Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Effect of fuel prices and unemployment rates on road deaths

  • 27-03-2015 3:36pm
    #1
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭


    Moving this to another thread to avoid distractions.
    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    There are two well recognised factors that have long been associated internationally with falls in road deaths.

    They are:
    1. Fuel prices
    2. Unemployment rates

    We have just come through a sustained period of high fuel prices. At the same time we have had a sustained period of high-unemployment - particularly among the under 25s - who are the most dangerous drivers.

    It was the state of theeconomy that probably had a lot to do with it.

    The user Tragedy posted this response.
    Tragedy wrote: »
    Citation needed.

    Especially as the rate of decrease in road deaths didn't accelerate during the recession (indeed, they tapered off - and note that the statistics aren't per 100,000km travelled or any other usefully comparable yoy statistic)

    deaths2014all.jpg?w=500&h=291

    Please don't spread lies.

    My initial reply to the user Tragedy

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecin.12171/abstract

    https://crawford.anu.edu.au/acde/publications/publish/papers/wp2014/wp_econ_2014_18.pdf
    GASOLINE PRICES AND ROAD FATALITIES: INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE

    By Paul. Burke and Shuhei Nish1tateno

    This study utilizes data for 144 countries from 1991 to 2010 to present the first international estimates of the gasoline price elasticity of road fatalities. We instrument each country's gasoline price with that country's oil reserves and the yearly international crude oil price to address potential endogeneity concerns. Our findings suggest that the average reduction in road fatalities resulting from a 10% increase in the gasoline pump price is in the order of 3%–6%. Around 35,000 road deaths per year could be avoided by the removal of global fuel subsidies.


    According to this article on the Journal.ie

    http://www.thejournal.ie/how-much-have-fuel-prices-risen-in-ireland-recently-and-why-371841-Mar2012/

    Irish petrol prices rose from 103.9 per litre in March 2009 to 161.9 in March 2012:

    That was a 56% increase over 3 years. Or very roughly 20% per cent increase per year - based on 2009 prices.

    So using international models the effect of fuel prices should have been reducing Irish road deaths by 6%-12% per year between 2009 and 2012.

    This is back of envelope stuff but, internationally, the effect of fuel prices on road deaths is well established.


«1

Comments

  • #2
    Tragedy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    Did you even read that report?

    I'm guessing not.

    It is laughably statistically unsound at the most basic of levels. It didn't isolate for any factors other than fuel price. It didn't analyse the effects on internal changes in fuel prices on road deaths ceteris paribus, it admitted itself that few other studies held oil price changes to be significant or relevant when talking about road deaths.

    All it did was take 144 countries, get the price for fuel, get the annual road deaths and compare them. That's it.

    I seen you're similar to Iwannahurl in that you like to throw around facts and papers that you haven't researched or even read.


  • #3
    coylemj
    Registered Users Posts: 25,308 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    What those statistics don't cover is the level of enforcement of regulations surrounding drink driving, speed limits and the wearing of seat belts. That has a much bigger effect on road fatalities than the price of fuel.


  • #4
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,723 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Even if we assume the OP theory to be correct (and there's good reason not to given the posts that followed) in the Irish context, no lives were saved because the recession and resulting unemployment is thought to be responsible for 500 suicides. That negates any savings - allegedly - due to higher fuel prices.

    Also if people travel less, it's because they don't have anywhere to go - so everyone who lives has a lower quality of life.


  • #5
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Tragedy wrote: »
    Did you even read that report?

    I'm guessing not.

    It is laughably statistically unsound at the most basic of levels. It didn't isolate for any factors other than fuel price. It didn't analyse the effects on internal changes in fuel prices on road deaths ceteris paribus, it admitted itself that few other studies held oil price changes to be significant or relevant when talking about road deaths.

    All it did was take 144 countries, get the price for fuel, get the annual road deaths and compare them. That's it.

    I seen you're similar to Iwannahurl in that you like to throw around facts and papers that you haven't researched or even read.


    I haven't read the report, and I admit I have not looked at this phenomenon previously. Now that I'm presented with it, I have to say it's a very interesting and thought-provoking subject.

    That said, it took only a few minutes of skimming to show that you, Tragedy, are talking a load of baloney.

    What's actually laughable is that certain Boards members fancy that their ill-informed utterances in a chat forum such as this are somehow superior to an academic study published in a long-established and well-respected peer-reviewed journal such as Economic Inquiry.

    I gather the original working paper published by the researchers at the Australian National University was intended to "stimulate discussion and critical comment". No doubt the authors, their academic superiors, their peers who reviewed the paper, and the editorial board of Economic Inquiry remain blissfully ignorant that the study has been entirely discredited by a couple of Boards posters. They should be told before it's too late: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ecin

    Anyway, such wry chuckles aside, Table 4 in the working paper (and discussion within the text) controls for a number of other variables, and their findings still "suggest that fuel prices are one of the most statistically robust cross-country determinants of road death rates".

    The authors conclude that "the results provide macro-level guidance on one economic variable— the price of gasoline— that has a macro-level effect on road deaths", a variable that is "amenable to policy."

    I haven't heard of any government systematically using fuel price in that manner, but given the potential for road fatality reduction, along with other co-benefits, it's definitely worth investigating.


  • #6
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,523 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Less driving results in less collisions. That's so obvious that a paper is a waste of the authors time.

    I eagerly await their paper on it getting darker at night


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    L1011 wrote: »
    Less driving results in less collisions. That's so obvious that a paper is a waste of the authors time.

    I eagerly await their paper on it getting darker at night

    Yet you thanked a post which claimed that the study was obviously in error:
    Tragedy wrote: »
    It is laughably statistically unsound at the most basic of levels.

    So are the study's conclusions so obviously wrong that they're laughable, or so obviously right that they're not worth publishing?

    Do make up your minds, guys. You could even decide by tossing a coin: at least then you'd have a 50% chance of making the correct choice.

    Getting back to the real significance of the research, a key message of the study, already mentioned, is that (unlike night and day) the price of gasoline can be used as an instrument of public policy:
    Around 35,000 lives per annum could be saved in 23 countries by removing the subsidies that were in place in 2010. 35,000 lives is 3% of the global annual road death toll. The countries in which fuel subsidy reform offers the largest potential reductions in road deaths are Iran (10,600 avoided deaths per year) and Venezuela (>5,000 avoided deaths per year). The removal of fuel subsidies would also result in large reductions in road deaths in Indonesia (4,500), Nigeria (4,200), Saudi Arabia (2,700), Egypt (1,800), and Algeria (1,700).

    How many road deaths could be avoided if the US itself had higher taxes on gasoline? A simulation using our results implies that around 8,500 lives per year could be saved if US gasoline taxes were increased to bring the US gasoline price to the United Kingdom (UK) level (192 cents per liter in 2010). This would reduce US road fatalities by around a quarter. A reduction of this magnitude is not historically infeasible: the number of annual road deaths in the US fell by 9,600 (17%) as gasoline prices spiked during the years 1973–1975, for instance. Annual road deaths in the US also reduced by 9,800 between 2006 and 2010 as gasoline prices increased and the economy entered recession.


  • #8
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,723 ✭✭✭SeanW


    In an Irish context, any simple correlation between vehicle-miles driven and road deaths is fallacious for a number of reasons.

    1. The recession and its effect on car travel didn't save lives - any savings in road deaths were counteracted by increased suicide because of the economic collapse.
    2. Any study that does not account for other factors - an improving road network including a large motorway construction programme, no tolerance for drink driving, things like that, are not worth the paper they're written on. Because these were major factors in the Irish transportation landscape over the past 30 years.
    AFAIK Ireland has fewer road fatalities year on year now than it did in the '70s, despite their being way more people and much, much more traffic. Why is this?


  • #9
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,523 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Yet you thanked a post which claimed that the study was obviously in error:



    So are the study's conclusions so obviously wrong that they're laughable, or so obviously right that they're not worth publishing?

    Do make up your minds, guys. You could even decide by tossing a coin: at least then you'd have a 50% chance of making the correct choice.

    Getting back to the real significance of the research, a key message of the study, already mentioned, is that (unlike night and day) the price of gasoline can be used as an instrument of public policy:
    Around 35,000 lives per annum could be saved in 23 countries by removing the subsidies that were in place in 2010. 35,000 lives is 3% of the global annual road death toll. The countries in which fuel subsidy reform offers the largest potential reductions in road deaths are Iran (10,600 avoided deaths per year) and Venezuela (>5,000 avoided deaths per year). The removal of fuel subsidies would also result in large reductions in road deaths in Indonesia (4,500), Nigeria (4,200), Saudi Arabia (2,700), Egypt (1,800), and Algeria (1,700).

    How many road deaths could be avoided if the US itself had higher taxes on gasoline? A simulation using our results implies that around 8,500 lives per year could be saved if US gasoline taxes were increased to bring the US gasoline price to the United Kingdom (UK) level (192 cents per liter in 2010). This would reduce US road fatalities by around a quarter. A reduction of this magnitude is not historically infeasible: the number of annual road deaths in the US fell by 9,600 (17%) as gasoline prices spiked during the years 1973–1975, for instance. Annual road deaths in the US also reduced by 9,800 between 2006 and 2010 as gasoline prices increased and the economy entered recession.

    A study can be horribly flawed and still find a pointlessly obvious answer. And this one is horribly flawed. You'd fail many college courses for it.


  • #10
    Tragedy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I haven't read the report, and I admit I have not looked at this phenomenon previously. Now that I'm presented with it, I have to say it's a very interesting and thought-provoking subject.

    That said, it took only a few minutes of skimming to show that you, Tragedy, are talking a load of baloney.

    What's actually laughable is that certain Boards members fancy that their ill-informed utterances in a chat forum such as this are somehow superior to an academic study published in a long-established and well-respected peer-reviewed journal such as Economic Inquiry.

    I gather the original working paper published by the researchers at the Australian National University was intended to "stimulate discussion and critical comment". No doubt the authors, their academic superiors, their peers who reviewed the paper, and the editorial board of Economic Inquiry remain blissfully ignorant that the study has been entirely discredited by a couple of Boards posters. They should be told before it's too late: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ecin

    Anyway, such wry chuckles aside, Table 4 in the working paper (and discussion within the text) controls for a number of other variables, and their findings still "suggest that fuel prices are one of the most statistically robust cross-country determinants of road death rates".

    The authors conclude that "the results provide macro-level guidance on one economic variable— the price of gasoline— that has a macro-level effect on road deaths", a variable that is "amenable to policy."

    I haven't heard of any government systematically using fuel price in that manner, but given the potential for road fatality reduction, along with other co-benefits, it's definitely worth investigating.



    Let's briefly go over the problems in your post:
    1) You don't know what peer review is or how it works. You don't know what peer review is intended to do (a hint, it's primary intention is to find that a paper is methodologically sound, original, and correctly sourced). You don't know that in academia, a paper's importance is viewed on citations. Really, as usual, you know nothing.
    2) You have never heard of Economic Inquiry before and yet talk about it as if you had.
    3) You post as if you had somehow proved my post wrong and barely address it.
    4) You fail to mention the variables accounted for, variables such as corruption, infant mortality, paved vs unpaved roads and length of road network (total length, not length per 1000 population or anything useful).
    5) You fail to mention that they don't include the variables that are actually regarded as being the most important to road mortality. This guide is a decent primer, there are many reports I could link to you, but you would neither bother to read them, nor be capable of understanding them. Alas


    I do enjoy your faux superiority though. The irony when you're post is so full of trash is delightful on a pleasant saturday morning.

    The price elasticity of gasoline in the US was estimated at between -0.034 and -0.077 in a 2006 MIT paper. This means that for travel to decrease by 1%, the price needs to increase by 20%. The US EIA estimates the PED of gasoline to be between -0.02 and -0.04, or that the price of gasoline needs to increase by between 25% and 50% to reduce travel by 1%.

    And yet the excellent peer reviewed working paper published in the Luminary Economic Inquiry estimates "long-run gasoline price elasticity of road deaths lying between -0.3 and -0.6".

    Get off it Iwannahurl, you don't even know what elasticity means and here you are being smugly condescending.

    Now, I know what you're like. You will change the argument. Change the subject matter. Change the goal posts. Link more reports that you haven't read, claiming they say things that support your argument (that they don't).

    This post is for the benefit of others who might have been fortunate enough not to have experienced you before and are naive enough to take your post on good faith, unfortunately I long ago learned that you have zero interest in being wrong, incorrect, or the saddest of all, learning. Thus, I won't be replying again as it will be utterly futile.


  • #11
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Tragedy wrote: »
    You fail to mention the variables accounted for, variables such as corruption, infant mortality, paved vs unpaved roads and length of road network (total length, not length per 1000 population or anything useful).

    Is that sound I hear the moving of goalposts?

    What you said earlier was:
    Tragedy wrote: »
    It didn't isolate for any factors other than fuel price.

    That was clearly untrue. Now you're attempting to argue that, while other variables were indeed controlled for, they were neither correct nor useful.

    There is nothing in the WHO guide you linked concerning road length per 1000 population, so would you care to tell us why this variable is more correct and useful, and what difference it would make to the analysis?

    As for your other comments, I know what peer review is. The basic point is that contributing to a chat forum such as Boards is not comparable to the process by which academic studies are assessed, published and critically reviewed. Therefore it's at least mildly amusing to see someone such as yourself, in a chat forum, pompously declaring that a published paper is "laughably statistically unsound at the most basic of levels". That is all.

    Now let's focus on the substantive issue.
    Tragedy wrote: »
    The price elasticity of gasoline in the US was estimated at between -0.034 and -0.077 in a 2006 MIT paper. This means that for travel to decrease by 1%, the price needs to increase by 20%.

    The US EIA estimates the PED of gasoline to be between -0.02 and -0.04, or that the price of gasoline needs to increase by between 25% and 50% to reduce travel by 1%.

    And yet the excellent peer reviewed working paper published in the Luminary Economic Inquiry estimates "long-run gasoline price elasticity of road deaths lying between -0.3 and -0.6".

    Emphasis added by me.

    I'm not sure why you avoid/omit including a link to or citation for the 2006 MIT paper. It's pretty standard to provide a source, even on Boards.

    Also, in any case, what is the relevance of the 2006 MIT paper to the 2014 study cited by the OP?

    You've misquoted the US EIA. I wasn't really aware of their existence either, but the wonder of the interwebz means it takes only a few minutes of Googling to find out that it's the Energy Information Administration and what they actually said in December 2014 was:
    The price elasticity of motor gasoline is currently estimated to be in the range of -0.02 to -0.04 in the short term, meaning it takes a 25% to 50% decrease in the price of gasoline to raise automobile travel 1%.

    Emphasis added by me.

    Why did you not provide a link so that your claim could be checked out?

    Why did you change it from decrease/raise to increase/reduce?

    Why are you comparing the US EIA short term estimates with the "long-run gasoline price elasticity" estimates which are the subject of the study cited by the OP?

    What exactly is the point you are trying -- and so far failing -- to make with regard to gasoline price elasticity and road fatalities?

    Of course, since we know you won't be replying again, because it's -- ahem -- utterly futile, perhaps one of your compadres can answer. No doubt they have it all worked out, and I'm willing to learn from them if not from you.


    .


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,234 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Yet you thanked a post which claimed that the study was obviously in error:
    Constructive posts only, please.

    Moderator


  • #13
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Tragedy wrote: »
    I seen you're similar to Iwannahurl in that you like to throw around facts and papers that you haven't researched or even read.
    Tragedy wrote: »
    You don't know what peer review is or how it works. You don't know what peer review is intended to do. You don't know that in academia, a paper's importance is viewed on citations. Really, as usual, you know nothing.

    there are many reports I could link to you, but you would neither bother to read them, nor be capable of understanding them.

    I do enjoy your faux superiority though. The irony when you're post is so full of trash is delightful on a pleasant saturday morning.

    Get off it Iwannahurl, you don't even know what elasticity means and here you are being smugly condescending.

    Now, I know what you're like. You will change the argument. Change the subject matter. Change the goal posts. Link more reports that you haven't read, claiming they say things that support your argument (that they don't).

    I long ago learned that you have zero interest in being wrong, incorrect, or the saddest of all, learning. Thus, I won't be replying again as it will be utterly futile.

    Here are some more papers that I haven't read, and which all point to the same conclusion:

    http://trb.metapress.com/content/95702187167k67r3/

    http://www.umtri.umich.edu/our-results/publications/us-path-lowest-motor-vehicle-fatalities-decades

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pam.20028/abstract

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18332774

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21134515

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21094313

    http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/nexwpaper/gaspricesandtrafficsafetyminnesota.htm

    http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/nexwpaper/timegeography.htm


  • #14
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    So why don't we take a little peek at any correlations between unemployment levels and road fatalities?

    Mathematical Analysis Division, National Center for Statistics and Analysis
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

    An Analysis of the Significant Decline in Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities in 2008

    http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811346.pdf
    5.2. Fatality Reductions and Unemployment Changes by Metro Areas

    Examining the fatality data with unemployment rates reported by the BLS showed that the extent of declines in fatalities was greater in many areas that had unemployment rates that were higher than the national average. The national unemployment rate steadily increased from late 2007 through late 2009 but has recently held steady through early 2010. Data from BLS also tracks the unemployment rates for Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). MSAs were categorized into top, middle, and bottom third of MSAs by the change in the unemployment rate, as seen in Table 6 below. MSAs in the bottom third, those with the highest increase in unemployment rates between 2007 and 2008, also had the largest percentage decline (-12.4%) in fatalities, followed by MSAs in the middle third (-8.7%). MSAs in the top third, those with the lowest increase in the unemployment rates, had the smaller decline in fatalities (- 8.2%).


  • #15
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,234 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Pardon the seagulling, but have ye considered that lots of young men (previously the primary at-risk group) have emigrated? Young women and other groups haven't emigrated to the same extent.


  • #16
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Victor wrote: »
    Pardon the seagulling, but have ye considered that lots of young men (previously the primary at-risk group) have emigrated? Young women and other groups haven't emigrated to the same extent.

    Very valid observation I would speculate that the tendency of the Irish to emigrate in response unemployment should make the road death reducing effect of unemployment even stronger in Ireland than elsewhere.


    Edit

    Naughty me. I've just realised I forgot to provide any evidence of unemployment in Ireland. Wouldn't want get accused of more "lies" now would we?

    RTE News January 2009

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0109/112492-employment/
    Unemployment up 71% in 12 months The Live Register saw an unadjusted increase of 120,987 or 71% in the year to December 2008 - the biggest 12-month increase since records began in 1967.It compares to an unadjusted increase of 106,864 or 66.1% in the year to November.The figures published by the Central Statistics Office also show that the number of people signing onto the Live Register increased by 16,300 to 293,500 in December.The unemployment rate rose to 8.3% last month from 7.8% in November.The CSO figures show that the number of men on the dole has risen by 83% while the number of women is up by 50% compared with December 2007.


  • #17
    tvc15
    Registered Users Posts: 325 ✭✭tvc15


    I never see anyone bring up the two huge changes in the last 20 years that drops road deaths, car technology and medical science! 20 years ago airbags were rare, 10 years ago abs and traction control were rare, crumple zones etc have been made common place. Add the improvements in medical science at the hospital and getting you there (including mobile phone proliferation) and it's much harder to get into a fatal collision now


  • #18
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Very valid observation I would speculate that the tendency of the Irish to emigrate in response unemployment should make the road death reducing effect of unemployment even stronger in Ireland than elsewhere.


    Edit

    Naughty me. I've just realised I forgot to provide any evidence of unemployment in Ireland. Wouldn't want get accused of more "lies" now would we?

    RTE News January 2009

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0109/112492-employment/

    The unemployment rate fell consistently from 1993-2007. The death rate fell from 1997 almost every year (with one increase in 2000) until 2012. The injury rate also fell consistently (no increases) during the same period.

    Interestingly there was an increase in petrol price from 67.3p in January 1994 to 78.94p in December 1997, which resulted deaths going up from 404-472.

    During 1998 there was a drop in petrol price from 77.06 to 71.56, corresponding with a fall in road deaths to 458.

    In the context of the hypothesis that rising fuel prices and rising unemployment saves lives, explain the above figures that directly refute them.


  • #19
    Tragedy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    So why don't we take a little peek at any correlations between unemployment levels and road fatalities?

    Mathematical Analysis Division, National Center for Statistics and Analysis
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

    An Analysis of the Significant Decline in Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities in 2008

    http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811346.pdf

    I see, following in IWH's footsteps. Don't address criticism of previous report that you had posted and obviously not read, post another report that you haven't read instead to change the goalposts.

    I could explain the parts of the report (that you haven't read) that are very obviously caveated by the authors, I could point out numerous leaps in the report that weren't warranted. Indeed, I could write out a long and detailed reply that you would ignore, but there's no need really is there?

    You posted about a correlation between two statistics as if that showed something important. Any statistics student is taught in the very first lesson that Correlation does not equal Causation.

    So, how about stick to what you're good at - which isn't reports, statistics or any kind of information beyond 'I hate motorists'? It would save us all another useless thread where IWH gets to do what IWH gets to do.


  • #20
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Tragedy wrote: »
    I see, following in IWH's footsteps....

    So, how about stick to what you're good at - which isn't reports, statistics or any kind of information beyond 'I hate motorists'? It would save us all another useless thread where IWH gets to do what IWH gets to do.

    Take your pick why your post is being infracted:

    -- Focusing on / attacking the user rather than their post
    -- Backseat modding

    No reply to this in-thread.

    -- moderator


  • #21
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    antoobrien wrote: »
    The unemployment rate fell consistently from 1993-2007. The death rate fell from 1997 almost every year (with one increase in 2000) until 2012. The injury rate also fell consistently (no increases) during the same period.

    Interestingly there was an increase in petrol price from 67.3p in January 1994 to 78.94p in December 1997, which resulted deaths going up from 404-472.

    During 1998 there was a drop in petrol price from 77.06 to 71.56, corresponding with a fall in road deaths to 458.

    In the context of the hypothesis that rising fuel prices and rising unemployment saves lives, explain the above figures that directly refute them.

    The fatality figures you cite above are not actually rates but absolute numbers. Just saying.

    A key consideration in the paper cited by the OP, and in others reporting similar analyses, is the term "ceteris paribus", alluded to earlier.

    Was every significant ceteris actually paribus during the time periods you mention?

    The figures you quote are indeed interesting, but unless the Irish situation is analysed in the same way as the various studies mentioned in this thread then your uncontrolled figures cannot be said to "directly refute" the findings of the cited research.

    Burke & Ni****ateno ( ;) ) explicitly acknowledge that "many other factors, including those that we have not been able to represent in our estimations, also have important influences on road death rates" and they say that their study is intended to "provide macro-level guidance on one economic variable— the price of gasoline— that has a macro-level effect on road deaths."

    According to the authors, their findings "suggest that fuel prices are one of the most statistically robust cross-country determinants of road death rates". The Irish road fatality experience does not "directly refute" international research with broadly similar results, unless some Irish study has been done that we don't know about, but it does suggest an interesting line of enquiry.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Tragedy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    The paper cited in the OP did not hold ceteris paribus. The paper cited by the OP a second time did not hold ceteris paribus. It is almost impossible to hold ceteris paribus for research on road accidents/fatalties, and there is almost never a suitable control.

    The most amusing thing about the list of studies that IWH presumably claims to have read, is that three of them are essentially the same study, by the same authors, using the same dataset. Oh dear, are we just googling and copy pasting links without checking them?


  • #23
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Burke & Ni****ateno ( ;) ) explicitly acknowledge that "many other factors, including those that we have not been able to represent in our estimations, also have important influences on road death rates" and they say that their study is intended to "provide macro-level guidance on one economic variable— the price of gasoline— that has a macro-level effect on road deaths."

    You do realise that this translates to we predetermined these results and couldn't be ar*ed looking into it properly?


  • #24
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Tragedy wrote: »
    The paper cited in the OP did not hold ceteris paribus. The paper cited by the OP a second time did not hold ceteris paribus. It is almost impossible to hold ceteris paribus for research on road accidents/fatalties, and there is almost never a suitable control.

    Of course it did. It's a central part of the analysis. It's an international comparison which predicts, or models, the potential change in road fatalities if one variable, ie gasoline price, was altered, all other things being equal for the purposes of the analysis.

    I'm not an economist, but it's clear to me that ceteribus paribus is a standard working assumption in this broad area of research. The objective is to investigate a key variable which can be manipulated, perhaps at government policy level, in order to determine whether a desired outcome can be achieved (or perhaps whether an undesirable outcome might occur). In the case of the study cited by the OP the focus is on road fatalities. By way of another relevant example found at random, here's another paper which looks at the possible impact of a CO2 tax on gasoline demand.
    We observe a significant price elasticity of -0.234 in the short run, meaning that a 10% price increase in a municipality will lead to a decrease in the consumption of gasoline in that municipality by 2.34%, ceteris paribus.

    http://www.cer.ethz.ch/research/WP-15-210.pdf

    And no, I haven't read it. It's just for the purposes of illustration. Anyway, the analysis was conducted by some Swiss crowd I never heard of, the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich, and sure what would they know?

    Tragedy wrote: »
    The most amusing thing about the list of studies that IWH presumably claims to have read, is that three of them are essentially the same study, by the same authors, using the same dataset. Oh dear, are we just googling and copy pasting links without checking them?

    Salami at its finest perhaps.

    I'm glad the allegedly single solitary dataset is at least amusing. Who would have thought that research could be so entertaining?

    Which specific dataset are you referring to, by the way?

    And I'm still waiting for your answer to this post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94867866&postcount=11

    antoobrien wrote: »
    You do realise that this translates to we predetermined these results and couldn't be ar*ed looking into it properly?

    You do realise that we are posting on Boards and they are publishing in the peer-reviewed academic literature?


    .


  • #25
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    You do realise that we are posting on Boards and they are publishing in the peer-reviewed academic literature?


    .

    So do their peers, which is why only people that don't know how to read researchese take reports like these seriously.


  • #26
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    antoobrien wrote: »
    So do their peers, which is why only people that don't know how to read researchese take reports like these seriously.

    So if I'm understanding you correctly, the logical conclusion of the above is that neither the researchers nor their peer reviewers take their own work seriously, or if they do take it seriously, it's because both the researchers and the reviewers don't know what they're doing?


  • #27
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,523 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    You realise that "published" and "peer review" its practically worthless outside of a few specific journals at this stage?

    Mainly due to journals that will print anything if you pay the entry fee, and "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" type setups like, oh, this

    Relying on the crutch of "its published" and/or "its peer reviewed" when the content of a paper is torn to shreds doesn't wash outside of first year.

    The race to get published at all costs for academic prestige/advancement has lead to an increased amount of utter tripe being pushed in to anywhere that prints also.


  • #28
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    You do realise that we are posting on Boards and they are publishing in the peer-reviewed academic literature?

    In fairness peer-reviewed academic journals are often poorly peer-reviewed.

    Loads of very silly claims about bicycle helmets were contained in such journals (even if some of it is now retracted).


  • #29
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    You do realise that we are posting on Boards and they are publishing in the peer-reviewed academic literature?


    .

    It's interesting that when we search the "publishing" institution this paper does not show up as being a peer reviewed paper. In fact the first paragraph states this:
    This Working Paper series provides a vehicle for preliminary circulation of research results in the fields of economic development and international trade. The series is intended to stimulate discussion and critical comment. Staff and visitors in any part of the Australian National University are encouraged to contribute. To facilitate prompt distribution, papers are screened, but not formally refereed.

    So we know that it has not yet been peer reviewed or published as such.

    In fact their finding in contradictory to their first diagram:
    Figure 1 also demonstrates substantial variation in road fatality rates among countries with similar gasoline prices.

    If the finding of the paper is valid, is this the exception that proves the rule?

    What do the authors say about this apparent contradiction:
    A number of additional variables, including per capita incomes, road-use laws, and road infrastructure, will be considered in explaining this variation.

    So they acknowledge that prices are not the determinant - if it were then there would not be significant variation in rates at a certain price - but then go ignore this to support a finding that would appear to be predetermined.


  • #30
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    monument wrote: »
    In fairness peer-reviewed academic journals are often poorly peer-reviewed.

    Loads of very silly claims about bicycle helmets were contained in such journals (even if some of it is now retracted).

    True, but there's still an in-built process of critique and refutation.

    However, for those of us outside the process the way to go about it is to demolish the actual study, not to make glib assumptions about the authors and reviewers.


    L1011 wrote: »
    You realise that "published" and "peer review" its practically worthless outside of a few specific journals at this stage?

    Mainly due to journals that will print anything if you pay the entry fee, and "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" type setups like, oh, this

    Relying on the crutch of "its published" and/or "its peer reviewed" when the content of a paper is torn to shreds doesn't wash outside of first year.

    The race to get published at all costs for academic prestige/advancement has lead to an increased amount of utter tripe being pushed in to anywhere that prints also.


    Which is why there are now guides such as a journal's impact factor. Again, the way to show that a particular study is flawed is to demolish the research in terms of its methodology or analyses, not diss the general process.

    However, we have to rely on the scientific process to some degree, otherwise the alternative is pure anarchy. Are we to dismiss the science on climate change, for example, because of the "race to get published at all costs for academic prestige/advancement"?


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    antoobrien wrote: »
    It's interesting that when we search the "publishing" institution this paper does not show up as being a peer reviewed paper. In fact the first paragraph states this:

    So we know that it has not yet been peer reviewed or published as such.

    Incorrect. See OP and post #5.

    antoobrien wrote: »
    So they acknowledge that prices are not the determinant - if it were then there would not be significant variation in rates at a certain price - but then go ignore this to support a finding that would appear to be predetermined.

    They acknowledge that gasoline price is one determinant among many, and they attempt to model or predict the size of the effect by controlling for other variables. They then attempt to quantify the potential impact of a policy-based change in that modifiable variable.

    The finding is not predetermined but there is some prior research suggesting a casual link, which they briefly review as per standard practice in such studies.


Advertisement