NHTSA: Drunk Driving DOWN, Drugged Driving UP

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
PRESS RELEASE:

New Roadside Survey Shows Steady Decline in Alcohol Levels, while Driver Drug Use is Detected

A new roadside survey by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration confirms a continuing decline in the percentage of legally intoxicated drivers

In 1973, 7.5 percent of drivers had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 or higher. In the latest survey, that figure had fallen to 2.2 percent. A BAC of .08 or higher is now above the legal limit in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Previous roadside surveys conducted by NHTSA have measured only alcohol. But the 2007 survey used new screening techniques that detected other substances as well and in the future may help show the extent of drug impairment among drivers.

The survey found 16.3 percent of nighttime weekend drivers were drug positive. The survey focused on weekend nighttime drivers and found that the drugs used most commonly by drivers were: marijuana (8.6 percent); cocaine (3.9 percent); and over-the-counter and prescription drugs (3.9 percent).

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said he is concerned about the prevalence of drivers who use drugs, and we should continue to fight against all impaired drivers.

"I'm pleased to see that our battle against drunk driving is succeeding," said Secretary LaHood. "However, alcohol still kills 13,000 people a year on our roads and we must continue to be vigilant in our efforts to prevent drunk driving."

"This troubling data shows us, for the first time, the scope of drugged driving in America, and reinforces the need to reduce drug abuse," said Gil Kerlikowske, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. "Drugged driving, like drunk driving, is a matter of public safety and health. It puts us all at risk and must be prevented."

NHTSA is conducting further research to assess how drug traces correspond to driver impairment since some drugs can remain in the body for days or even weeks. Should further research indicate that drugs pose the same type of traffic safety risk as alcohol, NHTSA is committed to applying lessons learned in fighting the drunk driving problem.

Among the findings of the latest roadside survey are these:

? The percentage of male drivers with illegal BAC levels was 42 percent higher than the percentage of alcohol-impaired female drivers.

? Drivers were more likely to be illegally drunk during late nighttime hours (1 a.m. to 3 a.m.) than during daytime or early evening hours.

? Motorcycle riders were more than twice as likely as passenger vehicle drivers to be drunk (5.6 percent compared with 2.3 percent). Pickup truck drivers were the next most likely to have illegal BACs (3.3 percent).

The 2007 survey involved more than 300 roadside locations throughout the U.S. Click here to view the Research Note.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/porta...ReleaseYearSelect=2009

Another study which i will label as biased due to the time that a drug can stay in your system... someone could have done a few lines of coke 3 days before this roadside test and passed, but someone who smoked a blunt a week ago would be positive...
 

LumbergTech

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2005
3,622
1
0
I would be interested to know how they determine when the last time the person smoked pot was
 

SirStev0

Lifer
Nov 13, 2003
10,449
6
81
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
I would be interested to know how they determine when the last time the person smoked pot was

I was wondering that too. I really want to know more about how this study was conducted. Was it based on arrests or traffic stops? Or what?
 

MiniDoom

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2004
5,305
0
76
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
I would be interested to know how they determine when the last time the person smoked pot was

are you really worried about someone stopping at a flashing yellow light or driving 10 mph below the speed limit?
 

LumbergTech

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2005
3,622
1
0
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
I would be interested to know how they determine when the last time the person smoked pot was

are you really worried about someone stopping at a flashing yellow light or driving 10 mph below the speed limit?

I think some people would be pretty horrific drivers while high..it effects some more than others

therefore, I don't think it should be legal (to drive high)
its not one of those pick and choose things where you can say oh well so and so is certified to drive high

that said, i find it hard to believe that they can determine (accurately) whether the person is currently high or not
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Drug and alcohol driving show despicable numbers. I cannot believe so many assholes continue to do it. They should be fvcking flogged when caught driving drunk. Take them out of the car and beat the sh*t out of them.
 

Fingolfin269

Lifer
Feb 28, 2003
17,948
34
91
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
I would be interested to know how they determine when the last time the person smoked pot was

are you really worried about someone stopping at a flashing yellow light or driving 10 mph below the speed limit?

I think some people would be pretty horrific drivers while high..it effects some more than others

therefore, I don't think it should be legal (to drive high)
its not one of those pick and choose things where you can say oh well so and so is certified to drive high

that said, i find it hard to believe that they can determine (accurately) whether the person is currently high or not

Just like some people can drive just fine with a BAC of .08.
 

Red Irish

Guest
Mar 6, 2009
1,605
0
0
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
I would be interested to know how they determine when the last time the person smoked pot was

are you really worried about someone stopping at a flashing yellow light or driving 10 mph below the speed limit?

I think some people would be pretty horrific drivers while high..it effects some more than others

therefore, I don't think it should be legal (to drive high)
its not one of those pick and choose things where you can say oh well so and so is certified to drive high

that said, i find it hard to believe that they can determine (accurately) whether the person is currently high or not

Pilot studies have already been carried out in Spain: apparently saliva can be used to measure the presence of THC.


 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,345
126
The truely staggering number to me is that in 1973 almost 1 out of every 12 drivers on the road was blowing a BAC of over .08. With no seatbelts, airbags, or flurry of other safety features we have in cars now, one has to wonder how we survived that era.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: vi edit
The truely staggering number to me is that in 1973 almost 1 out of every 12 drivers on the road was blowing a BAC of over .08. With no seatbelts, airbags, or flurry of other safety features we have in cars now, one has to wonder how we survived that era.
Many didn't. Vehicle fatalities are much lower but drunk driving is still involved in something like half of crashes. Our society is far too easy and lax on people driving.
Just like some people can drive just fine with a BAC of .08.
Not as well as without the .08 and that is a simple fact.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: vi edit
The truely staggering number to me is that in 1973 almost 1 out of every 12 drivers on the road was blowing a BAC of over .08. With no seatbelts, airbags, or flurry of other safety features we have in cars now, one has to wonder how we survived that era.
Many didn't. Vehicle fatalities are much lower but drunk driving is still involved in something like half of crashes. Our society is far too easy and lax on people driving.
Just like some people can drive just fine with a BAC of .08.
Not as well as without the .08 and that is a simple fact.

Or as not well without talking to a passenger. Or driving tired. Or singing along to a song on the radio. Etc., etc. The demonetization of drunk driving is a scam to increase police powers and state revenues. Whenever there's a drunk driving wreck bad enough to hear about, how many times are they at .08? Those stories always contain phrases like "twice" and "nearly three times" the legal limit. Most people at .08 are a danger mailboxes and bumpers. I agree that drivers who are drunk to the point they can cause serious injury and death should be dragged out of their car and flogged, but blowing a .08 at a checkpoint should not get that person the hassle it does.
 

Kntx

Platinum Member
Dec 11, 2000
2,270
0
71
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: vi edit
The truely staggering number to me is that in 1973 almost 1 out of every 12 drivers on the road was blowing a BAC of over .08. With no seatbelts, airbags, or flurry of other safety features we have in cars now, one has to wonder how we survived that era.
Many didn't. Vehicle fatalities are much lower but drunk driving is still involved in something like half of crashes. Our society is far too easy and lax on people driving.
Just like some people can drive just fine with a BAC of .08.
Not as well as without the .08 and that is a simple fact.

Actually seven percent (7%) of all traffic accidents involve alcohol use, according to NHTSA estimates. Far from half.

So it follows that ninety-three percent (93%) of all traffic accidents involve no alcohol use at all. The far more troubling statistic. Drink up!
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: lupi
another sign that we should legalize it today.

Agreed, prohibition does nothing to stop people from driving stoned, while we have been able to control drunk driving with alcohol being legal.
 

aldamon

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2000
3,280
0
76
Originally posted by: Skoorb

Vehicle fatalities are much lower but drunk driving is still involved in something like half of crashes. Our society is far too easy and lax on people driving.

This site says 37%:

http://www.alcoholalert.com/dr...riving-statistics.html

Cops should stop wasting everyone's time going after speeders in the daytime and focus on drivers and random alcohol checkpoints at night. That probably wouldn't contribute as much revenue though.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: aldamon
random alcohol checkpoints at night.

Ah, yes, guilty before proven innocent. :roll:

Sorry, I have no problems trying to get drunks off the road, but I don't support taking away the rights of the innocent to do it. I'm sure some court has said this is legal, but I don't agree.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: vi edit
The truely staggering number to me is that in 1973 almost 1 out of every 12 drivers on the road was blowing a BAC of over .08. With no seatbelts, airbags, or flurry of other safety features we have in cars now, one has to wonder how we survived that era.
Many didn't. Vehicle fatalities are much lower but drunk driving is still involved in something like half of crashes. Our society is far too easy and lax on people driving.
Just like some people can drive just fine with a BAC of .08.
Not as well as without the .08 and that is a simple fact.

Or as not well without talking to a passenger. Or driving tired. Or singing along to a song on the radio. Etc., etc. The demonetization of drunk driving is a scam to increase police powers and state revenues. Whenever there's a drunk driving wreck bad enough to hear about, how many times are they at .08? Those stories always contain phrases like "twice" and "nearly three times" the legal limit. Most people at .08 are a danger mailboxes and bumpers. I agree that drivers who are drunk to the point they can cause serious injury and death should be dragged out of their car and flogged, but blowing a .08 at a checkpoint should not get that person the hassle it does.
Yes it should, and more. It's clearly a fact that being at .08 greatly impairs driving abilities. And it's easily measurable, unlike talking to a passenger, driving while tired, or playing with yourself, also all of which can impair driving but enforcing of which is impossible.

Unreal that you consider drunk driving a scam considering how prevalent it is in accident rates. Really unreal.

Actually seven percent (7%) of all traffic accidents involve alcohol use, according to NHTSA estimates. Far from half.

So it follows that ninety-three percent (93%) of all traffic accidents involve no alcohol use at all. The far more troubling statistic. Drink up!
OK, clarification--ah aldamon already found the number. 37%. Pretty much doesn't seem like a scam to me.

Have cops sit outside bars and set up checkpoints there. Of course the bars would all lose business because that's where all the drunks are coming from. Again, society cares more about money than safety.
 

Kntx

Platinum Member
Dec 11, 2000
2,270
0
71
Originally posted by: Skoorb
OK, clarification--ah aldamon already found the number. 37%. Pretty much doesn't seem like a scam to me.

37% is the number for fatal crashes. 7% is the number for all crashes where alcohol was involved, where you suggested 50%.
 

Ronstang

Lifer
Jul 8, 2000
12,493
18
81
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
I would be interested to know how they determine when the last time the person smoked pot was

are you really worried about someone stopping at a flashing yellow light or driving 10 mph below the speed limit?

If you think the impairment is any different that alcohol then you have smoked too much.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Ronstang
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
I would be interested to know how they determine when the last time the person smoked pot was

are you really worried about someone stopping at a flashing yellow light or driving 10 mph below the speed limit?

If you think the impairment is any different that alcohol then you have smoked too much.

If you think the impairment isn't different, you're a fscking moron.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: aldamon
Originally posted by: bamacre
Sorry, I have no problems trying to get drunks off the road, but I don't support taking away the rights of the innocent to do it. I'm sure some court has said this is legal, but I don't agree.

Alcohol checkpoints don't take away anyone's rights and they're very effective:

http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicl...riving/checkpoint.html

Amendment IV: Search and arrest warrants
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 

LikeLinus

Lifer
Jul 25, 2001
11,518
670
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: aldamon
Originally posted by: bamacre
Sorry, I have no problems trying to get drunks off the road, but I don't support taking away the rights of the innocent to do it. I'm sure some court has said this is legal, but I don't agree.

Alcohol checkpoints don't take away anyone's rights and they're very effective:

http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicl...riving/checkpoint.html

Amendment IV: Search and arrest warrants
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that sobriety checkpoints are constitutional. What's your point?