Their last oil change

[CourierDriver]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017...shes/534676001/

Makes you wonder if the driver in front of you or behind you is alert,,,stats we don't like to read.......................

 

[DdDd]

Typical fake news fluff piece.

OMG... the fatality rate went from 1 to 7%!!! And then they produce this graph skyrocketing like 400% by making 7% the 100% bar on the y axis.

Did it occur to them that the percentage went up because cars are much safer than the 90s? And that most fatalities today were one heck of an accident? And those tuna can car wrecks are far more likely to involve drunk/drugged drivers?

Actually I'm surprised its only 7%. When you consider how many people ARE on prescribed opioids, the real takeaway is that were far more responsible than the media makes us out to be!

 

[Linctex]

Originally Posted By: CourierDriver

Makes you wonder if the driver in front of you or behind you is alert,,,stats we don't like to read.......................


You never know.

You just have to be a VERY defensive driver....
Lots of reasons for other drivers to kill you,
besides being under the influence of opiates.....

 

[WillsYoda]

"In a paper published last month in the American Journal of Public Health, researchers found that the prevalence of drivers with prescription opioids detected in their systems at the time of death surged from 1.0% in 1995 to 7.2% in 2015."

1. If opiod use was the same in 1995, one would expect a large proportion of deaths to include people on opiods, especially if cars were much less safe in 1995. Someone on opioids getting into a lesser wreck would be much more likely to die in 1995 than in 2015. Many opioid users get into plenty of lesser accidents as well, just as drunk people do. But you just don't see that in the data. This suggests (along with other data) that opioid use is way up in 2015, and opioid use is contributing more to car deaths in 2015.

2. I fail to see why anything in the story is "fake news." It seems pretty straightforward and based on good sources. The American Journal of Public Health is a good source of information, and there is no reason to think that USA Today is lying about what is in the American Journal of Public Health. Given that it used standard statistical method, the main limitations to the study are intrinsic to the (pretty darn reliable) statistical method itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics

3. It is important to distinguish (a) the regular, informational news from (b) the opinion or editorial pages of a news site. The OP's article is not an opinion or editorial piece. It is straight information. People who do not like the (b) part of a news site tend to say that the (a) part is fake news, but the information part can be real news even if someone does not like the opinion/editorial part.

 

[Kira]

To DdDd: What you said is contradictory. "Cars are safer so more people are dying in crashes"??

 

[bullwinkle]

Originally Posted By: Kira
To DdDd: What you said is contradictory. "Cars are safer so more people are dying in crashes"??
I think what he meant was-it takes a much more violent crash to kill someone today than back in the old days (no airbags, shoulder harness seat belts, crumple zones, etc.). I have to drive in the daytime here for work, I see opiate-influenced driving EVERY DAY-and I've had a few near misses from drivers myself. It's actually worse here in the daytime than at night after the bars close.

 

[WillsYoda]

Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
Originally Posted By: Kira
To DdDd: What you said is contradictory. "Cars are safer so more people are dying in crashes"??
I think what he meant was-it takes a much more violent crash to kill someone today than back in the old days (no airbags, shoulder harness seat belts, crumple zones, etc.). I have to drive in the daytime here for work, I see opiate-influenced driving EVERY DAY-and I've had a few near misses from drivers myself. It's actually worse here in the daytime than at night after the bars close.


Yes, that is what he meant. But if cars are that much more dangerous in 1995, and opiate use was the same then as now, one would expect a lot more opiate-related deaths in those less-severe-accidents-that-lead-to-death. But in fact there were very few such deaths, suggesting opiate use had gone way up since then and is now contributing more to driver fatalities.

 

[HerrStig]

I'm more concerned about the "legal" pot smokers. There's yet to be a breath test which can detect THC.

 

[Kuato]

Drugs is bad.*






* but have their place in medicine

 

[DdDd]

I didn't say opiate use isn't up. It's waaaaay up!

What I said that this 1% -> 7% increase is irrelevant... not enough data given.


A few facts to consider:

Cars ARE safer, so you need a far more serious accident to have a fatality.

There are fewer drunk drivers due to increased enforcement.

Young people aren't driving as much as previous generations.

+Safer cars-DUIs-teenage drivers = Fewer fatalities amongst non-opioid users.

...which leaves the people high out of their minds doing 90. 90mph into a wall your Volvo ain't doing [removed].

The real takeaway for me is that the stats aren't higher than 7%. Currently the two biggest trends in hihgway fatalities (which have gone up BTW) are distracted drivers and aging baby boomers. Both are responsible for way more fatalities than opioid users... but I have yet to hear any news outlet poke the hornets nest of the AARP.