A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

Study shows public not sensitive to the dangers of driving high

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok
A recent study by a group affiliated with the American Automobile Association, or AAA, concludes that the general public may not be as sensitive to the dangers of driving while high on marijuana as it is to the dangers of drunk driving or even other forms of drugged driving. This study’s findings may be significant to the residents of California since recreational marijuana use among adults is legal in this state. The good news was that most drivers recognized that driving while high on marijuana is a risky activity. These drivers are correct in that other statistics show that a person who drives while under the influence of marijuana faces a much higher likelihood of having a car accident. On the other hand, a surprising number of those surveyed, 13%, said that they did not find driving within 60 minutes of ingesting marijuana to be any more than slightly dangerous. By contrast, only 1.2% of those surveyed thought drunk driving was not dangerous or just slightly dangerous, and 2.2% said that driving under the influence of prescription drugs was either not dangerous or slightly dangerous. Moreover, many of those surveyed seemed to think that it is in fact very hard for others, even police, to tell whether someone is high on marijuana to the point of not being able to drive safely. Almost 70% of those asked said that they did not think it likely that a driver who operated within an hour of using the drug would actually get caught. The authors of the study recommended additional public awareness and also enhanced law enforcement techniques designed to recognize drugged drivers. For those who have unfortunately been hurt in an accident with a drugged driver, compensation may be available through an appropriate legal action.

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.