One of the great early stories from SuperFreakonomics is the finding that “even after factoring in the deaths [innocent bystanders from drunk driving], walking drunk leads to five times as many deaths per mile as driving drunk.” The substantive fact is not only surprising, but the story also metaphorically foreshadows the book’s new emphasis on experimental approaches. After all, what makes a drunkard’s walk so dangerous is that the drunkard lurches from side to side randomly.

via freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com

Ian Ayres' review of SuperFreakonomics highlights the subtle shift in methods: analysis of historical data vs natural and randomized experiments. I was reading this as very cool until I got to the last paragraph of the post. As env-econ readers may know, I think this result is a back-of-the-envelope calculation based on an untested assumption.


Link to original post