I haven’t even got to the global warming chapter yet...
Reading Levitt & Dubner’s Superfreakonomics. Interesting, as the first book, with regards economics research results can be looked at sideways. When they muse on people and incentivised behaviour it might be about prostitution price-per-trick comparisons, or the correlation between names and nefarious activities. But still coming across a little like a Difficult Second Album.
Levitt & Dubner’s Freakonomics I remember with greater fondness than am currently feeling towards the authors. The second tome feels more smug and self-satisfied than the one which preceded it. Analysis of the data pool suggests that either:
a) the wild success of the first book has made the authors that little bit douchey
b) they were always like that, but with the first book the publishers were able to wield more editorial control and excise the excessive smarmy tosspottery
In the introduction to Superfreakonomics, they talk about drunk driving and drunk walking, using statistics to argue that the latter is much worse for you than the former.
In the US, they tell us, around 13,000 people are killed in alcohol- related traffic accidents each year, including over 1,000 drunk pedestrians. (Am assuming the latter figure only involves motor-vehicle related accidents, rather than anything happening while travelling, as that could include street-side knife attacks, subways falls and all manner of unhelpful water-muddying data.)
They calculate that 1 of every 140 miles is driven drunk, or 21 billion miles each year.
Assuming the same proportion of miles are walked drunk - 1 in 140 - then “a drunk walker is eight times more likely to get killed than a drunk driver”.
Yes. Assuming the same proportion of miles are walked drunk as driven. And that walking - say - across a park to get to your flat is equable in road-based dangers to driving across town to get to it.
But what are they actually trying to say with all of this? That drunk drivers run over only drunk pedestrians, to balance out the numbers. Woo.
There’s one important caveat: a drunk walker isn’t likely to hurt or kill anyone other than her- or himself. That can’t be said of a drunk driver. In fatal accidents involving alcohol, 36 percent of the victims are either passengers, pedestrians, or other drivers. Still, even after factoring in the deaths of those innocents, walking drunk leads to five times as many deaths per mile as driving drunk.
So as you leave your friend’s party, the decision should be clear: driving is safer than walking. (It would be even safer, obviously, to drink less, or to call a cab.) The next time you put away four glasses of wine at a party, maybe you’ll think through your decision a bit differently. Or, if you’re too far gone, maybe your friend will help sort things out. Because friends don’t let friends walk drunk.
Wowzers. You have truly made me look at a subject with new eyes.
But there is red fire gleaming in them too.
There are risks involved in both walking drunk and driving drunk. But there is no need to be sensationalist about it: “driving is safer than walking” indeed. Your reasoning is wonky, and thus an insecure foundation on which to build an argument. Very much not what I wanted or expected from you.
Economics research ought not to remind me above all things of an old Lee Mack routine, wherein he advocated drinking, driving and juggling, on the grounds that zero accidents had been recorded with those three factors. Keep three balls in the glovebox, in case of intoxication! You may as well, by this logic!
Levitt & Dubner say, with some surprise, that they get more emails on this subject than any other in Superfreakonomics. From people who say that the analysis is wrong because the per-mile comparison is not a reasonable one, or who think that the authors were condoning drunk driving. After denying both accusations - it IS a sensible comparison and they TOLD people to get a cab, nyeah - Levitt goes on to calculate, with extraordinary glibness, the cost of your life per mile compared to a cabfare.
Seriously.
With maths as follows:
Cost per mile of average cabfare = $3
Value per life = $6 million
Number of miles driven drunk per death = 1.6 million
Cost in extra deaths per mile driven drunk = ($6million/1.6million) $3.75
“Fnar fnar”, I’m supposed to chortle, noting there’s only 75 cents in it and failing to spot you may as well compare eggs with the concept of hesitation.
That’ll be chapter 5, presumably.
Levitt & Dubner’s Freakonomics I remember with greater fondness than am currently feeling towards the authors. The second tome feels more smug and self-satisfied than the one which preceded it. Analysis of the data pool suggests that either:
a) the wild success of the first book has made the authors that little bit douchey
b) they were always like that, but with the first book the publishers were able to wield more editorial control and excise the excessive smarmy tosspottery
In the introduction to Superfreakonomics, they talk about drunk driving and drunk walking, using statistics to argue that the latter is much worse for you than the former.
In the US, they tell us, around 13,000 people are killed in alcohol- related traffic accidents each year, including over 1,000 drunk pedestrians. (Am assuming the latter figure only involves motor-vehicle related accidents, rather than anything happening while travelling, as that could include street-side knife attacks, subways falls and all manner of unhelpful water-muddying data.)
They calculate that 1 of every 140 miles is driven drunk, or 21 billion miles each year.
Assuming the same proportion of miles are walked drunk - 1 in 140 - then “a drunk walker is eight times more likely to get killed than a drunk driver”.
Yes. Assuming the same proportion of miles are walked drunk as driven. And that walking - say - across a park to get to your flat is equable in road-based dangers to driving across town to get to it.
But what are they actually trying to say with all of this? That drunk drivers run over only drunk pedestrians, to balance out the numbers. Woo.
There’s one important caveat: a drunk walker isn’t likely to hurt or kill anyone other than her- or himself. That can’t be said of a drunk driver. In fatal accidents involving alcohol, 36 percent of the victims are either passengers, pedestrians, or other drivers. Still, even after factoring in the deaths of those innocents, walking drunk leads to five times as many deaths per mile as driving drunk.
So as you leave your friend’s party, the decision should be clear: driving is safer than walking. (It would be even safer, obviously, to drink less, or to call a cab.) The next time you put away four glasses of wine at a party, maybe you’ll think through your decision a bit differently. Or, if you’re too far gone, maybe your friend will help sort things out. Because friends don’t let friends walk drunk.
Wowzers. You have truly made me look at a subject with new eyes.
But there is red fire gleaming in them too.
There are risks involved in both walking drunk and driving drunk. But there is no need to be sensationalist about it: “driving is safer than walking” indeed. Your reasoning is wonky, and thus an insecure foundation on which to build an argument. Very much not what I wanted or expected from you.
Economics research ought not to remind me above all things of an old Lee Mack routine, wherein he advocated drinking, driving and juggling, on the grounds that zero accidents had been recorded with those three factors. Keep three balls in the glovebox, in case of intoxication! You may as well, by this logic!
Levitt & Dubner say, with some surprise, that they get more emails on this subject than any other in Superfreakonomics. From people who say that the analysis is wrong because the per-mile comparison is not a reasonable one, or who think that the authors were condoning drunk driving. After denying both accusations - it IS a sensible comparison and they TOLD people to get a cab, nyeah - Levitt goes on to calculate, with extraordinary glibness, the cost of your life per mile compared to a cabfare.
Seriously.
With maths as follows:
Cost per mile of average cabfare = $3
Value per life = $6 million
Number of miles driven drunk per death = 1.6 million
Cost in extra deaths per mile driven drunk = ($6million/1.6million) $3.75
“Fnar fnar”, I’m supposed to chortle, noting there’s only 75 cents in it and failing to spot you may as well compare eggs with the concept of hesitation.
That’ll be chapter 5, presumably.