
Since marijuana legalization, CO highway fatalities near historic lows (2014) - snowy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/08/05/since-marijuana-legalization-highway-fatalities-in-colorado-are-at-near-historic-lows/
======
powera
Article is from 2014. And when it was discussed last time, I believe the
conclusion that focusing on highway fatalities was cherry-picking to show the
best possible outcome given all the changes in crime / accidents in the past
year in Colorado.

Having another year of data would be necessary here to really have believable
claims about the impact.

~~~
gtf21
I'm pretty sure that the point of the article is merely to debunk the idea
that marijuana legalisation will lead to a mob of stoned drivers careening
around the roads of Colorado.

From the article:

> These figures in and of themselves only indicate that the roads are getting
> safer; they don’t suggest that pot had anything to do with it

------
melling
This data says that fatalities slightly increased in 2014:

[https://www.codot.gov/library/traffic/safety-crash-
data/fata...](https://www.codot.gov/library/traffic/safety-crash-data/fatal-
crash-data-city-county/historical_fatals.pdf/at_download/file)

~~~
duaneb
Yea, the data is cherry-picked. If I were to guess, we probably won't see
statistically significant data clearly tied to legalization for a while.

~~~
greglindahl
Statistically significant for what question?

"Traffic fatalities are going to triple because of pot!" needs much less data
than "traffic fatalities might increase slightly because of pot".

~~~
duaneb
That's true. I think absurd claims are going to continue to be absurd. I don't
think MOST people were expecting a drug-driven apocalypse.

------
snickmy
[http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-
correlations](http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations) anyone ?

------
draugadrotten
Correlation, causation, propaganda?

~~~
tinalumfoil
I don't even understand how these could be related, or how anyone could think
these are related. Marijuana is known to make people drive worse. This is
classic example of post hoc fallacy [0].

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc)

~~~
Zigurd
It is actually known that musicians and athletes perform at elite levels while
stoned.

------
gkop
This is common sense to anyone who has ever driven high on pot: you drive
slower.

~~~
DanBC
Drunk drivers say literally the same about alcohol. Until you film them
driving a car while drunk (or using a simulator) and then show them all the
bits of their driving made worse by alcohol.

~~~
gkop
1) The inebriating qualities of the two drugs are apples and oranges 2) The
effects of alcohol on driving are well-documented, but do you have videos of
stoned drivers driving poorly?

~~~
duaneb
> do you have videos of stoned drivers driving poorly?

I don't even know many stoners who would flat-out make the claim they don't
drive worse when high. Everyone I know hits a point of being high enough where
attention is low, reflexes are slow, and/or you have physical symptoms (e.g.
drowsiness). No, you're not exactly drunk—you are probably rational, aware,
etc—but you also probably shouldn't be operating tons of high speed machinery
at that point. Everyone makes mistakes, and you don't want to put yourself in
a situation where your mistakes might kill somebody.

My recommendation is to ease off this tact as it comes off more like being in
denial about your responsibility as a driver.

~~~
gkop
Absolutely you are correct that many marijuana users regularly achieve a high
under which they ought not drive. One difference between weed and alcohol, is
that the marijuana users are more likely to choose not to drive in this state,
IE they don't suffer from the same critically impaired judgement that we often
associate with drunk driving. IE they are more likely to be respectful of
their responsibility as a driver than drivers that have been drinking.

