Effect of fuel prices and unemployment rates on road deaths

galwaycyclist

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)



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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.


.

Victor

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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

Constructive posts only, please.

Moderator

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

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%).

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

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?


.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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"?

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.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Incorrect. See OP and post #5.

The text I quoted is taken directly from the link provided by the O.P.: https://crawford.anu.edu.au/acde/publications/publish/papers/wp2014/wp_econ_2014_18.pdf

To further reiterate, I went to the ANU library to search for this paper as a peer reviewed, scholarly paper - it's not listed.

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 authors are suggesting policy based on a single factor - fuel price

They ignore the fact already pointed out that at the same price range there are significant differences in fatality rates.

They ignore studies that state that higher fuel prices could contribute to a higher fatality rate (haven't read them, they are Prima facie as plausible as the proposal)

There are ways in which higher gasoline prices might actually lead to more rather than fewer road deaths. One is: by reducing congestion, higher gasoline prices can allow remaining drivers to travel at faster speeds (Burger and Kaffine 2009), which increases the risk of fatal crashes. Substitution to particularly risky types of fuel-efficient vehicles, such as motorcycles, may also cause additional road deaths when gasoline prices rise (Hyatt et al. 2009; Wilson et al. 2009).2

They appear to ignore the impact of infrastructure in their approach (section II) - there is no mention of it, while they do call out terrain as being an issue

They account for infrastructure in the results (III) by suggesting it enables road spending therefore deaths (this would definitely be counter intuitive to the Irish case where spending on roads woulds seem to have been a factor in reducing the fatality rate) - without accounting for the quality of that infrastructure.

Here is an excerpt of their conclusion:

The international community is mobilizing a number of strategies to improve road safety during the United Nations’ Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011–2020. The Plan for the Decade of Action (WHO 2010) is silent on the potential role of fuel pricing

Can you see why one might get the impression of a predetermined result?

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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.

So why did you attempt to shut down debate by making reference to peer review and publication and implication that those outside can't realistically challenge due to that?

Once again - you can't have it both ways.

Iwannahurl

L1011 wrote: »

So why did you attempt to shut down debate by making reference to peer review and publication and implication that those outside can't realistically challenge due to that?

Once again - you can't have it both ways.

I referred to such matters because of the likes of this:

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 didn't try to "shut down debate". Quite the contrary, which is why I'm still waiting for an answer to this post.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

The text I quoted is taken directly from the link provided by the O.P.: https://crawford.anu.edu.au/acde/publications/publish/papers/wp2014/wp_econ_2014_18.pdf

To further reiterate, I went to the ANU library to search for this paper as a peer reviewed, scholarly paper - it's not listed.

It's the same study as far as I can see: http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1111%2Fecin.12171

If you're trying to suggest that their research was not published in a reputable journal, then you are wrong.

antoobrien wrote: »

The authors are suggesting policy based on a single factor - fuel price

No, they are focusing on a single factor which can be studied in order to provide evidence to support one aspect of public policy. That does not preclude other research or other policies.

antoobrien wrote: »

They ignore the fact already pointed out that at the same price range there are significant differences in fatality rates.

They ignore studies that state that higher fuel prices could contribute to a higher fatality rate (haven't read them, they are Prima facie as plausible as the proposal)

They appear to ignore the impact of infrastructure in their approach (section II) - there is no mention of it, while they do call out terrain as being an issue

They account for infrastructure in the results (III) by suggesting it enables road spending therefore deaths (this would definitely be counter intuitive to the Irish case where spending on roads woulds seem to have been a factor in reducing the fatality rate) - without accounting for the quality of that infrastructure.

Where in the study are they ignoring "the fact that at the same price range there are significant differences in fatality rates"?

Which studies "state that higher fuel prices could contribute to a higher fatality rate"?

Road infrastructure is not ignored, and is controlled for in their study along with their use of an Instrumental Variable (IV) approach. This level of statistical analysis is well beyond my (imaginary) pay grade, but my understanding is that their strategy is to demonstrate the relationship between gasoline price and road deaths first, and then to control for other variables that could explain the "substantial variation in road fatality rates among countries with similar gasoline prices".

antoobrien wrote: »

Here is an excerpt of their conclusion:

The international community is mobilizing a number of strategies to improve road safety during the United Nations’ Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011–2020. The Plan for the Decade of Action (WHO 2010) is silent on the potential role of fuel pricing.

Can you see why one might get the impression of a predetermined result?

No.

Here's an excerpt from their introduction:

Road safety is a leading public health issue. Road crashes are the cause of 1.3 million deaths every year; the ninth-leading cause of death globally and the number-one cause of death for people between 15 and 29 years of age. Road death rates are particularly high in middle- and low-income countries, which each year see an average of 20 and 18 deaths per 100,000 population, respectively. There are around 9 road deaths per 100,000 population each year in high-income countries. Up to 50 million people worldwide also suffer non-fatal injuries each year, bringing large human and financial costs. The global road death toll is expected to increase to around 2.4 million per year by 2030 in a business-as-usual scenario, making road crashes the fifth-leading cause of death. Finding ways to reduce global road deaths is an increasingly important policy imperative.

There's nothing wrong with using Economic theory to inform potential policy responses to such a serious Public Health issue. It's science in the public interest, imo.

galwaycyclist

The international community is mobilizing a number of strategies to improve road safety during the United Nations’ Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011–2020. The Plan for the Decade of Action (WHO 2010) is silent on the potential role of fuel pricing.

Too busy with work at moment to contribute meaningfully. But this triggered a side observation.

One of the World "Health" Organization's primary partners in their "road safety" initiatives is the FIA Foundation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIA_Foundation_for_the_Automobile_and_Society

Who are the charitable arm of world motor sport.

Its a bit like having producers of alchoholic drinks as a main partner for anti-alchohol initiatives.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It's the same study as far as I can see: http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1111%2Fecin.12171

If you're trying to suggest that their research was not published in a reputable journal, then you are wrong.

I'm not the university search engine is. Since they have multiple papers cited from both authors and this isn't listed.....

Iwannahurl wrote: »

No, they are focusing on a single factor which can be studied in order to provide evidence to support one aspect of public policy.

Yeah, see the problem is that when critically analysed there are so many holes in their "evidence" that their policy can't actually be supported.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Where in the study are they ignoring "the fact that at the same price range there are significant differences in fatality rates"?

Which studies "state that higher fuel prices could contribute to a higher fatality rate"?

Did you read either the article or the posts you're querying, because it doesn't look like it.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Road infrastructure is not ignored, and is controlled for in their study along with their use of an Instrumental Variable (IV) approach.

I suggest you read the report again, their results ignore the quality of the infrastructure in favor of "Road distance".

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with using Economic theory to inform potential policy responses to such a serious Public Health issue.

If the research is valid, then yes. However this is not anywhere approaching valid.

galwaycyclist

Little discussion doc from Gerald Wilde from 1989 I think

http://www.icadtsinternational.com/files/documents/1989_010.pdf

I was actually trying to google Partykas work but this will do. The figures are at the very end of the document.

The influence of the economic juncture

Although these findings seem to be roughly in line with the alternative view depicted above, there is reason for caution in accepting them as convincing support. An unfortunate feature of before-after comparisons without external control data, and likewise of the inspection of time-series statistics, is the possible impact of other factors that are not accounted for. One such other factor that has recently begun to attract special attention is the fluctuation in the nation's economy. Its effect in the USA has been explored by Partyka (1984), in Great Britain by Adams (1985) and in British Columbia by Mercer (1966). These authors found economic recessions to coincide with reductions in accidents.

In order to add to the existing information on this matter, annual rates of unemployment were investigated on their correlation with the same-year traffic death rates per capita in seven different countries (data derived from the International Labour Office, various years, the US Department of Labor and national statistical yearbooks). These countries were selected because of relatively long time-series of unemployment statistics being available, relative consistency in the manner unemployment was defined and measured, large population size (reducing mere statistical chance fluctuation in the data) and - frankly - also because I was to address audiences on the topic in some of them.

Figure 3 relates to a 40-year period in the USA. Close scrutiny of the changes from one year to the next reveals that in most cases an increase in the unemployment rate is associated with a decrease in the per capita fatality rate in traffic. The top profile is virtually the inverse image of the bottom profile. The product-moment coefficient of correlation, which is admittedly a questionable measure of association in cases of long-term secular trends in one or more of the variables (in the present case not so much in the death rate but in the unemployment rate), amounts to r=-.68.

In the other six countries, as Table 2 shows, the correlations were found to be stronger. In Canada, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands they amounted to r— .88 . There are various reasons to suggest that the observed correlations may be underestimates of the true correlation between the unemployment rate and the per capita traffic accident rate. The unemployment rate is usually estimated from samples, household surveys or otherwise limited data bases. That estimate is thus subject to error. The same holds for the estimate of the number of people killed as a consequence of a road accident (Hutchinson, 1987). The number of people residing in a country in any given year is not known for sure either. The calculated coefficients of correlation are thus likely to suffer from attenuation due to unreliability of the data. Time lags between variations in the one and the other would also have an attenuating effect. On the other hand, the coefficient would be inflated if the errors in measurement in both variables are correlated (i.e., autocorrelation).

To complicate matters further, over the years there have been changes in various countries in the definition of what constitutes "being unemployed". In some countries, migrant labour is sent home when unemployment rises, thus changing the number of residents and its distribution in terms of age and social class (and thus accident likelihood).

The last part might be quite relevant to Ireland since we had a mobile migrant community and also a "native" workforce who react through emigration.

galwaycyclist

Tragedy wrote: »

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.

If we were talking about one very unusual report with an unusual finding then there might be merit in getting into the details of the method used.

However - the observation that changes in unemployment rates - used as a proxy for economic activity - are associated with inverse changes in road deaths is not new. It has been around for years and is reported by various respected researchers.

Of course the authors enter caveats about their findings it would be unacceptable not to. What is your point? Are you trying to allege that admitting the existence of confounding factors invalidates such analyses? If so, then in my view you are just being silly.

You are correct that correlation is not causation - but when the same correlation is seen across varying populations and time periods then it provides strong evidence of association whether direct or indirect.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Yeah, see the problem is that when critically analysed there are so many holes in their "evidence" that their policy can't actually be supported.

If the research is valid, then yes. However this is not anywhere approaching valid.

Repetition is not a valid form of debate.

I think we can trust the authors' mastery of statistical analysis more than we can rely on yours.

Iwannahurl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

correlation is not causation - but when the same correlation is seen across varying populations and time periods then it provides strong evidence of association whether direct or indirect.

A particular study may not be designed to determine causation. Here's an Australian study by researchers at Monash University in Victoria, which explored factors impacting on the 29% decrease in road fatalities in 1990 compared to the previous year, as an economic downturn occurred.




The authors are explicitly stating that their study cannot establish a causal link, but their statistical model explains a sizeable proportion of the observed reduction in fatalities, and shows that a quarter of the decrease was due to economic factors.

In Epidemiology/Public Health there are criteria for causation, traditionally listed as follows:




The association between fuel price, unemployment and road fatalities is well established. In terms of a causal pathway, one plausible explanation is that being unwaged and/or having to pay a high price for fuel could lead to a number of situations that would reduce fatality risk on the roads:

• slower and more conservative driving, to save fuel
• purchase of smaller, and hence more fuel-efficient, vehicles which also have lower mass
• less driving overall
• less leisure or social driving, which may be associated with alcohol consumption

Prof Michael Sivak of the University of Michigan has researched these possible factors:

http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/7221
http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/7184
http://ur.umich.edu/0809/Jun22_09/08.php

Tragedy

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Is that sound I hear the moving of goalposts?

What you said earlier was:



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

My apologies. They failed to account for any factors relevant other than price of fuel. Infant mortality is not relevant. Length of unpaved road network is not relevant. Etc etc. I already listed some common factors that time and again are considered relevant to road facility statistical research, and none of them were used. Most likely because they would have significantly altered the studies findings and rendered it both meaningless and unworthy of publishing.

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?

For someone who likes to talk as if they understand statistics, the fact that you don't understand why absolute figuresbare not comparable across different populations is quite hilarious. Ireland has less absolute road deaths than England, let's ignore that England has a vastly higher population and assume that Ireland is safer!

As for your other comments, I know what peer review is

You have shown multiple times in this very thread that you don't understand peer review.

Please do not lie.

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.

That's akin to saying that Paul Krugman can never discuss a theory or economic policy in a newspaper, interview or debate because it is not comparable to the process of peer review.

[QuoteTherefore 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.[/quote]

The only mildly amusing thing is that you have verifiably demonstrated that you don't understand ceteris paribus, that correlation does not equal causation, that you can't compare absolute statistics which is why we generally compare statistic per <unit> and that you don't understand that if x increases by 1% when y decreases by 1%, x decreases by 1% when y increases by 1%.

In short, you have verifiably demonstrated time and again that you understand very little of the arguments that you are making, and none of the reports you are parroting.

This is an empirical fact Iwannahurl.

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

I already explained that. Please read posts before you reply.

You've misquoted the US EIA.

I misquoted no one. Please do not lie.

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

I didn't make a claim. I reported a claim the EIA made. Another basic error IWH.

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

Because it means the same thing and it genuinely scares me that such a very basic lack of knowledge in how two related properties with an inverse effect on each other r work, makes you think you've won some sort of victory.

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?

It is important to note that these results measure consumers’ reac-
tions to short-run changes in gasoline prices. However, it is the long-run response
that is the most important in determining which polices are most appropriate for
reducing gasoline consumption. As it turns out, it is relatively difficult to measure
long-run gasoline elasticities in practice due to factors such as the cyclical nature of
gasoline prices. In this paper, we are also limited to currently available data and the
relatively short history of high gasoline prices during the past several years.
Analysis of the short-run price elasticity does however provide some in-
sight into long-run behavior. The long-run response to gasoline price increases is
the sum of short-run changes (miles driven) and long-run changes (fuel economy
of the vehicle fleet). The short-run results suggest that consumers today are less
responsive in adjusting miles driven to increases in gasoline price. This compo-
nent seems unlikely to change significantly for long-run behavior. This is because
factors that may contribute to inelastic short-run price elasticities such as land
use, employment patterns and transit infrastructure typically evolve on timescales
greater than those considered in long-run decisions.

Because that's why.

https://ideas.repec.org/a/aen/journl/2008v29-01-a06.html

Cited by over 300 other papers

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

Already explained, and already succeeded. The only two people who failed to understand it are you and gal way cyclist, who are also the two people who have proven themselves to be incapable of understanding the most basic of statistical research. To repeat, that last is a verifiable fact.

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.

The only futility is dreaming that you might be capable of learning something new.