6 ms·

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 leve

by graeme 10mo ago

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 10mo ago
Right, so it might just mean that reckless drivers are more likely to smoke weed.
mindslight 10mo ago
The second seems eminently plausible with the correlation between driving skills and drug use both being due to higher risk tolerance.
machinationu 10mo ago
2. young people are worse drivers and more likely to use
Retric 10mo ago
The expected number seems to be about 20+% (depending on assumptions) so this is higher than expected but not drastically so. Critically, people are more likely to get in accidents later in the day and after drinking both of which also correlate with relatively recent cannabis consumption.
hattmall 10mo ago
It's seat belts. People who die in wrecks are overwhelmingly not wearing seat belts. I would think marijuana users as a group probably have average seat belt usage, but people who don't wear seat belts probably have much higher than average marijuanna usage. Roughy 92% of people wear seat belts. But that 8% of people that don't wear setbelts makes up 50% or more of all fatalities. From my personal experience it seems easy to me to assume that 90% of the people that don't wear seat belts also use marijuanna.
- SecretDreams 10mo ago
  The seat belts comment is so apt. We should be looking at the full population of drivers involved in accidents, not just those that went through a windshield. Restraints play such a pivotal role in crash safety, but not wearing them isn't a meaningful indicator of impairment status.
- henearkr 10mo ago
  I can't make sense of it mathematically. A statistical distribution fitting these characteristics does not exist. If non-weeders have an average seat belt wearing, and if weeders also have an average seat belt wearing, then the proportion of weeders inside of the seat belt non-wearing class is just equal to the proportion of weeders inside the whole population.
- block_dagger 10mo ago
  You had me until the last sentence. Your easy assumption seems nonsensical to me.
- SoftTalker 10mo ago
  Is this a joke? The people who don't wear seatbelts are in my observation old folks who grew up without them or before using them was mandatory. It's just their habit. I've almost never seen a person under about age 40 not using a seatbelt.
  - hattmall 10mo ago
    No. I don't know a lot of people that don't wear seatbelts, but they all smoke weed. All of my friends that died in car wrecks weren't wearing seat belts and would have definitely tested positive for THC. I don't know any old people that don't wear seatbelts. The people I do know that don't wear seatbelts also live pretty otherwise high risk lives, drug dealers, strippers, street gang members,etc.
  - danaris 10mo ago
    While I do not commonly ride in cars driven by people outside my family, my experience has been quite the opposite: when I do ride in cars with older people, they buckle up as a matter of course, while when I ride with younger people, they are much more likely not to.
seanmcdirmid 10mo ago
Do we know what the THC levels are in (1) drivers who didn't die, and (2) the population in general? It could just be that 40% of the population is over the limit on THC all the time. Unless we can compare this against something else, and we can somehow normalize the comparison for other factors like age, I don't know how we can use the data.
- cogman10 10mo ago
  This is a knowable thing, it just needs to be studied (I'm actually surprised it's not been TBH). Give people a standard set of coordination tests and then draw their blood to see what the THC level is.
  - seanmcdirmid 10mo ago
    If we were just interested in outcomes (in an accident or not), we should just be measuring that. But I guess if we can’t measure that, a litmus test is better than nothing.
wooger 10mo ago
I would say that anyone who smokes anything (cigarettes, vapes, cannabis, crack) is indicating that they're at best not health conscious and are acting in a nihilistic way. It seems entirely logical that their risk-tolerance and judgement will be accordingly different to the general population whether they're high or not.

by graeme 10mo ago

sfn42 10mo ago

Right, so it might just mean that reckless drivers are more likely to smoke weed.

mindslight 10mo ago

The second seems eminently plausible with the correlation between driving skills and drug use both being due to higher risk tolerance.

machinationu 10mo ago

2. young people are worse drivers and more likely to use

Retric 10mo ago

The expected number seems to be about 20+% (depending on assumptions) so this is higher than expected but not drastically so. Critically, people are more likely to get in accidents later in the day and after drinking both of which also correlate with relatively recent cannabis consumption.

hattmall 10mo ago

It's seat belts. People who die in wrecks are overwhelmingly not wearing seat belts. I would think marijuana users as a group probably have average seat belt usage, but people who don't wear seat belts probably have much higher than average marijuanna usage. Roughy 92% of people wear seat belts. But that 8% of people that don't wear setbelts makes up 50% or more of all fatalities. From my personal experience it seems easy to me to assume that 90% of the people that don't wear seat belts also use marijuanna.

SecretDreams 10mo ago
The seat belts comment is so apt. We should be looking at the full population of drivers involved in accidents, not just those that went through a windshield. Restraints play such a pivotal role in crash safety, but not wearing them isn't a meaningful indicator of impairment status.
henearkr 10mo ago
I can't make sense of it mathematically. A statistical distribution fitting these characteristics does not exist. If non-weeders have an average seat belt wearing, and if weeders also have an average seat belt wearing, then the proportion of weeders inside of the seat belt non-wearing class is just equal to the proportion of weeders inside the whole population.
block_dagger 10mo ago
You had me until the last sentence. Your easy assumption seems nonsensical to me.
SoftTalker 10mo ago
Is this a joke? The people who don't wear seatbelts are in my observation old folks who grew up without them or before using them was mandatory. It's just their habit. I've almost never seen a person under about age 40 not using a seatbelt.
- hattmall 10mo ago
  No. I don't know a lot of people that don't wear seatbelts, but they all smoke weed. All of my friends that died in car wrecks weren't wearing seat belts and would have definitely tested positive for THC. I don't know any old people that don't wear seatbelts. The people I do know that don't wear seatbelts also live pretty otherwise high risk lives, drug dealers, strippers, street gang members,etc.
- danaris 10mo ago
  While I do not commonly ride in cars driven by people outside my family, my experience has been quite the opposite: when I do ride in cars with older people, they buckle up as a matter of course, while when I ride with younger people, they are much more likely not to.

seanmcdirmid 10mo ago

Do we know what the THC levels are in (1) drivers who didn't die, and (2) the population in general? It could just be that 40% of the population is over the limit on THC all the time. Unless we can compare this against something else, and we can somehow normalize the comparison for other factors like age, I don't know how we can use the data.

cogman10 10mo ago
This is a knowable thing, it just needs to be studied (I'm actually surprised it's not been TBH). Give people a standard set of coordination tests and then draw their blood to see what the THC level is.
- seanmcdirmid 10mo ago
  If we were just interested in outcomes (in an accident or not), we should just be measuring that. But I guess if we can’t measure that, a litmus test is better than nothing.

wooger 10mo ago

I would say that anyone who smokes anything (cigarettes, vapes, cannabis, crack) is indicating that they're at best not health conscious and are acting in a nihilistic way. It seems entirely logical that their risk-tolerance and judgement will be accordingly different to the general population whether they're high or not.