Being "at fault" in traffic crashes: does alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, or polydrug abuse make a difference?

OBJECTIVE

To compare associations of alcohol, cannabis, and cocaine abuse and traffic crash risk for "at fault" crashes and all crashes.

DESIGN

A historical cohort study.

SETTING

Toronto, Ontario. Patients or subjects: Subjects beginning treatment at the Centre for Addictions and Mental Health (CAMH) in 1994 for abuse of alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, and all combinations of these substances (n = 590, with 411 drivers). A control group consisted of 518 records from the Ontario registry of registered drivers, frequency matched for age and sex and residence.

INTERVENTIONS: CAMH subjects took part in therapeutic programs. Pre-intervention (11 115 driver-years) and post-intervention intervals (8550 driver-years) were defined and compared.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Crash and collision rates, adjusted relative risks (ARRs) of crash involvement and of "at fault" crashes were computed using Poisson regression to control for variations in time at risk, age, and sex of participants.

RESULTS

Pre-treatment, significant ARRs of 1.49 to 1.79 for all crashes were found for abusers of cannabis, cocaine, or a combination. ARRs increased by 10%-15% for "at fault" crashes. Post-treatment, all associations were very modest for all abuse types. Only younger and male drivers had a significantly increased risk, which was stronger for "at fault" than for all crashes.

CONCLUSIONS

Abuse of cannabis and cocaine pre-treatment was more strongly related to "at fault" crashes than to all crashes. Interaction between these substances means that the effects of combined abuse cannot be predicted from simple main effects.