NHTSA study finds illegal drug use does not increase risk of getting into accidents

[shira]

Here's the most surprising result from the study, published this past week:

This study of crash risk found a statistically significant increase in unadjusted crash risk for drivers who tested positive for use of illegal drugs (1.21 times), and THC specifically (1.25 times). However, analyses incorporating adjustments for age, gender, ethnicity, and alcohol concentration level did not show a significant increase in levels of crash risk associated with the presence of drugs. This finding indicates that these other variables (age, gender ethnicity and alcohol use) were highly correlated with drug use and account for much of the increased risk associated with the use of illegal drugs and with THC.

To put this in overly-simplistic terms: It's not whether or not you use drugs that predicts accidents, it's whether or not you're a young, black male who drinks.

 

[Jhhnn]

Here's the most surprising result from the study, published this past week:



To put this in overly-simplistic terms: It's not whether or not you use drugs that predicts accidents, it's whether or not you're a young, black male who drinks.

I read the piece & the links, finding no reference to race at all. Perhaps you'd care to point it out.

 

[nickqt]

Here's a 1993 DOT study on the affects of THC on driving that found that although there is a little bit of impairment, it isn't nearly as bad as alcohol, and that drivers are usually competent because they compensate for being high.

http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/25000/25800/25867/DOT-HS-808-078.pdf

Save America. Keep cannabis safe and illegal.

 

[Darwin333]

To put this in overly-simplistic terms: It's not whether or not you use drugs that predicts accidents, it's whether or not you're a young, black male who drinks.

Pretty sure the ethnicity part is about asians, they are genius in the classroom but can't drive worth a fuck!

 

[shira]

I read the piece & the links, finding no reference to race at all. Perhaps you'd care to point it out.

Look at Table four: "Adjusted for Demographic Variables: Age, Gender And Race/Ethnicity"

Now I agree it's rather presumptuous of me to assume that "adjusting for race/ethnicity" is a code-phrase for "being black correlates with a higher incidence of accidents, so we're going to control for that variable." But if race/ethnicity were not an issue, I highly doubt it would an independent variable.

 

[shira]

Here's a 1993 DOT study on the affects of THC on driving that found that although there is a little bit of impairment, it isn't nearly as bad as alcohol, and that drivers are usually competent because they compensate for being high.

http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/25000/25800/25867/DOT-HS-808-078.pdf

Save America. Keep cannabis safe and illegal.

And I would be willing to bet that if someone did a careful study to compare the correlation between hands-free mobile-phone use while driving and the incidence of accidents, it would be determined that there's a MUCH higher correlation there than between THC in the bloodstream and accidents. Yet I'd also be willing to bet that in face of such study results, the punishment for driving with a threshold level of serum THC would continue to be MUCH greater than the non-punishment for hands-free mobile-phone useage while driving. Because having THC in the bloodstream MUST be punished. Just because.

 

[OverVolt]

So you smoke a wee bit of weed occasionally. Well that makes sense.

Probably dropped you from 130 to 120 IQ but you still think you're 130 .

 

[nickqt]

Look at Table four: "Adjusted for Demographic Variables: Age, Gender And Race/Ethnicity"

Now I agree it's rather presumptuous of me to assume that "adjusting for race/ethnicity" is a code-phrase for "being black correlates with a higher incidence of accidents, so we're going to control for that variable." But if race/ethnicity were not an issue, I highly doubt it would an independent variable.

There are lots of reasons to adjust based on variables. For example, if you're trying to incorporate data from different groups, and one group A has 10x as much data as another group B, you don't necessarily just add A+B and start doing all of the statistical math. Instead, you might multiple Bx10. Or any number of ways to adjust variables to make them more alike so that the data is standardized.

For example, there are a hell of a lot more white people than black people, and because a larger percentage of black people live in poverty sans a car, it's not necessarily true that black people get into accidents more than white people, but that there are substantially less black people in total, and a smaller percentage of them own a car and operate it.

 

[OverVolt]

There are lots of reasons to adjust based on variables. For example, if you're trying to incorporate data from different groups, and one group A has 10x as much data as another group B, you don't necessarily just add A+B and start doing all of the statistical math. Instead, you might multiple Bx10. Or any number of ways to adjust variables to make them more alike so that the data is standardized.

For example, there are a hell of a lot more white people than black people, and because a larger percentage of black people live in poverty sans a car, it's not necessarily true that black people get into accidents more than white people, but that there are substantially less black people in total, and a smaller percentage of them own a car and operate it.

Yea they wouldn't ever run the statistics that way.

But at least you got correlation is not causation down.

 

[oobydoobydoo]

As much as I agree that pot smokers shouldn't get DUIs for driving high, I also would rather they not drive high. So some sort of ticket system... or something? It seems irresponsible and wrong to suggest that smoking marijuana would have no effect on a persons driving.



Maybe it is statistically insignificant, but I tried pot years ago... and it didn't seem like it helped me drive at all.

 

[nickqt]

As much as I agree that pot smokers shouldn't get DUIs for driving high, I also would rather they not drive high. So some sort of ticket system... or something? It seems irresponsible and wrong to suggest that smoking marijuana would have no effect on a persons driving.



Maybe it is statistically insignificant, but I tried pot years ago... and it didn't seem like it helped me drive at all.

Well, first I wouldn't say that cannabis should be used before driving, or that it makes your driving better.

Second, most people who've only "tried" cannabis never established any type of tolerance to it, and probably only used it a few times so that they were stuck in "laughing at nothing" mode.

Using cannabis maybe once a day like drinking a glass or two of wine, having a couple of beers is how I would prefer it, were I to be a user. Which, unfortunately, I am not able to be, currently.

A little bit of a tolerance to it so you aren't in "laughy" mode and it I'd argue that it enhances a whole lot of things, as depending on the user, you can gain a different insight into things you usually take for granted.

 

[Jhhnn]

Look at Table four: "Adjusted for Demographic Variables: Age, Gender And Race/Ethnicity"

Now I agree it's rather presumptuous of me to assume that "adjusting for race/ethnicity" is a code-phrase for "being black correlates with a higher incidence of accidents, so we're going to control for that variable." But if race/ethnicity were not an issue, I highly doubt it would an independent variable.

So, if being black were a significant variable then they would have noted it in their findings. Obviously, they did not. Variables are arbitrary considerations on the part of researchers. They could have used shoe size just to prove it doesn't matter, same as with race.

 

[Subyman]

Here is a decent explanation from the article:

The survey found that marijuana users are more likely to be involved in accidents, but that the increased risk may be due in part because marijuana users are more likely to be in groups at higher risk of crashes. In particular, marijuana users are more likely to be young men – a group already at high risk.

Something I found a bit strange about their method though:

is a completely voluntary, anonymous survey that gathers data in dozens of locations across the country from drivers who agree to participate. Drivers are alerted by multiple roadside signs that a voluntary survey site is ahead, and researchers gather data from those who volunteer.

I'd think someone that is really high wouldn't volunteer or would be less likely to.

 

[Jhhnn]

Here is a decent explanation from the article:



Something I found a bit strange about their method though:



I'd think someone that is really high wouldn't volunteer or would be less likely to.

Or maybe more likely, given the bravado of young men.

 

[cbrunny]

Is this being framed as an argument to make driving under the influence of drugs legal?

 

[unokitty]

At the risk of being politically incorrect, statistics show that in Auckland, Black and Brown cars were more frequently involved in crashes...

To paraphrase a popular politician, the science is settled...

Uno

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, first I wouldn't say that cannabis should be used before driving, or that it makes your driving better.

Second, most people who've only "tried" cannabis never established any type of tolerance to it, and probably only used it a few times so that they were stuck in "laughing at nothing" mode.

Using cannabis maybe once a day like drinking a glass or two of wine, having a couple of beers is how I would prefer it, were I to be a user. Which, unfortunately, I am not able to be, currently.

A little bit of a tolerance to it so you aren't in "laughy" mode and it I'd argue that it enhances a whole lot of things, as depending on the user, you can gain a different insight into things you usually take for granted.

Why the hell would anyone want a tolerance to it? Why would anyone want a distorted insight into anything? Maybe I don't need my reality "enhanced"?

If you wanna get high on your own time, fine with me, but don't try to bullshit the rest of us about it.

Is this being framed as an argument to make driving under the influence of drugs legal?

It sure sounds like it.

 

[Belegost]

At the risk of being politically incorrect, statistics show that in Auckland, Black and Brown cars were more frequently involved in crashes...

To paraphrase a popular politician, the science is settled...

Uno

Funny, I've always bought silver cars...

 

[master_shake_]

Funny, I've always bought silver cars...

what's really strange is that red cars have a higher insurance premium.

 

[Anubis]

what's really strange is that red cars have a higher insurance premium.

doesn't that have something to do with them being perceived to be traveling faster due to how we see color, so speeding not accidents

 

[cbrunny]

How does a radar gun see colour?

 

[shira]

So, if being black were a significant variable then they would have noted it in their findings. Obviously, they did not. Variables are arbitrary considerations on the part of researchers. They could have used shoe size just to prove it doesn't matter, same as with race.

They noted "race/ethnicity." If race/ethnicity didn't account for a significant a part of the variance in results, it would have been omitted.

 

[Moonbeam]

So you smoke a wee bit of weed occasionally. Well that makes sense.

Probably dropped you from 130 to 120 IQ but you still think you're 130 .

OOPS

 

[Moonbeam]

So you smoke a wee bit of weed occasionally. Well that makes sense.

Probably dropped you from 130 to 120 IQ but you still think you're 130 .

Actually mine went from 205 down into the 190s and I can tell because I just made a mistake.

PS: In other news giving teenage girls a papilloma virus vaccination does not cause them to engage in increased risky sexual behavior.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why the hell would anyone want a tolerance to it? Why would anyone want a distorted insight into anything? Maybe I don't need my reality "enhanced"?

If you wanna get high on your own time, fine with me, but don't try to bullshit the rest of us about it.



It sure sounds like it.

Yeh, people who could really use a fresh take on their own headset are often the most resistant. More's the pity.

We all have our blind spots. Altered states of consciousness can reveal them to us. That's been obvious to seekers of self awareness & enlightenment since before the dawn of history.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28034925/...-marijuana-stash-totally-busted/#.VNpKyCzzER8