Celebu-Economist: Drunk Driving Safer Than “Drunk Walking”

We know that in terms of deaths per trip, pedestrians are over-represented when compared to drivers or vehicle passengers. However, even though our Freakonomics friends threw out some assumptions about total miles walked in the US, we don't have great data on overall exposure to walking dangers (e.g. how do you count all those crashes that happen in parking lots?). Thus, contrary to what Levitt and company suggest, it's hard to actually know how dangerous walking is on a per-mile basis.

On the other hand, it's true that walking isn't always safe -- particularly if you're walking home after a night at the bars. Nighttime walking, especially on weekends, is highly associated with pedestrian fatalities. Of course, this is the case whether you're stumbling drunk or stone-cold sober (although it's worth noting that about a third of pedestrian fatalities involve drinking), but I suppose the publicity for your book is better if you focus on perils for tipsy pedestrians ...

...which brings us back to Levitt's argument that you should drive, rather than walk, drunk. It could be true that driving is the "correct" choice if you're only considering your personal safety. However, as anyone who's taken Economics 101 could  point out (and has, if you read the comments on the Freakonomics page), there are significant external costs associated with both drunk driving and driving in general. Factor those in, and walking becomes much more appealing from an economic standpoint -- but not safer for the pedestrian. Advocates, planners, and traffic engineers: that's your job.