Chronik Fatigue
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2005
- Messages
- 5,735
NEWS: The Age 23/08/07- Cannabis smoker blamed for seven-death crash
- Thread starter Chronik Fatigue
- Start date
juice_soldier
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2007
- Messages
- 448
yet again. Weed is the problem...
tribesman
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 386
There certainly is alot of far out claims out there about marijuana, but if the guy was stoned when he crashed then he's really just got to cop whats coming. Its not like they are saying that it was just in his system, the reading he gave means he smoked very soon before he crashed. It should be treated just like anyone who kills people driving drunk.
I have spoken to a few regularly smokers who just brush it off and say 'they are used to it, it doesn't affect there driving', but thats like accepting an alcoholic who says hes used to driving drunk.
And thats not to say that I am not as guilty as anyone else, I know if I would have had an accident in my previous heavier smoking years I would have been in serious, life changing trouble.
I have spoken to a few regularly smokers who just brush it off and say 'they are used to it, it doesn't affect there driving', but thats like accepting an alcoholic who says hes used to driving drunk.
And thats not to say that I am not as guilty as anyone else, I know if I would have had an accident in my previous heavier smoking years I would have been in serious, life changing trouble.
Dr.Feelgood
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2006
- Messages
- 220
It doesn't matter what drug you have in your system when driving, it's going to effect your perception of things. And even in the slightest way, this can matter greatly on roads filled with terrible sober drivers and even worse drugged out ones. The point is pretty clear, driving under the influence of shit gets people killed and a seven death crash caused by two parties is a pretty serious fucking issue considering the guy had pot in his system. I don't care how many people flaunt the whole 'Oh no, weed makes me cautious when I drive so I'm actually safer" BS; because your perception is slowed doesn't allow you to make a positive judgment on your ability to drive.
phase_dancer
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,179
While risks are increased with intoxicated drivers, I believe large amounts of caffeine can be just as dangerous as cannabis. With larger doses of caffeine, drivers can become erratic, shaky and prone to over reacting.
I also wonder just how safe chronic cannabis users are when they drive straight. Most I know generally tend to be irritable, impulsive and impatient when they're straight for extended periods. To me, such a driver poses far more risk to others. The same might be said of long term users of anxiety medications, prescription or otherwise.
Fatigued or distracted drivers, or those lacking alertness, all pose a risk to the safety of other travellers.
To be perfectly honest, if I had to make a choice from the above, I'd choose to be a passenger in a car with the regularly stoned driver.
However, in saying that, I do believe there needs to be stringent and tight control over drivers that aren't fit to drive - including drug affected drivers. Still, while we can detect those who have recently used drugs, how do we measure alertness and potential for distraction? Being really excited or concerned about something can also dramatically increase risk of accident. Then there's those who travel fast while rummaging through, and changing cds, or drive with their knee on the wheel while eating or SMSing their friends. I once travelled in a car with a guy that did this for over 70km, travelling at speeds of 120km/hour plus with most of his gaze fixed on his mobile. It was a terrifying experience but it made me wonder just how many other drivers were out there - that you pass within inches of - doing the same thing.
Being on the road is dangerous, full stop. You're potentially within a short distance of death every time you pass a car. Pulling the stoned (cannabis) drivers off the road might help, but I'd be willing to bet it would do little to lower accident rates. Inattentiveness from lack of sleep, stress, running late, etc are far more likely contributors IMHO.
There's also another issue that should be addressed in this area. How many cars are out there that aren't road worthy, and thereby pose an additional - some might say a less controllable risk - to motorists. Qld doesn't even have a compulsory 12 month road-worthy rule. Let's start by adopting tougher inspection regulations and bringing vehicle safety standards into line with New Zealand, where vehicles must pass a thorough 12 monthly warrant of fitness' check for any new car and a 6 monthly one for any car over 6 years old. As seen there, this needs to also include trailers, motorbikes and basically anything on the road. I think it's absolutely absurd that these basic requirements aren't universal throughout Australia. Who does the risk management?
Some might argue that as such a high percentage of drivers involved in accidents have drugs in their system, this should be addressed first. But how does this figure compare with victims of road accidents and those who are fortunate enough to avoid accidents? What levels of drugs are common in these groups? afaik these figures haven't been compared, possibly as they are likely to reveal that drug use is even more prevalent than we care to admit.
I'm all for reducing road accidents, but in doing that, sensationalistic responses should be avoided and the whole issue of road safety be properly addressed. Why do we allow cars to be registered that have a top speed that can be up to 3 times the max speed limit? Why aren't all intersections and sections of road with a history of accidents not fixed up? Why don't all rail crossings have boom gates? Why aren't roadways designed with a more far-sighted approach to traffic density? Why aren't defensive driving courses compulsory for all drivers?.......
I also wonder just how safe chronic cannabis users are when they drive straight. Most I know generally tend to be irritable, impulsive and impatient when they're straight for extended periods. To me, such a driver poses far more risk to others. The same might be said of long term users of anxiety medications, prescription or otherwise.
Fatigued or distracted drivers, or those lacking alertness, all pose a risk to the safety of other travellers.
To be perfectly honest, if I had to make a choice from the above, I'd choose to be a passenger in a car with the regularly stoned driver.
However, in saying that, I do believe there needs to be stringent and tight control over drivers that aren't fit to drive - including drug affected drivers. Still, while we can detect those who have recently used drugs, how do we measure alertness and potential for distraction? Being really excited or concerned about something can also dramatically increase risk of accident. Then there's those who travel fast while rummaging through, and changing cds, or drive with their knee on the wheel while eating or SMSing their friends. I once travelled in a car with a guy that did this for over 70km, travelling at speeds of 120km/hour plus with most of his gaze fixed on his mobile. It was a terrifying experience but it made me wonder just how many other drivers were out there - that you pass within inches of - doing the same thing.
Being on the road is dangerous, full stop. You're potentially within a short distance of death every time you pass a car. Pulling the stoned (cannabis) drivers off the road might help, but I'd be willing to bet it would do little to lower accident rates. Inattentiveness from lack of sleep, stress, running late, etc are far more likely contributors IMHO.
There's also another issue that should be addressed in this area. How many cars are out there that aren't road worthy, and thereby pose an additional - some might say a less controllable risk - to motorists. Qld doesn't even have a compulsory 12 month road-worthy rule. Let's start by adopting tougher inspection regulations and bringing vehicle safety standards into line with New Zealand, where vehicles must pass a thorough 12 monthly warrant of fitness' check for any new car and a 6 monthly one for any car over 6 years old. As seen there, this needs to also include trailers, motorbikes and basically anything on the road. I think it's absolutely absurd that these basic requirements aren't universal throughout Australia. Who does the risk management?
Some might argue that as such a high percentage of drivers involved in accidents have drugs in their system, this should be addressed first. But how does this figure compare with victims of road accidents and those who are fortunate enough to avoid accidents? What levels of drugs are common in these groups? afaik these figures haven't been compared, possibly as they are likely to reveal that drug use is even more prevalent than we care to admit.
I'm all for reducing road accidents, but in doing that, sensationalistic responses should be avoided and the whole issue of road safety be properly addressed. Why do we allow cars to be registered that have a top speed that can be up to 3 times the max speed limit? Why aren't all intersections and sections of road with a history of accidents not fixed up? Why don't all rail crossings have boom gates? Why aren't roadways designed with a more far-sighted approach to traffic density? Why aren't defensive driving courses compulsory for all drivers?.......