27

Friends don't let friends walk drunk

Drunk walking is riskier than you think. January 1st is the deadliest day of the year for pedestrians.

To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.

Get Adobe Flash player

Jeremy Hobson: It's Freakonomics time. Every two weeks we explore the hidden side of everything. Today, why the first decision you make in 2012 is riskier than you think. Here's Stephen Dubner.


Stephen Dubner: Happy New Year, everybody! Now, how are you getting home from that party? If you're in New York City, where I live, good luck getting a taxi. And if you've had some champagne and you're even thinking about driving home... well, don't.

Public service announcement: Drinking and driving is not only against the law, but it can be deadly.

Public service announcement: Over the limit, under arrest.

Public service announcement: Friends don't let friends drive drunk.

All right, so maybe you'll walk home. Smart move, right?

Steven Levitt: That's a terrible idea, walking drunk is one of the most dangerous activities you can engage in.

That's Steve Levitt. He's my Freakonomics friend and co-author. He's also an economist at the University of Chicago.

Levitt: Truly, if you're faced exactly with two choices, walking drunk or driving drunk, you absolutely should drive drunk.

Now wait a minute -- Levitt is not advocating that people drive drunk. We know how incredibly dangerous that is. But what about drunk walking? Is that dangerous? Consider a few numbers. In 2009, the most recent year for which we have data, about 34,000 people died in traffic accidents. Roughly half of them were drivers -- 41 percent of whom were drunk. Now, there were about 4,000 pedestrians killed -- and 35 percent of them were drunk. Here's Levitt again:

Levitt: For every mile walked drunk, turns out to be eight times more dangerous than the mile driven drunk. So just to put it simply, if you need to walk a mile from a party to your home, you're eight times more likely to die doing that than if you jump behind the wheel and drive your car that same mile.

Now there are some caveats here. A calculation like this requires some assumptions, because there's no government database on drunk walking. Also, people drive drunk much farther distances than they'd walk drunk. And most important: a drunk walker can't hurt or kill someone else the way a drunk driver can. That said, the death toll from drunk walking is undeniable.

Thomas Esposito: The danger of impaired walking is not insignificant. And certainly when it comes down to you, it's definitely significant.

Thomas Esposito is a trauma surgeon at Loyola University Health System in the Chicago area. He's used to seeing a New Year's Day spike in pedestrians who've been hit by cars. As a matter of fact, January 1st is the deadliest day of the year for pedestrians -- and 58 percent of the people who died were drunk.

Esposito: I'd rather work New Year's Eve than New Year Day. Because a lot of the time on New Year's Day, that's when people start to realize someone's missing, where are they? And then they find them at the bottom of the stairs or on the side of the road, injured.

Esposito also has personal experience with drunk walking. A few years ago, his cousin was hit by a car and killed while walking home from a New Year's party. He'd been drinking, thought it was better to leave his car, and go home on foot. Esposito believes we've done a pretty good job getting out the "don't drink and drive" message -- but we could a lot better with "don't drink and walk." Here's Steve Levitt again.

Levitt: For 20 years, we've been told you should never, ever drive drunk. We should have been told you should never, ever walk drunk and you should never, ever drive drunk. And because nobody thought about it when we were coming up with what was moral and immoral, somehow now, drunk walking just can't find its way into the immoral box.

So listen, have a great New Year's celebration, but if a friend has been drinking and starts reaching for the car keys -- or decides to set off on foot -- don't let him. Because remember: friends don't let friends walk drunk.

I'm Stephen Dubner for Marketplace.


Hobson: Stephen Dubner, our Freakonomics correspondent. He puts out a podcast, too -- you can get that on iTunes and hear more at Freakonomics.com. He will be back in two weeks.

Pages

elia7272's picture
elia7272 - Jan 2, 2012

For those who think we did not listen to the story, here is the quote: "Levitt: Truly, if you're faced exactly with two choices, walking drunk or driving drunk, you absolutely should drive drunk."

There is nothing else to say about the biggest killer of innocent bystanders. This is the second ridiculous opinion "news" piece I have heard in just the past two weeks so i'm done with this show.

danopillip13's picture
danopillip13 - Dec 31, 2011

I will say the headline should not have been that.

danopillip13's picture
danopillip13 - Dec 31, 2011

They say serval times in this article don't drink and drive. So a lot of the negative comments here seem to be by people who didn't read the article fully. The point of this article is don't leave a party drunk and responible for getting yourself home....

ubrayj02's picture
ubrayj02 - Dec 29, 2011

I wrote a blog post to refute the ridiculous thesis of your piece. It is PRIVATE AUTOMOBILES that kill people on New Years, not alcohol. The solution is to restrict or limit private automobile use on this most dangerous of nights, not scare the crap out of people walking home from a party! Your attempt at being counter-intuitive with your headline and angle is catchy but does a disservice to society - one already steeped in enough fear as it is.
http://flyingpigeon-la.com/2011/12/marketplaces-freakonomics-radio-gets-...

SaminTexas's picture
SaminTexas - Dec 29, 2011

Wow, Steven Levitt and Dubner should just quit while they're ahead. "Freakonomics Radio" should change its title to "Shockonomics Radio". In order to draw attention to a shocking statistic about drunk walking fatalities, Levitt shocks us by proclaiming quite spuriously that drunk walking is worse than drunk driving. But, the stats presented don't even bear that out! 41% of drivers killed are drunk, while 35% of walker killed are drunk. Ummm...last time I checked, 41% is bigger than 35%. Not to mention, the total driver fatalities is half of 34,000 (as described by your story), which is 17,000, while only 4,000 walkers were killed. That means, STATISTICALLY speaking, it's much worse to drive drunk, even for your own health, than to walk drunk.

Seems to me that the big story is still drunk driving, and Dubner and Levitt either can't do math, can't figure out what "statistically significant" means, or can't prioritize what is actually a problem and what is not. This was definitely a garbage segment that took up time I will never get back.

hokienuts's picture
hokienuts - Dec 28, 2011

I really appreciated this article. I happened to catch it on the radio and have decided to walk home many times when it appears I should have just spent the night where I was at. As usual, thanks for the freakonomics info; it's why I continue to listen!

glady's picture
glady - Dec 29, 2011

now H-P - I could name dozens more. Many of the icons of tech business when I started in theMy friend just met a chocolate man on ;)Blackwhiteplanet.C0Mit’s where for men and women looking for interracial'ship for a fabulous lifestyle。It’s a nice place for black white sing'les, to interact with each other…no games or extremes in front of true love.I happened to catch it on the radio and have decided to walk home many times when it appears I should have just spent the night where I was at. As usual, thanks for the freakonomics info;

Topher's picture
Topher - Dec 28, 2011

This is hardly good science. The study did not allow at all for the fact that people who chose to walk rather than drive quite likely were VERY drunk, as in passing-out-and-falling-down-in-the-road drunk. A meaningful study would have to compare populations of equally drunk drivers and pedestrians -- not a study I would advocate for.

porteoud's picture
porteoud - Dec 28, 2011

It is inexcusable that your analysis only consists of risk to yourself rather than the risks to others that occurs when a drunk person drives. It reminds me of the narcissitic attitude from several years ago when people said they were safer driving a big SUV, with no consideration for the greater risk to others posed when their SUV crashes into someone. No Nobel Prize for this University of Chicago economist!

FBRESLI's picture
FBRESLI - Dec 28, 2011

I am an ER physician and am horrified at the irresponsible piece I heard on marketplace about drunk walking. I understand that you were examining the subject from a strictly statistical perspective but that point will likely be missed by some while sober, and by more after a few drinks.
I cannot believe you effectively equated drunk walking with drunk driving. True, with both choices, a consenting adult decides to put themselves at risk of injury or death, but the similarities end when that adult also decides to put others lives at risk as he does with the latter...a very different level of immorality.
I think there will be more people injured and extra lives lost this New Year's Eve directly attributable to your show. I will let you know if they come into my emergency room.
DR FBRESLI

Pages