I recall hearing that a large percentage of homicides are done by someone the victim is close with. And then I presume a big chunk of the remaining homicides are gang or drug related. After that, I suspect that common sense and being the bigger person in an argument goes a very long way. I suspect that once factored in, this stuff would reduce the rate by 3-5 orders of magnitude.
For cars, I’m not sure how much we can cut the death rate by not doing dumb things like drinking and driving. Given that there’s about a 2.5-to-1 ratio of alcohol to non-alcohol-related deaths, I feel like being a good driver probably only cuts your risk by, at most, a factor of 2 or 3. Not an order of magnitude. It’s hard because you can do everything right and end up dead because of someone else. There’s only so far that defensive driving takes you.
With these two assumptions, public transit starts to look a lot safer.
I recall hearing that a large percentage of homicides are done by someone the victim is close with.
But probably less so on public transit? There are lots of muggings in the data, which often involve threats of violence; maybe some are escalated robberies?
Oh that’s a good point. I agree that of the homicides committed on public transit it probably isn’t much from people you know. So maybe 2-3 orders of magnitude would be better than what I originally wrote with 3-5.
No, I meant orders of magnitude. If you’re not involved with drugs or gangs and you aren’t the type of person to severely escalate arguments, I suspect that’d cut the risk by 2-3 orders of magnitude.
I share the belief that there’s variance in risk by at least 2 orders of magnitude for being murdered. I suspect you get more than a factor of 3 for driving, probably an order of magnitude, if you include route and vehicle selection in the controllable options.
But that’s just for violent deaths. It’s much less clear which is safer in terms of rapid response if you have a heart attack. And it’s probably a big win for driving if you worry about verbal harassment or uncomfortable situations that feel dangerous (but almost never end in actual physical harm).
It’s much less clear which is safer in terms of rapid response if you have a heart attack.
Interesting, I never thought about that before. Do you think that would sway things much?
I’d think that public transit would be much better in the event you do have a heart attack though. If you’re behind the wheel you won’t be able to control the car and would probably get into an accident, whereas if you’re on public transit other people would be around to perhaps help.
And it’s probably a big win for driving if you worry about verbal harassment or uncomfortable situations that feel dangerous (but almost never end in actual physical harm).
I doubt medical response is a big factor in this, for most readers of LW. But I don’t actually know—heart attack is up there in terms of likely cause of death for many of us (though not on our next commute, one hopes). On the other side, I’m surprised nobody’s mentioned exposure to disease as a risk factor on public transit—only a few years ago it was an overwhelming safety factor, by many orders of magnitude, and pretty much all anyone would consider in this decision. It’s hard to believe that it’s now irrelevant, though it’s hard to figure how to weight it.
I doubt medical response is a big factor in this, for most readers of LW. But I don’t actually know—heart attack is up there in terms of likely cause of death for many of us (though not on our next commute, one hopes).
Gotcha.
On the other side, I’m surprised nobody’s mentioned exposure to disease as a risk factor on public transit—only a few years ago it was an overwhelming safety factor, by many orders of magnitude, and pretty much all anyone would consider in this decision. It’s hard to believe that it’s now irrelevant, though it’s hard to figure how to weight it.
Yeah it is tough to weight. My intuition is that it’s pretty small though. I don’t think a lot of people die of diseases that are transmitted from others, although I could see a decent proportion of those diseases being transmitted on public transit.
I recall hearing that a large percentage of homicides are done by someone the victim is close with. And then I presume a big chunk of the remaining homicides are gang or drug related. After that, I suspect that common sense and being the bigger person in an argument goes a very long way. I suspect that once factored in, this stuff would reduce the rate by 3-5 orders of magnitude.
For cars, I’m not sure how much we can cut the death rate by not doing dumb things like drinking and driving. Given that there’s about a 2.5-to-1 ratio of alcohol to non-alcohol-related deaths, I feel like being a good driver probably only cuts your risk by, at most, a factor of 2 or 3. Not an order of magnitude. It’s hard because you can do everything right and end up dead because of someone else. There’s only so far that defensive driving takes you.
With these two assumptions, public transit starts to look a lot safer.
But probably less so on public transit? There are lots of muggings in the data, which often involve threats of violence; maybe some are escalated robberies?
Oh that’s a good point. I agree that of the homicides committed on public transit it probably isn’t much from people you know. So maybe 2-3 orders of magnitude would be better than what I originally wrote with 3-5.
Factor or order of magnitude? The former, right?
No, I meant orders of magnitude. If you’re not involved with drugs or gangs and you aren’t the type of person to severely escalate arguments, I suspect that’d cut the risk by 2-3 orders of magnitude.
I share the belief that there’s variance in risk by at least 2 orders of magnitude for being murdered. I suspect you get more than a factor of 3 for driving, probably an order of magnitude, if you include route and vehicle selection in the controllable options.
But that’s just for violent deaths. It’s much less clear which is safer in terms of rapid response if you have a heart attack. And it’s probably a big win for driving if you worry about verbal harassment or uncomfortable situations that feel dangerous (but almost never end in actual physical harm).
Interesting, I never thought about that before. Do you think that would sway things much?
I’d think that public transit would be much better in the event you do have a heart attack though. If you’re behind the wheel you won’t be able to control the car and would probably get into an accident, whereas if you’re on public transit other people would be around to perhaps help.
Yeah I think that’s probably true.
I doubt medical response is a big factor in this, for most readers of LW. But I don’t actually know—heart attack is up there in terms of likely cause of death for many of us (though not on our next commute, one hopes). On the other side, I’m surprised nobody’s mentioned exposure to disease as a risk factor on public transit—only a few years ago it was an overwhelming safety factor, by many orders of magnitude, and pretty much all anyone would consider in this decision. It’s hard to believe that it’s now irrelevant, though it’s hard to figure how to weight it.
Gotcha.
Yeah it is tough to weight. My intuition is that it’s pretty small though. I don’t think a lot of people die of diseases that are transmitted from others, although I could see a decent proportion of those diseases being transmitted on public transit.
Would it help if we wore helmets?