An Older Story, but a Rather Surprising Factoid

So, a few weeks ago, the media was inflamed that Miley Cyrus, a teen sensation or something like that, was caught...without a seat belt. Yep, she was in her movie not wearing a seat belt. Oh, the horror!

Anyway, as I happened along this article, something struck my eye. There is a juicy factoid in here that doesn't really get the attention it deserves. Here's the line.

Mays [a Consumer Reports blogger] said that Cyrus has a greater responsibility to her impressionable fans. To explain the issue's seriousness, he cited statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that people were not wearing their belts in 55 percent of passenger vehicle fatalities in 2006.

Umm...okay, so 55% of fatalities were not wearing seat belts. So that means, 45% were right? Or, another way, 11 out of every 20 deaths were not wearing seat belts. What am I missing here? Why are seat belts that big a deal exactly? I mean, sure, it is more than 50%, but come on. Something ain't right here.

So, here is my question. Does this factoid change your mind about seat belt enforcement? Frankly, I never agreed with the stupid idea, but this just adds fuel to the fire. Think about it. Odds are, if you happen to die in a crash, there is almost a 50-50 chance you were wearing a seat belt. That ain't earth shattering! So why are we spending so much money? Do seat belts really save lives?

Ahh, but that's the rub. This factoid isn't set up for that question. See, this is based on fatalities. If the seat belt works and you don't die, you aren't counted. Then again, if the seat belt isn't used, but you don't die, again you are not counted. However, it still remains that if you do happen to die, are seat belts really that worthwhile? Or, to put this another way, could we spend the money currently spent on seat belt enforcement and spend it on a better way to protect people? For example, could that money be spent on repairing/maintaining roads up to German Autobahn standards?

Ultimately, a statistic like this only points out that perhaps we need to ask better questions. Instead of thinking, "What can this product/service do," we need to ask, "Is this the best product/service to accomplish the given task?" I mean, if seat belts are worn by 45% of fatalities, it isn't readily apparent that seat belts really save lives. And I should add, this is all without me remembering my own anecdotal evidence of the major crash I was in without a seat belt on, one in which I was the least injured.

Rather than discussing the idea of "Buckle up for safety," maybe we should ask, "Why buckle up?" I know I am after this surprising factoid.

Goal Scoring DOES NOT Equal Economic Intelligence

So, after every major accident in sports or in life, the calls for safety regulations start up in earnest. For those who have not heard, one of the NHL Florida Panthers, Richard Zednik, was injured by a skate blade cutting his neck. Only a few days later, and everybody is calling for neck guards. Unfortunately, this article decided to quote a great goal scorer, but not someone with any sense of trade-offs. Here is Teemu Selanne:

"If you start right now, the rule for newcomers, rookies, coming into the league, they have to wear it, it's mandatory, no one's ever going to complain....That's what Europe has done with their program. Nobody complains. You start wearing them in juniors, in mites. I tell you, it's going to save a lot of lives. Even if it saves one it's worth it."

This is bad thinking, mainly because of a quote earlier by the player whose skate cut Zednik, Olli Jokinen.

"What happened a couple days ago, a neck guard wouldn't make any difference. The neck guard just comes this high, you know?"

Selanne ignores basic economics of trade-offs. Jokinen understands that a neck guard wouldn't have helped, as he pointed to the spot on his neck where the guard wouldn't cover. This is an important point. Would neck guards really prevent these injuries? I don't know. My guess is no because I trust Jokinen. I do know this: Selanne does not really know economics. Great goal scorer; less than effective as an economist.