Talk about losing the plot!
And finally, research has found that the best ways to reduce the number of drunk pedestrian casualties at the population level are basically the same strategies that would benefit all pedestrians (and cyclists) drunk or sober, most notably reducing speed limits and vehicle sizes, and otherwise improving infrastructure to be more pedestrian-friendly and bike-friendly in general. We also need to crack down on and stiffen the penalties for hit-and-run crashes and distracted driving as well. Anything else, in our view, is an Orwellian slippery slope just waiting to happen.
Only someone who has repeatedly read Superfreakonomics would really believe that. (People are apparently still irresponsibly citing it to this day.) In that rather tepid and disappointing sequel to Freakonomics by Levitt and Dubner, the authors claimed that, at least on a per-mile basis, a drunk person is a whopping eight times more likely (!) to be killed while walking than driving the same distance. However, there are a number of flaws to that claim. First, they assume that the proportion of total miles traveled while drunk is the same for walking as it is for driving. This is dubious because drunk driving is far less common nowadays, and many who would have driven drunk a generation ago now choose to walk instead. Secondly, it is more realistic to compare the risk per hour of traveling time rather than per mile, since far more miles are traveled by car rather than on foot. Thirdly, the real-world relative risk for an alcohol-related pedestrian fatality does not rise to statistically significant levels until a BAC of about 0.15, while for driving deaths it begins to rise significantly at 0.05 or even lower, which is a very large difference. To quote NHTSA in their Alcohol and Highway Safety 2001 report:
Finally, there is a significant qualitative difference between the two in that while a drunk pedestrian is unlikely to endanger innocent people, a drunk driver is very likely to do so. That's precisely why the latter is illegal while the former is generally not, though some states do have laws against public drunkenness (which are typically only enforced if the drunk pedestrian is noticeably causing a nuisance or hazard to others). We may never be able to determine exactly how risky drunk walking is to the drunk individual, and we certainly know that the risk is not zero. In fact, the NHTSA report suggests that it can be quite significant at very high doses of alcohol. There is also a risk of falls when one is "falling-down drunk," which can lead to serious or even fatal injuries. But all things considered, drunk walking is still a better option than drunk driving at any BAC level. (Not that we are encouraging either!)
One interesting finding...was that the relative risk of involvement in a fatal pedestrian crash did not begin to rise until the pedestrians reached a BAC of .15 to .20. This is consistent with the hypothesis that safe walking is generally easier than safe driving, since the relative risk curve for fatal motor vehicle crashes starts to rise at a much lower BAC.
Finally, there is a significant qualitative difference between the two in that while a drunk pedestrian is unlikely to endanger innocent people, a drunk driver is very likely to do so. That's precisely why the latter is illegal while the former is generally not, though some states do have laws against public drunkenness (which are typically only enforced if the drunk pedestrian is noticeably causing a nuisance or hazard to others). We may never be able to determine exactly how risky drunk walking is to the drunk individual, and we certainly know that the risk is not zero. In fact, the NHTSA report suggests that it can be quite significant at very high doses of alcohol. There is also a risk of falls when one is "falling-down drunk," which can lead to serious or even fatal injuries. But all things considered, drunk walking is still a better option than drunk driving at any BAC level. (Not that we are encouraging either!)
In other words, if you choose to harm or endanger yourself, that's your own business in a free society. But the moment you significantly harm or endanger non-consenting others, such as driving under the influence on a public street or highway, it then becomes everyone's business. Why is that still so hard for so many people to understand?
Never mind, we already know why. Because too many people are apparently far too left-brain dominant to see the forest for the trees! And the very same people who, upon reading or hearing about that questionable passage from Superfreakonomics, will inevitably see such specious reasoning as far more of a green light to drive drunk than as a red light to walk drunk. Now I don't believe in censorship, but come on now: if I was the editor of Superfreakonomics, I could see myself "accidentally" deleting that particular part of the book before it got published!
And finally, research has found that the best ways to reduce the number of drunk pedestrian casualties at the population level are basically the same strategies that would benefit all pedestrians (and cyclists) drunk or sober, most notably reducing speed limits and vehicle sizes, and otherwise improving infrastructure to be more pedestrian-friendly and bike-friendly in general. We also need to crack down on and stiffen the penalties for hit-and-run crashes and distracted driving as well. Anything else, in our view, is an Orwellian slippery slope just waiting to happen.
(Mic drop)
No comments:
Post a Comment