifting arrests in New York
| City last year involved just 327 people, the police said.
| Collectively, they were arrested and rearrested more than
| 6,000 times, Police Commissioner Keechant Sewell said. Some
| engage in shoplifting as a trade, while others are driven
| by addiction or mental illness; the police did not identify
| the 327 people in the analysis.
|
| Not clear if that's only in 1 year, but 6,000 arrests for
| the same 327 people means 18 arrests per person on average.
| Maybe if you see the same person shoplifting more than 5
| times you put him away for some real time. 10 times? Hell
| even 20 strikes and you're out would make a real dent and
| serve as a deterrent.
|
| https://archive.is/VCKkk#selection-473.0-473.379
| porridgeraisin wrote:
| Yeah, I always wonder why we can't have an "n strikes and
| you get the electric chair" type of law, where n can be
| decided. Clearly at that point that person is better off
| not alive.
| roughly wrote:
| That's a hell of a take for shoplifting.
| throaway123123 wrote:
| Yeah I definitely want the person who costs Wal-mart a
| couple thousand bucks to face execution. great idea.
| TimorousBestie wrote:
| > There's probably some of this, but I think it's driven
| by district attorney not prosecuting people. We see
| people that have 20+ prior arrests. How many times can a
| cop arrest the same person and do the paperwork if he's
| not going to be prosecuted?
|
| There's plenty of desire to increase prosecution rates in
| American jurisdictions but little desire to raise taxes
| high enough to pay for lawyers, judges, courthouses, and
| humane incarceration--let alone assistance for the
| otherwise innocent families of criminals. The victims of
| petty crime are usually poor or middle-class and
| therefore lack the political power to meaningfully change
| policy.
| bko wrote:
| > victims of petty crime are usually poor or middle-class
| and therefore lack the political power to meaningfully
| change policy
|
| This is just not true. Most of this is organized
| exploiting a lenient justice system. From my original NYT
| article:
|
| > Last year, 41 people were indicted in New York City in
| connection with a theft ring that state prosecutors said
| shoplifted millions of dollars worth of beauty products
| and luxury goods that were sold online.
|
| The idea that these 300 people are just stealing bread to
| feed their families is a myth.
| TimorousBestie wrote:
| I think you misread? That sentence isn't describing the
| criminals, it's describing the _victims_.
|
| Wealthy people (mostly) didn't own the Kias and Hyundais
| that were stolen en masse during the early 2020's for
| instance.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kia_Challenge
|
| Targeting a wealthy person for property crime is a high-
| risk, high-reward scenario, but there is still the risk
| of enforcement. A poor person is a much softer target and
| law enforcement will almost certainly tell them there's
| no hope of being made whole.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| The idea that organized retail theft is significant or
| "most" is a myth[1]
|
| [1] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/retail-theft-in-
| us-cities...
| heavyset_go wrote:
| I have to deal with the same kind of bugs all day long,
| doesn't mean I get to refuse to do my job for years at a
| time until someone I like is voted into office.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| The numbers do appear quite staggering. It can't just be the
| dead drivers - there must be similar numbers of stoned drivers
| who are causing accidents, maybe killing others, while
| surviving themselves.
|
| As far as driving goes, any amount of drugs or alchohol is
| going to reduce reactions times, in addition to any impaired
| judgement or ability to control the vehicle. Even a couple of
| 1/10ths of a second in increased reaction time is enough to
| make the difference between braking in time and hitting another
| car or pedestrian/etc.
| VerifiedReports wrote:
| The most galling and pervasive offense, though, is TEXTING. The
| rampant texting while driving is killing pedestrians (and other
| drivers), leading to oft-cited statistics about the failure of
| "Vision Zero" and the increase in pedestrian deaths. Not to
| mention the millions of hours stolen from us all by people
| BLOCKING TRAFFIC while texting.
|
| We should not tolerate the ignorant and ineffectual response
| from lawmakers on this issue. Year after year, they refuse to
| do the right thing: make texting a DUI-level offense, with the
| same penalties. You could even argue that texting while driving
| is worse than DUI: Drunk people suffer from impaired judgment;
| sober people texting have decided to endanger and steal from
| everyone else while in full command of their faculties. It's
| despicable.
| eastbound wrote:
| Yeah. Well on one side, sharing location on Whatsapp has
| reduced by 90% the need to text while driving.
|
| But we still need to address the rest. Radio is chokefull of
| ads and the usual radio content is often insufficient to
| overcome my loneliness, so I'm not gonna say it's ok, but I
| listen to Youtube videos while driving. You can sanction me.
| But let's make the radio less boring for the sake of safety.
| slumberlust wrote:
| 'Entertain me better or I'll drive distracted' is a
| distorted view on your responsibility as the controller of
| a two ton missile.
|
| I don't like ads either, but that doesn't excuse my
| responsibility to drive safely for the betterment of myself
| and my community.
| elif wrote:
| It is crucial to consider correlated variables in their correct
| context. This finding does not even imply impairment.
|
| A low emotional intelligence driver, one with depression or low
| self worth, perhaps a psychological pathology like narcissism
| or nihilism. This is the type of person to initiate vehicular
| homicide. Intoxicant intake is a SUBSET of this group of
| variables.
|
| The archetypical homicidal driver would of course have
| exceptionally high representation in cannabis use, and also
| likely cigarette use, and probably nitrous oxide but they don't
| measure that.
|
| EDIT: what I will say is that dab culture is something beyond
| traditional cannabis use, and I could absolutely theorize that
| dab use in a vehicle is the new drunk driving.
| modeless wrote:
| If you're in San Francisco, the city essentially stopped
| issuing traffic tickets when COVID started. It's no wonder
| lawlessness increased.
| https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/xMUFt/mobile.png
| staplers wrote:
| the city essentially stopped issuing traffic tickets
|
| I think you mean "law enforcement" stopped enforcing
| established laws.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy
| Aurornis wrote:
| > I was guessing it was any amount of positivity, and may be
| close to the population level, but it's actually impairment
| levels of THC:
|
| A lot of people are trying to debate the impairment threshold
| or argue about mean vs median, but 40% of deceased drivers
| having this much THC in their blood would be a notable result
| for basically any sample of people for anything other than a
| music festival or something.
|
| The number of people age 12 or older who report any THC use at
| all, even once, in the past _year_ is around 20% (or less
| depending on the survey). Having 40% of a group register levels
| this high is a very eye opening result.
| lamontcg wrote:
| > Since COVID ...
|
| I was noticing driving getting worse before COVID.
|
| It is the plague of narcissism and individualism out there
| (which doesn't just affect "boomers" but also every millennial
| and zoomer that dreams of doing nothing other than becoming an
| "influencer" and posts their life on their Instagram).
|
| Social media, low attention spans, cellphone and driving
| distractions, narcissism, and "fuck you, got mine" culture is
| going to wind up being to blame. It is a population-wide axis
| II personality disorder.
| estimator7292 wrote:
| It's the same everywhere. It seems like police have just
| stopped enforcing traffic laws. Multiple times per week someone
| runs the red light in front of my local police station, in full
| view of an officer in their car, and nothing ever happens. Same
| with the multiple near-misses I see every week. They don't
| care, and since there are no consequences, there are no longer
| any traffic laws. Couple that with the mass psychosis
| afflicting the US, nobody seems to care about anything and just
| drive as fast and hard as they want to, and fuck absolutely
| everyone else.
| Ancapistani wrote:
| There's no reliable way to determine impairment from a blood
| test. At most, this says that ~42% of people used it recently
| and/or frequently enough for metabolites to be present.
|
| https://forensicresources.org/2021/marijuana-impairment-faq/
| jeremyjh wrote:
| Sure, but if the baseline level of annual usage is only 20%
| in the general population then you still have a significant
| correlation.
| cess11 wrote:
| Is there a full study somewhere? I'd expect them to screen for
| other psychoactive substances as well, of which I see no mention
| here.
| tokai wrote:
| No, only conference abstract available.
|
| https://journals.lww.com/journalacs/fulltext/2025/11001/trau...
| teddy-smith wrote:
| Whenever you think to yourself "People couldnt be that stupid,
| right?" read this study and plan accordingly.
| 3eb7988a1663 wrote:
| Wish the paper were available - would love to know the percentage
| with alcohol.
|
| The other question I have - my prior is that a bad driver (tired,
| drunk, high) is something like 70:30 odds of killing themselves
| vs some innocent bystander dying because of their actions. I have
| anecdotally heard of several sad tales where some guy is on his
| Nth DUI and kills an entire family, while he walks away from the
| accident without a scratch. Meaning are the rates of fatalities
| involving THC actually higher, but the detectably inebriated
| person managed to walk away without dying.
| tokai wrote:
| An issue with having the legal limit at ~2-5ng/ml is that it
| makes habitual users be over the limit if they have smoked
| recently or not.[0] Making the prohibition seem unserious to
| some, not about safety but about punitive control, and in turn
| making it matter less if you smoke and drive as you are taking
| the risk of getting into trouble in any case.
|
| The impairments of driving under the influence of alcohol have
| been extensively studied, but unless I have overlooked the
| literature it seems that the same investigations have not been
| carried out with THC.
|
| [0] <<Blood THC >2 ng/mL, and possibly even THC >5 ng/mL, does
| not necessarily represent recent use of cannabis in frequent
| cannabis users.>>;
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03768...
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| Opening the article would have allowed you to see that the
| average was 30.7 ng/mL, it's in the very first bullet point!
| tokai wrote:
| If you calmed down and stopped snapping at everyone, you
| might understand that I'm writing about how the law and a
| lack of studies could make some people more willing to drive
| high. You are substantially diminishing the quality of the
| discussion here.
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| using a mean rather than median is fairly odd here. a mean is
| pretty much worthless without knowing distribution shape.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| The average (presumably arithmetic mean, though it could
| technically be any of a wide variety of measures) is not
| particulatly interesting, the median specifically would be
| more interesting, as a single figure.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| I partially agree, but it is still relevant, because there
| is a relatively low upper bound to the values possible
| after which someone would literally be unable to even walk
| to their car to start driving.
|
| When the average is SO high above the legal limit, and with
| this constraint that there is an upper bound, it's
| absolutely relevant.
| terminalshort wrote:
| But the truth is that habitual users are always impaired.
| Source: former habitual user.
| Sparkle-san wrote:
| Got any real sources? I've been a daily user for over 10
| years and also have a spotless driving record.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| It is very noticeable to basically everyone when you
| consume cannabis regularly.
| tptacek wrote:
| I don't (I find cannabis unpleasant) but I don't think
| this is at all true.
| pinkmuffinere wrote:
| I think serious studies would be strongly preferred here,
| as compared to anecdotes or conjecture. I don't even know
| if I disagree with your stance, it's just an absence of
| data is not convincing.
| throaway123123 wrote:
| not exactly. Depends how you consume it. Smoking, yes
| probably. The other forms of cannabis are less obvious.
| They are clearer highs without smell or smoke and much
| less burnout.
| n8cpdx wrote:
| It depends on the level of your habitual use. A 5mg gummy
| every evening is probably fine.
|
| I've seen plenty of people who are essentially using THC
| vapes like nicotine vapes, in that they use them every few
| hours and start to get anxious if they don't. Stoned
| driving has become normalized - between seeing people
| lighting up behind the wheel on snap map, seeing it on TV
| (this happened in The Rehearsal season 1), and seeing it in
| person, it would take a lot to convince me otherwise.
|
| If you're high all day every day, that may be your normal,
| but it doesn't mean you're competent to drive.
|
| In my personal experience, it took a very long time to
| fully get through a high dose of THC - usually at least a
| full night sleep, but sometimes more like two, before my
| reaction times came back. Notably, it takes much longer for
| the impairment of THC to wear off than the subjectively
| enjoyable experience of being high, so you can "sober up"
| but still be impaired.
|
| If you've been getting high every day for 10 years, it is
| hard to take seriously that you would know if you're
| impaired. Kind of like vegans who haven't tasted dairy for
| 10 years tend not to be reliable judges of the quality of
| vegan mayo - how could they possibly know?
| markeroon wrote:
| If we're doing anecdotes I'm sure there are lots of drunk
| drivers with spotless records.
|
| I understand that you're taking issue with the idea of
| always being impaired, but the article indicates that
| there's a pretty clear association between having ingested
| THC and being in a car crash.
| solumunus wrote:
| There's also an association with having drank water and
| been in a car crash. This on its own can't reasonably
| inform any opinions, more context is required.
| markeroon wrote:
| Enough with the pedantry please:
|
| "Driving under the influence of cannabis was associated
| with a significantly increased risk of motor vehicle
| collisions compared with unimpaired driving (odds ratio
| 1.92 (95% confidence interval 1.35 to 2.73); P=0.0003);
| we noted heterogeneity among the individual study effects
| (I2=81)".
|
| From https://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e536
| Aurornis wrote:
| > There's also an association with having drank water and
| been in a car crash
|
| This is blatantly intellectually dishonest. If 100% of
| people drink water then it's not surprising when 100% of
| people in car crashes have been drinking water.
|
| If less than 40% of the population has impairment levels
| of THC at any given time but 40% of deceased car crash
| drivers have impairment levels of THC in their blood, you
| can't pretend that THC use is equivalent to drinking
| water.
|
| The mental gymnastics being done in this thread to try to
| ignore this study are fascinating.
| ModernMech wrote:
| > If less than 40% of the population has impairment
| levels of THC at any given time but 40% of deceased car
| crash drivers have impairment levels
|
| You're looking at two different populations in this and
| your other comments, drawing a false equivalence. The
| study is over a 6 year period, over which 103 people
| (40%) tested positive for THC. You're saying that because
| the number of people who self-reported consuming THC in
| the last year is 20%, that means the result of the study
| is eye popping and shocking because the number is 40%.
| But you cannot directly infer elevated risk just because
| a subgroup has a higher prevalence than the general
| population without controlling for exposure and
| confounders. Especially considering what we are talking
| about is people self-reporting they are criminals.
|
| Moreover, fatal crashes are not randomly distributed
| across age groups or vehicle types, and younger people,
| because they are not as experienced, they drive more
| often, in smaller cars with fewer safety features, are
| more likely both to smoke THC, and die in crashes even
| while sober. So there's a strong sampling bias here
| you're not accounting for.
|
| And this isn't downplaying the results, it's pointing out
| its limitations of the study and warning you not to read
| into it what isn't there. You seem to be shocked by the
| results which should cause you to dig deeper into the
| study. I would say the most surprising thing here is they
| found nothing changed before and after legalization.
| cortesoft wrote:
| Don't we need baseline levels to see the association?
| Aurornis wrote:
| > I've been a daily user for over 10 years and also have a
| spotless driving record.
|
| I knew a guy who drove home from bars unquestionably over
| the legal limit (example: 4-5 drinks in 90 minutes) every
| single weekend for years without getting caught or getting
| in accident.
|
| It doesn't mean he wasn't impaired.
| Sparkle-san wrote:
| That's not quite the same though. The claim is that
| because I'm a habitual user, I'm always impaired. Which
| amounts to over 100k miles of impaired driving over the
| last decade.
| nh23423fefe wrote:
| Being freshly high is probably 2 quick beers, I'd think I
| was baseline after maybe 45 minutes. A massive edible
| might be 5, and I'd take like 3 hours I'd guess.
|
| Alcohol is so much more impairing. I think just being a
| daily user isn't the issue. It's the proximity to last
| use and obviously quantity.
| michael1999 wrote:
| Planning, good sense, and caution go a long way to
| compensate for physical impairment. Weed is different
| from booze in that booze increases risk taking, which
| makes driving such a danger. But that doesn't mean weed
| doesn't impair in some material way compared to baseline.
| rayiner wrote:
| In the south people drive drunk over the legal alcohol
| limit all the time, most don't crash. Doesn't mean you
| shouldn't do it.
| walletdrainer wrote:
| Sure, but the problem isn't whether or not a driver is
| impaired, but the degree to which they are impaired.
| mrj wrote:
| Well, it would be good for the rest of us on the road if
| people driving two tons of murder box are 0% impaired.
|
| I'm no angel but I have gotten more diligent... I'm just
| reacting to "the degree". The goal has to be zero degrees
| of impairment when a moment of inattention can kill.
|
| Also, my son was just hit by a driver while he was on a
| bike and in the bike lane. They claimed not to see him.
| He's fine thankfully but it's really scary to watch him
| ride off.
| sallveburrpi wrote:
| 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.
| the_gastropod wrote:
| I borderline want a conscription-style policy, where
| young adults are required to live in Boston,
| Philadelphia, NYC, DC, Seattle, or Chicago, car-free for
| a year. Americans' inability to even imagine a world
| where a car isn't _the_ way to get around is really a
| problem.
| wiml wrote:
| There are some occupations where we aspire to that low
| level of risk. But it would mean that driving can't be an
| everyday activity for ordinary people.
|
| No driving if you haven't been getting proper sleep; no
| driving if jet lagged. No driving if your attention is
| impaired by grief, stress, or impatience. Or if your
| annual physical reveals a risk. Or if you've ever had
| psychological complaints.
|
| We should absolutely make transportation safer, but it's
| a continuum of tradeoffs.
| mrj wrote:
| That's probably not the thing to tell a parent whose kid
| just made a dent and a black smudge on a MachE. I don't
| want to over index on the "think of the kids" argument,
| but we don't take driving seriously enough. Wikipedia
| says: Motor vehicle crashes are the
| leading cause of preventable death for people aged 5-22,
| and the second most common cause for ages 23-67.
|
| The linked article is astounding. The attitude in this
| thread is astounding, too. Because driving is ubiquitous
| and necessary in most of the US, we've become too
| accepting of the problems. Yes, if you're hitting the
| vape pen every day you should absolutely not be driving.
| Jetlagged? Take an Uber. Stroke risk? Give us the keys.
| wiml wrote:
| Okay, that was insensitive of me.
|
| But yes, what you say is the logical consequence (except
| I'm not kidding about grief and impatience).
|
| My point really is that if we want our kids not to get
| horribly injured or killed, we can't just focus on "other
| people" making bad decisions like driving drunk. We have
| to acknowledge that we've collectively built a system
| that _requires_ people to put each other in danger with
| cars, and we have to think about how to change that. Cars
| bring a lot of benefits like autonomy and
| decentralization, how do we keep that but kill fewer
| people?
| Aurornis wrote:
| I've never been a smoker, but I've known a lot of friends who
| went through periods of smoking multiple times per week or
| even daily for periods of time.
|
| Every single one of them denied impairment during those
| periods. Often vehemently so, belittling anyone who suggested
| they might be impaired as having succumbed to propaganda.
|
| Every single one of them remarked that they were sharper,
| more alert, and had better memory after stopping.
|
| It's an interesting phenomenon to watch. I think it's
| becoming more socially acceptable to acknowledge that
| marijuana causes impairment even after the obvious effects
| have subsided, which was a taboo topic in the years when
| saying anything negative about marijuana would get you
| attacked as being pro-prohibition or pro-imprisonment of drug
| users. I even remember one of the big technical forums in the
| 2010s had a long debate thread where people were claiming
| that THC made them better drivers and citing YouTube videos
| and "studies" to back it up. It would be rare to see anyone
| try to make that claim in today's environment.
| marcinpieczka wrote:
| That works the same with alcohol - heavy alcoholic would
| probably need to be over the limit to feel ok and sober.
| Aurornis wrote:
| An important point is that drug users (alcohol included) lose
| their ability to judge their own impairment after a lot of
| habitual use.
|
| They can even develop an ability to appear sober to casual
| observers while being impaired.
|
| Feeling sober is not a reliable indicator of being sober.
| It's referred to as delusions of sobriety.
| Youden wrote:
| There was a larger discussion in a previous thread on this
| topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45494730
|
| Since then, [0] has been published and I think it's worth at
| least a skim. Since it's quite recent the introduction
| summarizes some of the most recent research.
|
| The things that jump out at me are:
|
| - [0]: Habitual users with baseline concentrations above legal
| limits perform just as well as habitual users with baseline
| concentrations below the legal limit, indicating that for
| habitual users, the legal limit doesn't have any relation to
| impairement.
|
| - [1]: A study in Canada analyzed crash reports and blood tests
| to look at the state of drivers responsible for accidents.
| While alcohol had a very clear and statistically-significant
| influence on the risk of a driver causing an accident, THC did
| not.
|
| To steelman the idea that THC causes accidents, [0] only looks
| at habitual users with baseline levels of THC and [1] only
| looks at non-fatal injuries.
|
| My conclusion right now is that the number of drivers in
| accidents with THC in their blood is going up because the
| number of people with THC in their blood is going up, not
| because drivers who use THC cause accidents.
|
| The law's assumption that this level of THC is evidence of
| impairment seems to be invalid.
|
| The law would be better off measuring impairment in some way
| and perhaps intensifying penalties when an impairment test
| fails _and_ the user has THC concentration above some
| threshold.
|
| [0]:
| https://academic.oup.com/clinchem/article/71/12/1225/8299832...
|
| [1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31106494/
| seizethecheese wrote:
| Sure, but in this study 40% of people had very high THC
| concentrations. Is it even remotely plausible this is the
| baseline population level?
| bookofjoe wrote:
| DEAD people
| graeme wrote:
| 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
| sfn42 wrote:
| Right, so it might just mean that reckless drivers are
| more likely to smoke weed.
| mindslight wrote:
| The second seems eminently plausible with the correlation
| between driving skills and drug use both being due to
| higher risk tolerance.
| machinationu wrote:
| 2. young people are worse drivers and more likely to use
| Retric wrote:
| The expected number seems to be about 20+% (depending on
| assumptions) so this is higher than expected but not
| drastically so.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| Doesn't that support the hypothesis that high THC levels
| are dangerously impairing people's driving?
| mattmaroon wrote:
| Not necessarily, they could both be a comorbidity of some
| other factor (bad decision making causes both, for
| instance) but it certainly doesn't refute it.
| lokar wrote:
| You need to consider other confounding factors
|
| It is well shown that age (youth) is a major factor in
| accident rates.
| metadope wrote:
| > the number of drivers in accidents with THC in their blood
| is going up because the number of people with THC in their
| blood is going up
|
| This.
|
| In just the short time since legalization, recreational use
| in my immediate vicinity (a small Ohio village, one stop
| light) has decidedly, undeniably increased.
|
| I offer only an anecdotal observation, but my evening walks
| around town are now accompanied by a dank _potpourri_ of
| skunk scents, representing I-don 't-know-how-many strains of
| _Sativa_...
|
| _Indica_ to me that at least 30% of the population here is
| puffing.
| rayiner wrote:
| Same thing in DC. I thought the new development in DC where
| we lived had a major sewer gas problem. Turns out it was
| marijuana.
| dang wrote:
| Thanks! Macroexpanded:
|
| _Nearly half of drivers killed in (Ohio County) crashes had
| THC in their blood_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45494730 - Oct 2025 (125
| comments)
| mattmaroon wrote:
| But this paper specifically rules out legalization as cause
| because the numbers didn't significantly increase after
| legalization.
| witte wrote:
| This feels like we're missing a dimension or threeve, the one
| that comes to mind immediately would be whether or not the
| deceased driver was at fault for the incident.
| kube-system wrote:
| Yeah, drug use is also influenced by social and economic
| status, which also influences driving risks. People of lower
| socioeconomic status drive less safe cars on less safe roads
| for longer commutes. This is something valid to evaluate with a
| drug like THC which is detectable long after use. It would be
| nice to see the distribution of levels detected and not just
| the average.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| > People of lower socioeconomic status drive less safe cars
| on less safe roads for longer commutes.
|
| But can't you account for 'type of car', 'type of road',
| 'commute length' as direct variables pretty easily without
| dipping into social/economic backgrounds?
| kube-system wrote:
| The socioeconomics of the situation is _why_ I 'm
| questioning it, not what I think would be best measured.
|
| Although it certainly isn't "easy" to measure all of this
| directly; there are thousands of that constitute the type
| of driving scenario that someone might engage in. Even just
| "type of road" isn't a single thing, it's hundreds of
| things.
| reactordev wrote:
| Just noting there's a difference between THC in your system and
| THC in your blood. THC leaves the bloodstream after your high.
| Goes into fat cells and other areas to be broken down and
| processed (up to a month) later. Having it in the bloodstream
| after an accident means they were intoxicated at the time
| according to science. Whether their CB1 receptors were letting it
| through is another matter. I can smoke a lot of weed and not
| "feel high" yet I would test off the charts on this test.
|
| For drunk drivers it's rather easy to assess whether someone is
| impaired. With marijuana it's not. So until we have a valid
| method of testing if someone is "too stoned to drive" we have to
| push back on any attempt to classify marijuana users as
| ineligible to drive.
| xienze wrote:
| > So until we have a valid method of testing if someone is "too
| stoned to drive" we have to push back on any attempt to
| classify marijuana users as ineligible to drive.
|
| You're not really going to win anybody over to the legalization
| side when you basically say that people can consume as much THC
| as they want and drive without any penalties because of testing
| limitations.
| Arainach wrote:
| On the contrary: we should test for the actual issue
| (impairment) rather than an arbitrary number.
| xienze wrote:
| So you're advocating that a cop makes a subjective
| judgement about your impairment level? I don't see how
| anyone could find an issue with that.
| loeg wrote:
| They are doing this every day for drunk drivers already.
| xienze wrote:
| And field sobriety tests are routinely challenged in
| court because they aren't objective and at best, they're
| taken into consideration with other things like BAC.
| reactordev wrote:
| my ex-girlfriend challenged this in court last year and
| lost. She was pulled over coming home and forced to take
| a field sobriety test. She was angry and was refusing,
| trying to explain that she just got off work. They
| arrested her for DUI. Called me to get the vehicle with
| her crying in the squad car. I bailed her out of jail for
| $500 two days later. Her BAC was 0.
|
| Her attitude when asked to perform the field sobriety
| test was taken as a refusal and she lost her license, now
| with a DUI on her record.
|
| We all like to think that these methods work, and they do
| most of the time, and yet there still are cases where a
| normal person is subjected to them and they deem them
| "unworthy" to pass.
| leptons wrote:
| She needs to hire a lawyer, this happens far too often.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFuVdlKD00s
| reactordev wrote:
| We hired the best lawyer in town. Spent $20,000.
| leptons wrote:
| They also frequently arrest people who have not had any
| alcohol or drugs at all for being "drunk". It happens far
| too often.
|
| Just one example of many:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFuVdlKD00s
| reactordev wrote:
| Field. Sobriety. Tests.
|
| "Say your ABC's backwards starting from Z"
| Arainach wrote:
| Then develop more empirical measures of impairment. A
| device that tests response time, etc. Doctors have been
| doing that with a hammer to the knee for decades,
| optometrists do it with a headset that flashes lights
| where you have to press a clicker, etc. - we have the
| tools.
| nobodyandproud wrote:
| Blood test is a reliable indicator: https://www.americanbar
| .org/groups/judicial/resources/highwa...
| squigz wrote:
| That link doesn't appear to say that blood tests are
| reliable
|
| Literally in the summary
|
| > While blood alcohol content (BAC) level represents an
| accurate measurement of alcohol impairment, the presence
| of THC in a driver's body has not been shown to be a
| predictable measure of cannabis impairment.
|
| But further on
|
| > Because THC in the blood can result from both recent as
| well as past use, impairment cannot be inferred from
| blood levels.
| nobodyandproud wrote:
| That's not the relevant bit. A blood test detects recent
| use of THC.
|
| Which other, less invasive methods cannot. Like alcohol,
| impairment is highly individual and so we set a
| threshold.
| squigz wrote:
| It is not a reliable indicator of recent use though,
| since it can also indicate past use.
|
| I agree we need to set a threshold for impairment. I just
| want that to be measured reliably so that people who had
| a brownie last weekend aren't getting in trouble.
| reactordev wrote:
| THC leaves the bloodstream within 24 hours just to be
| clear.
|
| I know this is a giant hairball and the downvotes and
| passionate discussion is why I said what I said but in
| the end, until we have a breathalyzer for THC, it is what
| it is.
| nobodyandproud wrote:
| Driving isn't a right. No matter how steeped the US is in
| car culture, it's important not to lose sight of this.
|
| Now blood tests show a 12-24 hour window of usage. Much
| tighter than the 2 to 30 days of other tests. In terms of
| window of time, that's essentially good-enough.
|
| Of course anyone who consumes cannabis has a strong
| desire for a tighter and more accurate test, but you're
| really fighting against growing masses of irresponsible
| users.
|
| If the problem is truly wide-spread like alcohol was (and
| still is), it's just a matter of time before states or
| feds push for a good-enough (for the rest of us)
| solution.
| nobodyandproud wrote:
| Given that driving isn't a right, there's more leeway to be
| more strict.
|
| I used to bike-ride a lot, but the number unaccountable
| drivers and the increase in dispensaries in the NYC tri-state
| gave me pause.
| leptons wrote:
| Fun fact, you can be arrested for DUI on a bicycle, and it
| counts the same as if you were driving a car.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| > I can smoke a lot of weed and not "feel high" yet I would
| test off the charts on this test.
|
| > With marijuana it's not. So until we have a valid method of
| testing if someone is "too stoned to drive" we have to push
| back on any attempt to classify marijuana users as ineligible
| to drive.
|
| I agree. As someone who regularly consumes 250mg of edibles
| daily at a minimum, I'm sure my levels would be off the charts
| on a constant basis, even when sober. With the tolerance I
| currently have, it'd take a ridiculous amount to put me into a
| state where I felt driving wasn't safe.
| nobodyandproud wrote:
| There are individuals that have a high tolerance of alcohol.
|
| Thankfully society didn't make exceptions. Eventually.
|
| I see THC taking the same, slow, tortured approach.
| reactordev wrote:
| Sadly, I tend to agree with you.
|
| Anecdote, I'm a user, by choice, and by habit/addiction. I
| was first exposed to it through, oddly enough, martial arts
| as a young teen. The punk rock scene of the 90s didn't help
| much either. Both me and my ex-wife were what you would
| call "techno-hippies". We would smoke as much weed as we
| could, and I would code and she would do her thing (she was
| a biologist so I have no clue, something genes). We had a
| rhythm and we liked the high grade _one hit and you 're
| good_ kind of marijuana.
|
| When 2018 came around, The Farm Bill (tm) passed and it
| loosened the terms of what "hemp" was. The budding cannabis
| industry saw this as an opportunity to mess with genetics.
| They discovered that if you harvest early, immediately
| freeze it, D9-THC doesn't convert from it's precursor -
| THC-A. So then they started shipping "hemp" in the form of
| THC-A all over the states. All you have to do to "finish"
| the process is to decarboxylate it into D9-THC. However,
| there's also D8-THC which doesn't get you nearly as "high"
| and only lasts minutes. It, too, can be frozen to prevent
| it from converting from it's precursor - THC-A... What?!?
| So you really don't know whether it's D8 or D9 from the
| dispensary (and neither do they) and the quality is all
| over the charts.
|
| I think this is why it's affecting driving so much. People
| who are used to the smoke shop D8 weed get their hands on
| some real D9 and it blows their minds.
|
| God I wish we had a breathalyzer test for D9-THC. Without
| it, it's going to get legislated to the point where you're
| on the disabled "can't drive or operate any machinery,
| ever" list. You already give up your right to own a gun
| when you sign up for medical marijuana. (and when buying
| one, it asks you if you use...)
|
| I'm definitely for making the roads safer, but I'm also
| pro-rights and liberties so this one is hard for me. Yes,
| there should be some legislation around marijuana, no it
| shouldn't be a schedule I-III but looked at like hops and
| barley. Tax the shit out of it. Like you do cigarettes.
| Don't prevent me from driving because I smoked a cigarette.
| nobodyandproud wrote:
| Right. Taxing could (and should) fund the research needed
| for better testing.
|
| Also put a stop some of the bad actors and bad behaviors
| of growers (all night daylight...).
| mantas wrote:
| It should be the other way around. If there's no good way to
| test, then no driving with any THC in blood.
| reactordev wrote:
| so we're all going to subject ourselves to blood sampling to
| get behind the wheel?
| mantas wrote:
| Maybe just not legalize THC if there is no easy way to test
| if THC users are intoxicated.
|
| And punish illegal users regardless of intoxication level.
| Medical users should just abstain from driving while in it.
| cubefox wrote:
| Could this mean that THC is more dangerous for vehicle safety
| than alcohol?
| pixl97 wrote:
| With this information alone, no we cannot tell.
|
| For example if we took random samples of the population and
| tested them for marijuana usage, what percentage would test
| positive?
|
| Next, this study is only talking about marijuana testing, how
| many of the same group also tested positive for alcohol (or
| other impairing drugs). Lets make up fake numbers and say 60%
| of total fatalities had alcohol or other impairing drugs and
| the overlap between them and marijuana use was 80% then
| marijuana is rather insignificant.
|
| We have to have all the details so we don't fall into a base
| rate fallacy.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Well, its the wrong universe of analysis to make that claim
| _and_ there is no comparative measure of alcohol exposure in
| the same universe of analysis so it also fails to provide a
| basis for any alcohol /THC comparison, so, no?
| reop2whiskey wrote:
| It is entirely possible THC is more dangerous for vehicle
| safety than alcohol and that wouldn't surprise me. But based on
| this study alone? No.
| amazingman wrote:
| Cant wait for this tissue-thin abstract to drive weeks and years
| of anti-cannabis nonsense.
| Youden wrote:
| Previous discussion:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45494730
| 8organicbits wrote:
| The lack of change after legalization of recreational use is
| interesting. How many deaths related to medical use versus
| (previously illegal but decriminalized) recreational use?
| loeg wrote:
| I don't think the user population changes much whether it's
| illegal, "medical," or legal.
| ck2 wrote:
| I live in a "working poor" neighborhood
|
| 50% of the people on this street get stoned before driving to
| work, every single day
|
| dope isn't even legal here and even if it was DUI is wildly
| illegal
|
| We can only cure this if we get serious about penalties because
| we can't undo murder and injuries
|
| How about first time warning, second time weekend in jail, third
| time week in jail, fourth time month in jail, fifth time year in
| prison
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > We can only cure this if we get serious about penalties
|
| Saying that in the country with world-leading mass
| incarceration mostly due to its decades long "war on drugs"
| which has very much not cured drug problems is a perfect
| example of putting ideological preconceptions ahead of reality.
| wredcoll wrote:
| > Saying that in the country with world-leading mass
| incarceration mostly due to its decades long "war on drugs"
| which has very much not cured drug problems is a perfect
| example of putting ideological preconceptions ahead of
| reality.
|
| I wish I could emphasize this even more.
|
| There _are_ some situations where certain types of
| punishments in certain situations will achieve societal
| behavior change.
|
| There's a lot more where it doesn't and people absolutely to
| apply any kind of scientific thought to it.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > There are some situations where certain types of
| punishments in certain situations will achieve societal
| behavior change.
|
| > There's a lot more where it doesn't
|
| Or, at least, not the behavior change you are hoping for.
| ck2 wrote:
| most people who get put in jail/prison for drugs do not get a
| "taste" of how horrible it is and get years right off the bat
| for first offense
|
| that's why I proposed five steps starting with warning,
| weekend, then week in jail
|
| if you spend a weekend in jail and don't change your behavior
| from doing something wildly dangerous yet absolutely not
| addicting, well then proceed to a year in prison
|
| note I am not saying put people in prison simply for smoking
| dope, it's not legal here but there are no serious penalties
| if caught
|
| I don't care what people do in their homes
|
| You drive on the road stoned when I am riding my bike or
| running and put my life in danger, you definitely deserve
| some time to think about it behind bars
|
| I've been "grazed" on the road many time over the years, I
| have no idea if people are drunk or stoned or just looking at
| their phones but I am okay with my five step idea for ALL of
| those cases, but they will never be caught anyway until they
| murder someone and then it's too late
| galleywest200 wrote:
| WA state already has a "three strikes you are out" law
| (life in prison), but laws like this are racially biased
| and used against minorities far more.
|
| https://www.courts.wa.gov/subsite/mjc/docs/2024/Three-
| strike...
| fatal94 wrote:
| Driving towards a solution of "imprisoning more people" as
| punishment rather than other punishment have never
| succeeded. Many states already have first time drug
| offender and strike programs, people are already imprisoned
| over a weekend for things even as simple as misdemeanor
| possession until they can get a bail set. Rehabilitative
| forms of punishments such as severe fines, community
| service or mandatory classes and broadcasting them is much
| more effective in actually driving down rates of impaired
| drivers.
|
| Whats more, police officers already have a wide authority
| of judgement when considering these factors around
| marijuana impairment currently. Relying on subjective
| evaluation from FST and physical presentation will only
| result in a higher rate of non impaired drivers being
| imprisoned.
| jama211 wrote:
| Very well said. It worries me how quick people are to leap to
| "we'll just imprison people that'll help" despite endless
| data that says the opposite
| loeg wrote:
| We have world-leading criminality rates. Given that, the only
| alternatives are world-leading incarceration, or just letting
| criminals roam around making law-abiders' lives worse.
| ben_w wrote:
| There's a lot of different ways to measure crime, making it
| hard to compare between nations.
|
| The people who try anyway, mostly put the USA as fairly
| middling, nothing special either way.
| Sparkle-san wrote:
| Maybe we can declare our intent to eliminate drug use with
| harsh penalties using a metaphor, like going to war against
| them. That should do the trick.
| shiandow wrote:
| It's interesting. You begin by describing the circumstances and
| then conclude the problem must be fixed by changing individual
| behaviour.
| walletdrainer wrote:
| > How about first time warning, second time weekend in jail,
| third time week in jail, fourth time month in jail, fifth time
| year in prison
|
| Those laws exist, and often result in people who should be
| receiving treatment spending years of their life in prison.
|
| Someone who gets 5+ DUIs isn't likely to be deterred by schemes
| like this
| codr7 wrote:
| I bet 100% of them had been drinking water recently.
| blell wrote:
| Remember when people in this web site would blame the recent
| increase in accidents on the supposed cognitive decline from
| COVID and how hooked we are on our phones because of the evil
| tech companies.
| leke wrote:
| My question is, what is the difference in vehicle death mortality
| since cannabis was legalized in those parts of the country. If
| it's about the same, it just tells me that cannabis is a very
| popular drug.
| wiml wrote:
| From what I understand, the effect of legalization (or
| decriminalization) on the amount of cannabis use is not
| straightforward at all. You'd have to factor that in somehow.
| Someone wrote:
| > In a review of 246 deceased drivers, 41.9% tested positive for
| active THC in their blood, with an average level of 30.7 ng/mL --
| far exceeding most state impairment limits.
|
| That could mean they all had levels far exceeding most state
| impairment limits, but it also could mean most of them had trace
| levels, while a few had levels way above 30.7 ng/mL. So, it says
| fairly little.
|
| Also (FTA) _"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"_. That means there could be selection bias at play.
|
| Finally, no mention is made on the levels of THC in the general
| population of of those driving cars. Both _could_ be equal or
| even higher.
|
| I'm not sure one should blame (only) the researchers for these
| statements, though. Chances are they didn't intend to find out
| whether THC use is a major cause of vehicle crashes, but only in
| whether legalizing THC use changed those numbers, and someone
| managed to get some more juicy quotes from them.
| thrill wrote:
| "Finally, no mention is made on the levels of THC in the
| general population of those driving cars."
|
| How do you propose gathering that particular data?
| Aurornis wrote:
| One helpful data point is that only about 20% of people over
| age 12 report any THC use at all in the prior year. Some
| surveys have even lower numbers, around 1 in 8, but let's
| take the highest number for the sake of this comparison.
|
| So the median THC level is 0%.
|
| Having 40% of people register high enough levels of THC to
| pass an impairment threshold is a remarkably high number no
| matter how you look at it.
| flufluflufluffy wrote:
| Came here to say most of this, also worth calling out the note
| at the bottom:
|
| > Note: This research was presented as an abstract at the ACS
| Clinical Congress Scientific Forum. Research abstracts
| presented at the ACS Clinical Congress Scientific Forum are
| reviewed and selected by a program committee but are not yet
| peer reviewed.
|
| My guess is when it gets to peer review, one of the reviewers
| will request at least mentioning these limitations. As it was
| only an abstract, it's possible the paper itself _does_ mention
| these limitations already as well.
| bobro wrote:
| One useful point of comparison here would be the percent of the
| driving population overall who have some THC in their system in
| the same way as these researchers are measuring it. I wouldn't
| guess that 40% of drivers would test positive for recent THC use,
| but I can't understand the 40% number here without knowing the
| percent for the overall population.
| Aurornis wrote:
| The number of people who use any THC at all isn't even close to
| 40% thought. The highest survey numbers I found had 20% of
| people reporting any use, even once, in the past year.
|
| There's no way to normalize a result of 40% of a population
| sample having significant THC concentrations. That's way higher
| than any conceivable sample of the general population.
| supersparrow wrote:
| "Unaffected by legalisation" - so at least there's more proof
| than outlawing drugs doesn't work.
| Aurornis wrote:
| 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 tolerance of habitual users, or debates about the
| threshold for impairment, the 40% number in this study is without
| a doubt far higher than the number of people who have detectable
| levels of THC in their blood at any given time.
|
| I see a lot of attempts to downplay the result of this study in
| the comments, but 40% having significant THC in their blood is a
| stunning statistic no matter how you look at it.
| wiml wrote:
| The number of people who report using it is only a rough proxy
| for the number of people who are using it, though.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| I think its much more significant than the studies done by
| potheads who think they are cool to drive.
| PlunderBunny wrote:
| Here in New Zealand we've just started road-side testing for
| drug-driving [0]
|
| 0. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/581951/first-day-of-
| road...
| skywhopper wrote:
| This stat beggars belief. I think the headline is phrased
| incorrectly, and the overall stat is misleading. The actual stat
| is only from dead drivers _who were tested for THC_.
| 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. When autopsies are performed,
| drug screening is typically part of the process.
|
| The unanswered and unaddressed questions here are, how often and
| why were the THC tests administered? The article says that's
| standard for autopsies. But how often are autopsies conducted on
| deceased drivers? I would be truly surprised if it's 100%. In
| fact, I would expect it to happen only in cases where there was
| some suspicion of intoxication. In which case, this finding isn't
| very surprising after all.
| derriz wrote:
| There is no mention that these drivers were ONLY impaired by
| weed. But I can't believe a paper would not look at the
| confounders. I know quite a few who are not regular smokers but
| will imbibe after a few beers if it's being passed around. Also
| weed is popular with consumers of stimulants. Without knowing the
| possible confounders, this statistic tells you very little.
| mchusma wrote:
| Self driving cars can't come fast enough to save lives. I'd love
| to have states start today at cracking down on unsafe drivers of
| all kinds. I suspect that converting just 10% of miles to self
| driving + getting rid of 10% most unsafe drivers would reduce
| fatalities 50%.
| pogue wrote:
| Repost: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45494730
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I have a friend that's a mechanic.
|
| He says that he gets cars in that reek so bad, he can smell them
| from three bays away.
|
| I suspect that we'll soon be seeing a rapid "pullover-test," and
| that will probably knock that stuff down.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-12-20 23:00 UTC)