"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
08/06/2014 at 18:10 • Filed to: None
2
5|
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
08/06/2014 at 18:10 • Filed to: None | 2
| 5 |
A look at the numbers from Colorado suggests that it does not.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
Crocket Bernet
> ttyymmnn
08/06/2014 at 18:14 |
|
PS9
> ttyymmnn
08/06/2014 at 18:19 |
|
Bet taco and chip consumption in that state are at record...
highs.
You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much
> ttyymmnn
08/06/2014 at 18:38 |
|
Holy hell I couldn't finish that article. Rule of thumb with statistics is that you need 30 independent samples to draw any conclusions. Seven months of data is NOT enough data to draw any conclusions. Similarly if there had been 7 months of higher than average fatal crashes it would not tell you anything. Correlation != causality.
Manuél Ferrari
> ttyymmnn
08/06/2014 at 18:45 |
|
It will be interesting to see how the long term statistics play out.
I think everyone can agree that driving sober is safer than driving under the influence of any drug, including alcohol, pot or prescription pills. Pot makes people drive less aggressively but it also dulls the senses and impacts reaction times. But if I was driving at 1AM on a Saturday and had to choose between having a lot of other drivers on the road that were drunk or stoned I'd definitely choose stoned...
|
ttyymmnn
> Manuél Ferrari
08/06/2014 at 19:06 |
|
Having driven—safely— stoned MANY times in my youth, I would agree.