This fairly bizarre bit of propaganda has been unveiled in New Zealand: Drugged drivers next on safety hit list
In the war against drugged drivers an advertising campaign reveals the reactions of secretly filmed New Zealanders when they are told the driver of the car they are in is high on drugs.
The new road safety campaign hits television screens this weekend with the unscripted responses of people who thought they were being driven to a costume fitting for a commercial.
Instead they were being covertly filmed by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and their drivers were actors pretending to be under the influence of drugs.
I know actors who could scare the crap out of passengers by pretending to be Justin Bieber or an armadillo while driving. What does that mean?
It sounds like a good Candid Camera bit, but what does it really have to do with safety on the highways?
But I’m sure that, obviously with this big effort, New Zealand at least has strong scientific data showing that drugged driving is a serious problem. Right?
NZTA chief executive Geoff Dangerfield said less was known about the extent of drugged driving in New Zealand compared with research on drink-driving, but evidence suggested drugs could be a bigger factor in crashes than officially reported.
“We know that driving under the influence of drugs is common and widespread, yet our research shows that only one in 10 New Zealanders see it as a problem,” he said.
So they really don’t have much evidence, but they’re sure it must be true, and apparently somehow the fact that New Zealanders don’t see it as a problem means that it’s a problem. There’s logic and science for you.
Not that the U.S. has been any better.
Our National Drug Control Strategy includes these goals (in order)
- Encouraging states to adopt Per Se drug impairment laws
- Collecting further data on drugged driving
Yep. Pass the laws and then look for proof of the problem.
Sabet and Kerlikowse had absolutely no interest in science when they perverted NHTSA data to imply something it didn’t.
Now it’s possible that there may be some real science in the future to determine an actual level of THC that results in actual impairment. The best study I know of in that area is being conducted by Dr. Jeff Brubacher with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. He describes it thusly:
…we analyze police reports to determine who should have been able to avoid the crash (culpable) and who had no chance of avoiding the crash (non-culpable). This is done using strict guidelines and without knowing the driverâ€™s toxicology results. We then compare THC positive rates between culpable and non-culpable drivers. If the culpable drivers are more likely to be THC positive, then there is an association between THC and crash causation.
We are also looking at how the culpability rate varies with THC level. Heavy cannabis users have trivially elevated blood THC levels (< 2 ng/mL) for a week or more after last use. There isnâ€™t any evidence that these low levels contribute to crashes. We will also be measuring THC metabolites (COOH-THC) â€“ combined with THC. This can be used to roughly estimate the time from last use till time of crash.
Now that, to me, sounds like real science in determining if, and to what degree, cannabis impairment can be directly connected to safety.
Why isn’t the United States doing that instead of just measuring what’s in the blood of random drivers? Because they aren’t really interested in science or learning the truth. They just want ammunition.