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.
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
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next ›
I too can't believe that this made it to air. Irresponsible.
Mr. Levitt -- can you please tell us how you decided that walking drunk is 8 times more dangerous than driving drunk? What data do you have besides fatality numbers? Since ten times more people die driving and the number of miles walked vs. miles driven is never stated, can't we conclude that driving is ten times more dangerous than walking?
Another huge oversight is to not take into account the BAC of the walkers and drivers. A buzzed driver is much more dangerous than a buzzed walker. A person who has had so much to drink that they can't stand up is a risk both behind the wheel and while walking, but my gut tells me that they would be more likely to walk than drive in that situation.
APM -- Issue a retraction and apology. This was an irresponsible story to air.
As a seasoned drinker, I take great exception to this spectacularly dense article. Disregarding that I have likely walked a greater cumulative distance inebriated than I suspect Steven may have while sober and side-stepping that my liver may well constitute half my body mass, I would like to state my own frightening statistical observation;
Air is highly dangerous. Everyone who has ever died has, at some point in their life, breathed it. While I sincerely wouldn't recommend ceasing to do so, it may be appropriate to find an alternative - perhaps nitrous oxide. It's clear to me that certain authors have figured this out already.
"Truly, if you're faced exactly with two choices, walking drunk or driving drunk, you absolutely should drive drunk."
This is probably the most misleading statement I have ever heard on NPR. Why would you assume that a drunk person has only two choices, driving or walking? How about waiting until not drunk before heading home? Or getting a ride from a friend or on public transit? Dubner and Levitt's dichotomy obscures more than it illuminates, and in a matter of great importance to public safety.
Please correct the impression that it is EVER a good idea to drive drunk. How about a repentance piece updating your listeners on the statistical chances of being killed or injured by a drunk driver, and the "hidden sides" of public policy to prevent drunk driving?
I add my voice to the rest of the listeners requesting a retraction, correction, and apology for this story. I further request that you cancel the Freakonomics segment completely because it is often a poorly researched and sensational part of the program. The points your Freakonomists make often depend on taking issues so far out of context as to be meaningless - and in this case dangerous.
If I do not hear an apology explaining how this was the worst thing I have now ever hear on Market Place tomorrow (Wednesday), I will boycott your show, I have been listening daily for a year.
It's one of those amazing timing things, just an hour before this show came on, I got the the Chapter of Steven Pinker "The Better Angles of Our Nature" where he explained an example of Freakanomics is purely sensational and not at all Scientific, as we are starting to see repeatedly making a horrible name for science and now NPR.
This was a disgrace to NPR to have this show in this tone. NPR is made up of educated critical thinkers, this is not late night cable with a comic human demise tone.
You want sensationalist statistics, here is an example that fits perfect with yours you broadcast to the nation today: I'm a depressed adolescent, I don't know how to handle my feelings or act safely or responsibly. I take a gun to school. in the middle of the cafeteria, I pull the gun out, i can shoot myself in the head, a 99.99% chance of death, or I can shoot randomly out into the cafeteria with only a 32.46% chance of killing and innocent child. Now, if your in a bad situation, and you get to the point where your going to pull that trigger, you should definitely shoot out into the innocent crowd because there is a much better chance you will live. O, and I'll call myself a scientist because I can put those numbers together in such as comprehensive manner. ( -Please note, I am not making a threat, I am only word for word using the exact example used on public radio today with murder by drunk driving replaced with shooting a gun. Please to not take this as a personal threat, I don't own a gun nor am an adolescent.) In fact, if I am killed by a drunk driver tomorrow night while going to visit my family my three hour drive, I will consider it premeditated vehicular manslaughter inspired by NPR with premeditated threats made towards me on today's show.
The author has obviously has never known an innocent person killed by a drunk driver.
we did not mysteriously miss the fact that walking (or even bicycling) drunk is dangerous. However, we did do the comprehensive analysis others have already stated above that walking drunk hurts nobody but yourself, you are taking responsibility for yourself, that is not a very big deal. People sky dive, race motorcycles and do all kinds of harm to themselves and if they don't harm others it's not a moral hazard even comparable to killing innocent people!
Please don't work against the 30 years of work many have sacrificed to help one of american's biggest causes of innocent unnatural deaths.
I read this story, and did not hear it on the air. Maybe it came across differently in that format, but what I read made me think that one should not think that walking drunk was a good plan. I'm sure a lot of people say that if they get too drunk, they will just walk home, so there's no problem. Now maybe some will know to make a better plan. I thought that was the point. I know a fair amount about social research, though, so when he said that you'd probably be better off driving IF faced with only the two options of driving home or walking home when drunk, I saw that as a qualifying statement rather than a recommendation. Others may not have heard it that way.
"one should not think that walking drunk was a good plan"
What's frustrating with this story is that "walking is a bad idea" is so easily accepted. Based on Levitt's numbers, 2600 people are killed walking sober ever year. Because there is this assumption that pedestrians should be responsible for defending themselves (rather than expecting cars not to hit them), it's easy to see how walking with an impairment can be dangerous. But really, walking is dangerous period because most of our streets don't provide a safe environment for people who are not in cars. To provide the advice, "just don't walk" is unreasonable. What is everyone supposed to do? Drive or take a cab directly to the doorstep of every destination?
This is bad analysis; the analysis uses death tolls only and does not consider injuries or deaths caused to others based on drunkenness. You should rework this with injury statistics or admit that does not demonstrate how much more likely you are to have an accident walking drunk than driving drunk. We all know that accidents with a car as a pedestrian are much more likely to be fatal than accidents as a driver; it seems that this is all the story attempts to prove.
A.Haase; Denver, CO
"...a drunk walker can't hurt or kill someone else the way a drunk driver can. That said..."
That said? END OF STORY!
How irresponsible can you be? Yes, you made the point of not advocating drunk driving, but to compare it to drunk walking as if they're apples and apples? Not even close. Yes, it's tragic for the survivors of someone who "walked drunk" and died, but the drinker did his or her own walking. The victims of a drunk driver are simply that: victims.
I can't believe you aired this story in this form. As a listener and station member I am disgusted. I am a staunch supporter of freedom of expression, abhor censorship, and seek out diverse voices, but the irresponsibility of this story should have been apparent to at least someone involved with this program.
Were all the adults at Marketplace off for the holiday?
Tell us, what happens when a drunk driver's public-radio-listening attorney cites this broadcast in court, or the survivors of a drunk driver learn that the driver who killed their family member(s) had the local public radio station as memory #1 on the car radio. Might not their attorney consider the probability that the driver heard this broadcast, chose to drive rather than walk based upon this broadcast, and therefor sue the local public radio station, APM, and your show?
Pages
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next ›
