[lbo-talk] Freakonomics rip

[Michael J. Smith]

On Thursday 06 July 2006 12:22, Andy F wrote:
> On 7/6/06, Auguste Blanqui <blanquist at gmail.com> wrote:
> ....
> Meanwhile, Levitt pulls his punches when he has a chance to challenge
> conventional wisdom. Anyone who's ever been nervous about flying has
> heard the airline industry's assertion that flying is safer than
> driving. But the books are cooked on that one: when you compare the
> risk of death per mile, that's true, because planes cover a lot more
> miles. But you ought to compare the risk by hour.
> .... 
> 
> This is stupid.   Are the reviewer and authors all saying that a
> 40-hour drive is as safe as going the same distance on a 4-hour
> flight?

The question is whether the risk per mile or the risk per exposure-hour
is the right metric. I have heard this question argued endlessly, sometimes 
in a remarkably metaphysical way. Perhaps the answer depends on what exactly
the question is?  

Question A: I'm wondering whether to fly or drive to LA. If risk 
is my only criterion, the plane wins (safer per mile). 

Question B: I'm getting on an airplane and wondering 
whether it's reasonable to be more or less fearful of imminent death 
than when I get into a car. In this case risk per hour seems to be the
relevant quantity. 

-- 

  Michael J. Smith

  mjs at smithbowen.net

  http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org