(Un)Safety in numbers

Because I refer you elsewhere a lot and maybe you don't actually go because it's too hard to tear yourself from my blog, I present to you here, in its entirety, a recent Freakonomics posting on the subject of transportation accidents, media coverage, and irrational fears (that last bit is my perspective, maybe yours too?).

The Danger of Safety
by Eric A. Morris

In case you haven’t heard, an accident on the Washington metro claimed nine lives last week. But then again, chances are you have heard, as the crash got wide coverage over the airwaves, on the net, and in the papers (by my count, at least five articles appeared in The Times). This is usually the case when trains or planes are involved in deadly disasters.

But what the media very rarely mention is that the carnage on our roads makes these much-hyped accidents look almost trivial. Nine lives is nine too many, but there were 39,800 motor vehicle traffic fatalities in 2008 alone (and that was a good year). At that rate, between the time of the accident, June 22, and the time you are reading this, on average about 1,000 Americans died on our roadways. Yet this rarely merits a mention by the press.

Why the disparity in coverage? I don’t think it has anything to do with any particular animus toward transit; on the contrary, I personally think the press has a pretty strong pro-transit slant.

Instead, a number of factors are probably at play. A flood of simultaneous deaths seems to titillate us more than a steady drip (and let’s not forget that we are being titillated here, or the media wouldn’t be serving these stories up). There’s probably a threshold effect at work, as a certain plateau of deaths triggers the dispatch of reporters. Perhaps crashes involving larger vehicles are more “photogenic.”

And I think there is one more key dynamic. Heavy rail (the mode in the Washington crash) is a lot safer than car travel; in 2006 (the last year for which I have data) autos were responsible for five times more fatalities per passenger mile. (See here for auto fatalities per year, here for transit fatalities, and here for passenger miles traveled by mode.

In 2007 and 2008 there was not a single fatal accident associated with a major commercial airline. This year has seen 60 deaths (most from a single crash), but that still makes commercial air travel vastly safer than driving. Even in 2001, the year of a (hopefully) freak disaster on 9/11, commercial air travel had a per-passenger mile fatality rate about one eighth that of driving (see here for air fatalities).

The relative rarity of air and rail disasters makes them novel, and hence news. Car crashes bite man, and rail and air crashes bite dog. Intensive coverage of the few air and rail accidents that do occur in turn promotes the widespread — and erroneous — inference that planes and trains are unsafe. In an unfair irony, in transportation perhaps too much safety can be a dangerous thing.

Now go visit my favorite part of the blog, the reader comments. I have to agree with the people who argue that one's lack of control over the airplane or train goes a long way toward generating fear of something bad happening. I also support the notion that one's lessened fear of car accidents due to this same sense of control is largely misguided--accidents happen to the most careful drivers, too. Decreased risk is not the same as no-risk.

God grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
And the wisdom to know the difference.

And by the way, my response to commenter #23 is, "Hello, you're reading a blog on the NY Times website. Let's just assume it might be a bit US-focused." No, I didn't submit that comment, because I'm pretty sure my snide remark would not meet the blog's comments standards. And if it did, then I'd not want my first contribution to the Freakonomics site to be a sarcastic one. I like to maintain the image of openness and compassion, even when I'm not feeling it. :)

Placebos that kill

While the baby naps I'm catching up on some Freakonomics reading. Good thing, as I've missed some real doozies these past few months. For example there's this one on the unrealistic expectation that all drug/treatment effectiveness be evaluated in comparison to a placebo. (The title sort of says it all: "In a Parachute-Effectiveness Trial, Who Gets the Placebo?") Earlier this week in The Morning News they featured a website which displays front pages of major newspapers, side by side. Not essential, but interesting. Not even pretending to be essential are the various "aptonym" postings, wherein the authors share uncannily appropriate names (a meteorologist named Amy Freeze). As always the best parts of the Freakonomics blog are in the readers' comments. Check out the comments section of Creative Destruction, which plays to the blog's strength by simply seeking responses to the Jon Stewart-Jim Cramer interview. Fascinating stuff.

Bailing for dollars

Are you sick of me sharing my love for the Freakonomics blog? Hopefully not, because they have several interesting, easily digested postings about the defeated Congressional bailout plan (read this first, then this, posted by separate contributors today).

And hopefully you know that David is dearer to me even than the Freakonomics blog. As I've mentioned before, he posted his thoughts on the market mess some time ago. Go ahead, read David's thoughts on the financial crisis, if you haven't already.

All this talk about the rejected bailout bills reminds me to put in a good word for Sunlight Foundation, an organization that encourages government processes be subject to "public input and scrutiny" (sunlight is the best disinfectant, you see). They have created a website--PublicMarkup.org--where proposed legislation is posted and the public can read and comment on it. They'd like to make this the norm, that any proposed bill be open for a period of public scrutiny before it's voted on (kind of like, don't just propose then immediately get married; it rarely works out as you expected in that moment of frenzied emotion). For a fully commented-on example, see the PublicMarkup on Senator Dodd's proposal for buying mortgage assets. Then go contribute your feedback (or read that of others) on the 110-page Senate plan, the Senate Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

Profit from this

In his bestselling business management book Good to Great, Jim Collins implies that there are companies which can perform well almost indefinitely. The boom-to-bust cycle can be curtailed, it would seem, if a company focuses in on what it's intended for and has the right people on board. These are nice, reasonable ideas and make good business sense overall, but can adherence to them truly predict greatness? According to Freakonomics co-author Steven Levitt, the answer in this case is no. Most of the "great" eleven companies profiled in the book are as much affected by up and down performance cycles as any company.

My question is, can anything predict an organization's ability to get to or remain at the top of the game? How often does any of us experience true "greatness" in our lives? Is it reasonable to assume it can be predicted, as if controllable? What do we gain and lose with attempts to make it happen? Something to ponder as you read From Good to Great...to Below Average. Then I encourage you to check out the Business Pundit's very reasonable (imho) review of books like Good to Great.

Drilling down

Take a look at this informative little financial opinion piece from The New Yorker on why oil prices are so high. After outlining a number of reasonable points, the author asserts that:

none of the problems that have driven up the price of oil lend themselves to a quick fix, and most, like the boom in global demand and the inaccessibility of certain oil fields, aren’t under our control at all.

Now go read what the Freakonomics guys have to say about why rising gas prices are so disturbing to us. Notice any similarities in the source of panic?

And on to a related topic...
Expanding offshore oil drilling alone will never solve our energy problems. Even if it were to be expanded (and politically, environmentally, and financially this is a huge longshot), the impact would be relatively small and not immediate (estimates vary, but the amount of oil and gas the industry itself predicts could be harnessed might get us only two years' worth of supply--then what do we do for a fix?). We might feel better in the short term by expanding drilling offshore, just because we took some action over which we seem to have control (it's a domestic bandage of sorts), but a year or two from now we will have moved on to whatever our latest insecurity is and not necessarily fixed the underlying need for the bandage. I don't think the environmental risk of drilling and piping-in is worth taking just so I can feel better for a few months, especially as it won't have effected a substantive solution whatsoever.

So expanded offshore drilling is not going to supply enough oil and natural gas to make an appreciable difference in energy prices for long enough to be significant, and once it’s used it’s gone (aka it is completely non-renewable). What are we supposed to do then? Oil is a one-trick pony (or Clydesdale horse, as the case may be); aren’t there other options we can expand upon? That’s what I want to hear people talk about—realistic, get started now, varied solution plans. What I’m sick of hearing about is how tough we all have it (I got it, can we move on now?), predictions of just how high gas/crude oil can/will go (predicting earthquakes holds about as much appeal for me—why do I want to constantly hear about something that might happen instead of living my life, which really is happening?), and arguments about whether offshore drilling is good or bad (there are other options, people, so get your heads out of your bottoms!).

Maybe when it comes to this latest oil/fuel price crisis we're both over-reacting and under-reacting. One on hand, the price of gas is in many ways out of our control, and what's the point worrying over things out of our control? On the other hand there's something we can very much influence: public policy. Last I checked, we live in a representative democracy, electing our public officials and voting not only in private at a ballot box a few times a year (assuming you take advantage of this nice privilege), but also in how we spend our money, how and how often we publicly state our opinions, and what news we choose to read. Imagine what would happen if we all started educating ourselves about government policies and practices?

Sorry, I’m just getting a bit tired of negative news and hype, people selfishly complaining but not taking care of themselves or contributing to meaningful solutions. *sigh*

If you choose not to decide,
You still have made a choice.
--from "Freewill" by Rush

I recommend these interesting reads, for your edification on the gas/oil/energy issues that are undeniable, if occasionally overhyped:

• Take a look at the article from The New Yorker entitled The Island in the Wind for an example of how a community of apathetic skeptics turned the idea of renewably energy into a successful, proud local enterprise
• Check out the Energy Information Administration, out of the Dept of Energy, for facts on the United States’ sources of crude oil and refined petroleum products.
• Follow this discussion about the gasoline market (warning, it's a bunch of economists)
  
• Read this progressive policy take on Gas Prices: Why Our “Free-Market” Economy is Anything but Free

Traffic Jams

I love the Freakonomics blog and I love Scientific American Frontiers with Alan Alda. Today the two converged (cue heavenly light-and-sound show). Both have now discussed the cause of many needless traffic backups: the speeding and braking habits of stop-and-go drivers.

If someone driving in front of you brakes, most people tend to hit their brakes. Then the car behind brakes too, and this keeps going way back, until the slowdown is way behind the location of the original reason for braking. Basically, by braking in traffic you are perpetuating and probably extending a slow spot. The solution? As Alan Alda discovered nearly a decade ago and the Freakonomics guys reported on today, it's best for all concerned if drivers would maintain constant but slower speeds and not brake at every brake light in front of us. Try to always maintain a bit of distance in front of you (if someone cuts into the space, ease off gas a touch to create a distance again).

Change your driving habit to emphasize slow and steady instead of constantly accelerating and then having to brake. Take your foot off the accelerator to maintain or maximize the gap between you and car in front of you. You will get there just as quick, if not faster, your car will have less wear and tear, you'll be less frustrated, less likely to rear-end someone, less likely to be rear-ended, and you will not be contributing to pointless traffic jams. Sounds like an all around win. Now go spread the word!

In other news...
I was elated tonight to hear one of my fave bands, stellastarr*, played on a national commercial. Their song "My Coco" is used on an ad for the new Fox show The Return of Jezebel James, starring Parker Posey.