Uhhmm - don't the results of the actual Case Study of REAL drivers support TOTALLY what I wrote in my Original Post?
The article you cite is attacking the results of the Case Study without using any actual results of its own, and doing a lot of hypothesising and making unsupported assertions and assumptions to do so (e.g. that it wasn't the caffeine that reduced the accidents, but the increased number of toilet breaks from taking the caffeine (so, wasn't it still the caffeine that caused the reduction in accidents?)). It has no empirical data of its own to disprove the Case Study. It even proposes how someone else can go away and spend a fortune doing a case study that it would approve of, but is unwilling to do itself!
The article's conclusion is pretty much a mirror image of what the responses have been like here.
1a.... I provide a summary of my positive experience driving long distance overseas on vacation with caffeine.
1b.... The Case Study provides a summary of the positive experiences of truck drivers driving long distances in Australia with caffeine.
2a.... Numerous responders are highly skeptical and attack my Original Post based solely on speculation and unsupported assertions against taking caffeine pills.
2b.... The article is highly skeptical and attacks the case study based mainly on hypothesizing and speculative assertions, without supplying any actual evidence of its own.
To my mind, if people are too cheap to spend $5 on the tablets at Woolworths (even just to have them there as a backup), and leave themselves open to killing or maiming themselves and their families, well, that's their business. But I think it unfair to the other drivers that they may kill or maim in the process.
Also, one's overseas trip may not be as pleasurable as it could have been if one spends it hospitalized.
Regards,
Renato