The Season of Death: A New Marketplace Podcast

(Photo: ornello_pics)

Our latest Freakonomics Radio on Marketplace podcast is called “The Season of Death.” The gist: Summertime brings far too many fatal accidents. But the numbers may surprise you.

(You can download/subscribe at iTunes, get the RSS feed, listen via the media player above, or read the transcript below.)

If you’re a longtime reader, you probably already have an idea of what we’re talking about. Human beings are, in general, quite bad at assessing risk. We tend to be scared of big, noisy, anomalous events – like shark attacks, which in an average year kill fewer than five people worldwide — while overlooking the seemingly quotidian reality of, say, drowning deaths (about 4,000 per year in the U.S. alone) and motorcycle fatalities (about 4,500 U.S. deaths annually). We have been exploring this idea since Freakonomics, where we asked whether a gun or a swimming pool is more “dangerous.”

In the podcast, we look into the death rate from four popular summertime activities: motorcycling, swimming, boating, and skydiving. Comparing such rates is rarely an apples-to-apples proposition but we do our best to sketch out the relative danger of each. You’ll hear from:

Along we way, we ran across an interesting wrinkle in the motorcycle data. Take a look at this table from a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report and see if you spot something hinky:

First of all, look at the massive spike in registered vehicles — from 4.9 million in 2001 to 8.2 million in 2010. We were told this was due in part to heavy marketing to (and purchases by) aging baby boomers reconnecting with their easy riding youth. Maybe, but still, that’s a big increase.

Then look at how the fatality rate increases significantly from 2001 to 2006. That could certainly fit the aging-boomer story. But then, thankfully, the fatality rate absolutely plunges — from 40.14 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 2006 to 24.18 in 2007.

What happened? Did all those aging boomers with sub-par eyesight and reflexes decide en masse to keep their bikes in the garage?

Apparently not. Look at how the motorcycle miles driven suddenly went through the roof that same year, from 12 billion in 2006 to 21.4 billion in 2007. Such a huge and sudden spike in miles driven can of course explain how death rate plummeted (even while the number of deaths rose by 337), but it also makes you wonder if these statistics are at all trustworthy.

Randa Samaha from the National Crash Analysis Center told us that motorcycle usage and crash data are widely understood to be imperfect. In recent years there have been adjustments in how those data are gathered, leading to radically different statistics. Consider this recent Transportation Research Board report:

“There appears to be no uniformity of motorcycle VMT estimation method among the states, and no validation of the accuracy of various methods … For example, VMT estimates showed little fluctuation from 1982 – 2002, even though in the mid-1990s motorcycle registrations and fatalities dropped to approximately two-thirds of their 1982 levels. Motorcycle VMT estimates declined 10% between 1999-2002, even as motorcycle registrations increased by 20%, sales of new motorcycles soared by 63%, and motorcycle fatalities rose by 68%.”

So it’s possible that motorcycle riding is a) even more dangerous than the numbers say; or b) much less dangerous than the numbers say. Even if b) is true, however, it is still plainly dangerous — especially when it’s done without a helmet.


Audio Transcript

Kai Ryssdal: Time now for a little Freakonomics Radio. It's that moment every couple of weeks where we talk to Stephen Dubner, the co-author of the books and blog of the same name. It is the hidden side of everything. Dubner, it is so good go talk to you again, man.

Stephen Dubner: And to you, Kai. I missed you, too. How's your summer been?

Ryssdal: Good, good. Busy, busy, but good.

Dubner: 'Tis, of course, the season for outdoor activity -- some of which I'm here to tell you can have a very significant downside.

Ryssdal: Like what? Sunburn and mosquitoes bites? What?

Dubner: No, I'm actually talking about death. I hate to be a killjoy in the middle of summer, but I thought it might be worthwhile to look at the relative danger of some of America's favorite summertime activities.

Ryssdal: All right.

Dubner: So let's start with motorcycling. Here's Randa Samaha from the National Crash Analysis Center.

Randa Samaha: Motorcyclists are very vulnerable road users. For every 100 million vehicle mile traveled, there are over 24 riders killed.

Ryssdal: So when I was 20-something years old, I told my grandfather that I wanted to buy a motorcycle and he said I would sooner kill you with my bare hands. He was a doctor.

Dubner: Good advice. I don't know if you own a boat, Kai, but the boating statistics are a little bit frightening. Here's Mike Baron with the U.S. Coast Guard.

Mike Baron: We're roughly down to about, say, 6.2 deaths per every 100,000 boats.

And swimming, something most of us do -- I do a lot of in the summer. Here's Julie Gilchrist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Julie Gilchrist: Overall the drowning rate in the United States for all ages is 1.29 per 100,000.

I couldn't find any stats on golfing because that's how I spend my free time. I think that's relatively safe. But skydiving, here's Nancy Koreen from the U.S. Parachute Association.

Nancy Koreen: There's been an average of maybe 22 fatalities a year, which is about seven per 1 million skydives.

Ryssdal: OK wait. Seven per million versus all those others, which is not so bad.

Dubner: Yeah, not so many. The motorcycle death rate is based on the number of miles traveled. Swimming deaths, meanwhile, are counted on a per capita basis. Skydiving deaths, based on the number of jumps. And of course, a lot fewer people go skydiving every year than go swimming.

Ryssdal: Help me out here, though, oh Freakonomics-Obi-Wan. What is the message here? Are we... Oh, I know what it is. We're scared of the wrong thing.

Dubner: That is exactly right. Human beings are generally quite bad at assessing risk. We tend to get worried about the big, anomalous events. Shark attacks, for instance, which on average kill fewer...

Ryssdal: You know why? Cause they're scary!

Dubner: They are scary and they get a lot of news coverage and then when they get a lot of news coverage we're convinced that they are a lot more common than they are. Five people on average worldwide die from unprovoked shark attacks. Meanwhile, in the U.S. alone in a given year, 4,500 people die from motorcycle accidents and another 4,000 or so from drowning.

Ryssdal: Yeah, but here's the thing: I could step off the curb in front of Marketplace global headquarters here this afternoon on my way to get a cup of coffee...

Dubner: God forbid, but yes you could.

Ryssdal: And I could get hit by a bus. What am I supposed to do?

Dubner: You're going to do what you want to do.

Ryssdal: Yes I am.

Dubner: I'm not saying you should be overly scared of things you shouldn't be, but there is a lot to learn looking at these numbers, just taking a step back and doing it. One piece of data that really jumps out at you is this -- the ability of alcohol to make bad things happen. So listen to this: About 30 percent of all motorcyclists who died were legally drunk. The Coast Guard tells us that alcohol was the primary contributing factor in about 16 percent of the boating fatalities.

Ryssdal: What about skydiving? People don't drink and skydive, do they?

Dubner: There are no hard and fast stats on it. We did ask. Here's Nancy Koreen again at the U.S. Parachute Association.

Koreen: For the most part, skydivers aren't really interested in doing that kind of thing. Skydiving is fun enough. You're having a good time and why would you add that extra element of risk?

Dubner: You know, Kai, this raises an interesting point. If an activity is prima facie dangerous, maybe it scares people from away from adding a layer of danger by drinking or something like drinking.

Ryssdal: Yeah, but hang on a minute because motorcycling is prima facie dangerous. But people drink and motorcycle all the time.

Dubner: To some people it is, to some people plainly it's not. I tend to agree with you, especially riding a bike without a helmet. Helmets are estimated to prevent about 40 percent of crash deaths among motorcyclists and yet there are a lot of motorcyclists out there who would much prefer to ride a bike than to not and to ride a bike without a helmet. Look, if safety is your primary concern this summer -- I'm not saying it should be -- but if it is, I've got the ultimate activity for you and everybody out there. You stay inside, you listen to your radio.

Ryssdal: Stephen Dubner.

Dubner: Taking the coward's way out.

Ryssdal: Ay man, I'm all right with that. is the website. He's back in a couple of weeks if he stays safe out there.

Dubner: Kai, tsk tsk tsk.

Ryssdal: You've got to be safe.

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.



View All Comments »
  1. Rib says:

    I wonder if there are significant differences in the fatality/injury numbers when you take into account the type of motorcycle being driven (I.e. sport vs cruiser). I’m sure age is also an influencing factor as to who drives what type of bike.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  2. econobiker says:

    “we look into the death rate from four popular summertime activities: motorcycling, swimming, boating, and skydiving”

    If boating includes personal watercraft surely those death statistics have increased more recently. Most recently rap star Usher’s 11 year old son to the 50 year old former astronaut son of John Poindexter died from injuries or were killed due to personal watercraft accidents. Reading news reports from the coastal area where I grew up it seems like at least one person per month is killed in a boat or personal watercraft accident during the prime summer months of June, July, August.

    “So it’s possible that motorcycle riding is a) even more dangerous than the numbers say; or b) much less dangerous than the numbers say. Even if b) is true, however, it is still plainly dangerous — especially when it’s done without a helmet.”

    Actually horseback riding is far more dangerous than motorcycle riding in either a per mile ridden or per hour use basis.

    “The Season of Death.” is actually the winter as more people die from natural causes, accidents, etc during the winter than any other season. This is based on the fluctuations of casket production and sales as I had worked at a casket manufacturer in the past.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
    • Enter your name... says:

      I believe that summer is actually the most dangerous, because of heat-exacerbated deaths. Coffin sales aren’t necessarily a reliable indicator these days, because so many people choose cremation.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
    • Shane L says:

      The Season of Death is indeed winter – most developed countries experience a large increase in mortality rates during winter and early spring. The bulk of these, though, seem to be related to things like respiratory disease, infectious disease, cardiovascular disease – not necessarily accidents.

      One interesting phenomenon is that in Europe this “excess winter mortality” is much more pronounced in countries with milder winter temperatures, like Portugal, Spain, UK, Ireland, compared with countries with more severely cold winters like Finland or Norway. There are a bunch of theories, one of which is that colder winters force Scandinavians to have well-insulated and heated homes, allowing them to better control the interior temperatures and live in warmth. The milder countries, according to this theory, tend to have less efficient heating and insulation in homes, and cold exterior weather causes cold interior weather too.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  3. James says:

    For a fair risk analysis, you really should compare the death rates (and injury, hospitalization, etc) of the various activities to the couch potato baseline. Yeah, I may face an increased risk of dying from riding the horse, swimming (with or without sharks), bike riding, &c, but I think that’s more than counterbalanced by my decreased risk of death from the consequences of obesity, or just sitting:

    As you say, humans are bad at assessing risk :-)

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
  4. Mike says:

    Wasn’t 2007 (and 2008) a year of rising gas prices? Is it possible people rode motorcycles more during those years to save money on gas? Overall lower numbers of cars on the road those years might explain the lower death rates. That’s said I might have expected some reversion in 2009 and 2010.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
  5. JTEDC says:

    I’m a bike commuter, and my ears perked up when I heard you jump from helmets and motorcycles to helmets and bicycles in the podcast. Here’s what Dubner said (excerpted from the Marketplace story):

    “To some people it is, to some people plainly it’s not. I tend to agree with you, especially riding a bike without a helmet. Helmets are estimated to prevent about 40 percent of crash deaths among motorcyclists and yet there are a lot of bicyclists out there who would much prefer to ride a bike than to not and to ride a bike without a helmet. Look, if safety is your primary concern this summer — I’m not saying it should be — but if it is, I’ve got the ultimate activity for you and everybody out there. You stay in side, you listen to your radio.”

    I understand the point Dubner’s making about motorcyclists, but I don’t really understand the point he’s making when he switches to bicyclists.

    I wear a helmet when I ride a bike. But I bristle when I hear people get judgmental about people not wearing helmets while biking. Mandating helmets on motorcycles is one thing (much higher speeds, 100% on same roads as much larger cars, often highways), but helmets on bicycles is another thing entirely.

    In this talk ( given at some European TED conference, a Swedish bike ambassador makes the case that a public campaign emphasizing helmet use resulted in a lower cycling rate in Sweden.

    Of course, that is an unintended effect of a campaign which is based upon the premise that cycle with helmets is clearly safer than cycling without helmets. And that is the question.

    When cycling, does helmet use make you much safer? What about breaking it down by types riding: e.g. in protected non-car paths, mountain biking, urban cycling, rural cycling, racing)? I can see it being necessary if the cycling is racing or if it shares roads with cars going at high speeds. However, helmet use seems to be accepted dogma, at least in the U.S. An examination of this dogma could be a perfect Freakonomics piece.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
    • econobiker says:

      Also does using a bicycle helmet save a life but leave the rider more incapacitated?

      This also has been argued for motorcyclists that helmet use contributes to surviving riders with more costly injuries. This is as if the issue is argued for pure money costs only not emotional or social costs.

      [That said my personal choice is to always wear a non-modular full face helmet even though it is a distraction to put-on and pull-off my eyeglasses when starting and ending a ride. But I do not criticize any others choices in the face of risk whether it is riding a motorcycle without a helmet or piloting a private plane or crossing the street in the middle of the block…]

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
    • Saru says:

      I got hit by a car going 40+ MPH once, went down and hit my head on the pavement. Because I was wearing a helmet I didn’t even realize until I examined the helmet later. How do you think I would have made out without the helmet? I realize that’s an anecdote and not a study or data, but I would never ride without one.

      And having started to learn to ride a motorcycle and committing to ATGATT (All The Gear All The Time), I shudder to think how exposed bikers are in their gear. I still have scars on legs from my bike accident because I was wearing shorts. (Not that pants are a viable option on bikes, but you have to be aware that any exposed skin is coming off.)

      Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
  6. Mike B says:

    I wonder if there is a subconscious evolutionary advantage in our way of assessing risk. If someone dies in a manner that they had some control over, such as drowning in a pool, then it improves the species as that those individuals predisposed to such a fate will be less likely to reproduce and over time traits that prevent accidental drowning, excess drinking or even unsafe driving will be eliminated from the gene pool.

    Those events that tend to get a lot of play in the media often involve forces that are beyond anyone’s control, like rampaging gunmen, severe weather, terrorism, etc. Those events that kill indiscriminately do little to improve the species and therefore we are instinctually predisposed to see them as a negative.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
  7. James says:

    Wish you’d delve further into the question of just accurate some of these statistics can be. I do wonder, when I see some of them, whether they’re not just being pulled out of thin air to make a point. Take motorcycles, for instance. Motorcycle registrations and sales, sure, but who tracks bikes being junked, or purchased in an “I wanna be a biker dude” moment, ridden a few hundred miles, then parked in the garage for several years until someone like me comes along and buys them cheap? And how on Earth can anyone expect to come up with a reliable figure for miles ridden?

    Same applies to boats and personal watercraft. How do you determine how much they’re being used, which is the determining factor in risk? My friends have had their boat out once this year; the neighbors have a boat and jet ski (both bought in an excess of consumerism, along with the RV) that I know for a fact haven’t been in the water for at least four years. How do they factor into boating risk calculations?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  8. Ian M says:

    I wonder if the large 2006-2007 jump in motorcycle miles can be explained by a large increase in touring?
    If so, what could have caused the touring increase?
    Is riding with other motorcyclists less likely to result in injury? (Less stunt riding, easier to see a large group, etc?)

    Was there a large shift in the type of motorcycle contributing to these miles? Anyone who rides knows that lumping all motorcycles together into one ball is nonsense. Even my wife knows that. (Yes, you can get a motorcycle. No, you can’t get a sport bike.)
    Who knows what is considered a motorcycle in these stats. Is a scooter a motorcycle? I would bet that a lot more miles have been being put on scooters as the price of gasoline goes up.

    Stats without information is bad stats. Garbage in = garbage out.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0