Your average driver on alcohol: goes 100 miles per hour into a tree

Your average driver on weed: drives 5 miles per hour to the taco bell drive thru

I have no idea, but we should know the baseline if we want to know the effect

> If less than 40% of the population has impairment levels of THC at any given time but 40% of deceased car crash drivers have impairment levels

You're looking at two different populations in this and your other comments, drawing a false equivalence. The study is over a 6 year period, over which 103 people (40%) tested positive for THC. You're saying that because the number of people who self-reported consuming THC in the last year is 20%, that means the result of the study is eye popping and shocking because the number is 40%. But you cannot directly infer elevated risk just because a subgroup has a higher prevalence than the general population without controlling for exposure and confounders. Especially considering what we are talking about is people self-reporting they are criminals.

Moreover, fatal crashes are not randomly distributed across age groups or vehicle types, and younger people, because they are not as experienced, they drive more often, in smaller cars with fewer safety features, are more likely both to smoke THC, and die in crashes even while sober. So there's a strong sampling bias here you're not accounting for.

And this isn't downplaying the results, it's pointing out its limitations of the study and warning you not to read into it what isn't there. You seem to be shocked by the results which should cause you to dig deeper into the study. I would say the most surprising thing here is they found nothing changed before and after legalization.

> If less than 40% of the population has impairment levels of THC at any given time but 40% of deceased car crash drivers have impairment levels of THC in their blood

Yes, IF. That was my point.

Okay, that was insensitive of me.

But yes, what you say is the logical consequence (except I'm not kidding about grief and impatience).

My point really is that if we want our kids not to get horribly injured or killed, we can't just focus on "other people" making bad decisions like driving drunk. We have to acknowledge that we've collectively built a system that requires people to put each other in danger with cars, and we have to think about how to change that. Cars bring a lot of benefits like autonomy and decentralization, how do we keep that but kill fewer people?

The solution is to make the roads safer in general and/or reduce road use, not to take away people's keys for relatively tiny risk factors.

And in particular for the Uber situation, if taking a taxi 10 miles causes 15 miles of taxi-driving, that's less safe than driving 10 miles with a small to medium impairment.

A goal like that is far enough from what is actually possible that I think it's not a good goal. Maybe a slogan.

Some of those cities you listed have rather high death rates for young adults for reasons unrelated to cars.

Inherently means “qualities or traits that are intrinsic and fundamental, not added or external”

So yea cars are inherently dangerous.

I’m not sure who you think I’m indoctrinated by but around 3000 people are killed every year in my country by cars.

Meanwhile around 200 people are murdered each year.

I’ll give you one try to guess which one dominates the newspapers and public discourse.

And you tell me something about indoctrination, real funny

Cars are inherently dangerous, though. They're multi ton hunks of metal moving at high speeds. That's dangerous from literally any angle you can imagine.

There are ways to make it less dangerous, sure. But they're never 100% safe. Which makes them, by definition, inherently dangerous. That's... What those words mean.