Drunk driving is often heralded as a model for government-led shifts in personal behavior, as the social taboo around drinking and driving has become stronger with time. But what about other drugs, both illegal and legal? Most drugs do not impair driving ability as obviously as alcohol, and intoxication is not always easy to spot… in fact, it’s not technically illegal to drive when taking a legal medication that may impair driving. As a result, NHTSA is noticing a distinct uptick in the number of positive tests for legal and illegal drugs performed on drivers who died in car wrecks.
According to data compiled by NHTSA, 63 percent of the 21,798 drivers who were killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2009 were tested for drugs. Of these, 3,952 tested positive for drug involvement, representing 18 percent of the total for that year. The report also showed drug use reported by the states among fatally injured drivers increasing from 13 percent in 2005, to 15 percent in 2006, 16 percent in 2007, and 18 percent in 2008.
The drug data released today was collected by NHTSA as part of its Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and included information collected from the states under three broad categories: whether the driver was tested, the type of test conducted, and the test results. The types of drugs recorded in FARS include narcotics, depressants, stimulants, hallucinogens, cannabinoids, phencyclidines (PCPs), anabolic steroids, and inhalants. The groups include both illicit drugs, as well as legally prescribed drugs and over-the-counter medicines.
But as with most statistics, these can’t simply be taken at face value. NHTSA Administrator David Strickland explains
The results we are releasing today indicate that drugs were found to be present in post-mortem examinations. Drug involvement does not necessarily imply impairment or indicate that drug use was the cause of the crash. While it’s clear that science and state policies regarding drugs and driving are evolving, one fact is indisputable. If you are taking any drugs that might impair your ability to drive safely, then you need to put common sense and caution to the forefront, and give your keys to someone else. It doesn’t matter if its drugs or alcohol, if you’re impaired, don’t drive.
Which is all well and good in a Nancy Reagan kind of way, but the “evolving” nature of this problem is going to make it tough to attack with a simple “just say no.” Long-term, this is going to join Distracted Driving as a perennial windmill for the safety brigade to tilt at… and luckily the solutions don’t seem to involve surveillance or other intrusive measures. According to druggeddriving.org, a big part of the problem is related to problems with senior drivers, and the major solution is tough laws and treatment.
Seniors are often a veritable pharmacopoeia. Add in multiple docs prescribing without coordinating and you have millions of uncontrolled biochemistry experiments. But even if seniors take no prescription drugs, their perception reaction time is poor and their night vision is also bad. I know that at 60, I’m damn glad to have xenon lights in my last few cars, even while flattering myself that my reaction time isn’t too terrible.
What seniors need is frequent driving tests and/or simulator testing to check reaction time and general alertness. What is also needed is quick and convenient access to the testing instead of (at least in my state) the misery that is the DMV. I don’t see this as deserving Federal action by Ray and the boyz; this is a state level activity.
Agreed. I would add that dementia is also a major problem. Going the wrong way on the interstate isn’t caused by poor vision or slow reactions.
“According to data compiled by NHTSA, 63 percent of the 21,798 drivers who were killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2009 were tested for drugs. Of these, 3,952 tested positive for drug involvement, representing 18 percent of the total for that year.”
Why did they compare their positives to the total deaths instead of comparing their positives to the number of tests administered? They only administered the tests to about 13,733 people. 3,952/13,733=29% 29% is a meaningful number. Why on earth is 18% even worth mentioning? How can they make determinations about the 37% of killed drivers that weren’t tested? Something smells awfully fishy, or science really has died at the alter of politics.
I don’t think science has died on the altar of politics; I just think whoever put these numbers together for NHTSA is innumerate. I don’t think testing is Federally mandated nor do I want the Feds blundering around and using more of my tax money. The 13733 tests must have been done by individual states. 29%? Causal or coincidental?
Also, the number of fatalities per vehicle mile driven are dropping year on year, while drug use is not. So statistically, the percentage of drug related driving deaths is going to increase on the merit of there being fewer total accidents.
agreed on their sampling methods as well. This should not have been published IMO. It’s a useless stat designed to generate drumbeats.
So, by standard “safety” reasoning, drug use is up, while fatalities per vehicle mile are down, then by all means we should be using more drugs so that the fatality rate will continue to drop…
There are state levels of alcohol that define DWI and DUI. What are the drug levels that define impairment? If there are none, then I don’t see how a conviction could stand up in court.
in fact, it’s not technically illegal to drive when taking a legal medication that may impair driving
Absolutely, emphatically WRONG. Driving with ANY amount of ANY intoxicant in your system is illegal, period. The so-called “legal limit” is simply the point at which they are allowed to automatically assume you are impaired. Ask any old man who got a DUI for running up to the store after downing some Benadryl about that. (No kidding. It happens all the time.)
In my small circle of friends and relatives, there is a high percentage of people who take antidepressants. I understand that some people need them, but not the high percentage of the population who takes them. I wonder if they inhibit driving ability?
This and other studies like it are going to be used to give LE access to people’s prescription drug purchase and use history. Or at the very least access to personal use information for drugs our government has deemed to be of the ‘controlled’ variety. Doubtless whatever draconian laws blossom from this will be expanded to encompass all pharmaceuticals and then all substances eventually.
Insurance companies are gonna love this. So will all the people who profit from the Drunk Driving Punishment industry.
Didn’t you get the memo? Any deviation from the Proscribed Behaviors must be swiftly and severely punished! Be sure to wear your mandatory Smile, and do not question the Wisdom of our Dear Leaders and their Concerned Constituencies.
And always, always … think of The Children.
Allowing the police to pull up your prescription history from your medical records will follow some heinous accident where a child is killed and will be named something like “Christy’s Law”.
ATS and Redflex are probably developing a portable fast reading blood gas chromatography unit so the cop can map your blood during a traffic stop.