Classical Values :: "Terrorism is way down at the bottom"

"Terrorism is way down at the bottom"

A remarkable new meme (first widely promulgated by Michael Moore, then sanitized by a Nobel econonist) is that driving is more dangerous than terrorism:

The body count from road accidents in developed economies is 390 times higher than the death toll in these countries from international terrorism, says a study appearing in a specialist journal, Injury Prevention. In 2001, as many people died every 26 days on American roads as died in the terrorist attacks of 9/11, it says.

Researchers led by Nick Wilson of Otago University, New Zealand, trawled through a US State Department database of deaths caused by international terrorism, and compared this with an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development database on road crash deaths among 29 OECD countries.

Gee, I never would have known! When I was a kid, the United States death rate from accidents was over 50,000 a year. American deaths in the Vietnam War totaled 57,000, and for many years, more Americans died on the road per year than had died in the entire Vietnam War.

Now it takes two years.

Obviously, traffic is more dangerous than Vietnam-style quagmires, so we'd better adjust our priorities accordingly. As today's "experts" say,

"Policymakers need to be aware of this when allocating resources to preventing these two avoidable causes of mortality."

Not that there's any difference between accidents and deliberate attacks.

I prefer the "way down at the bottom" view of the Nobel economist:

If you take the Trade Towers, we lost about 3,000 people. Three thousand people is about 3 1/2 weeks of automobile fatalities in the U.S. If you rank all the causes of death in the U.S. or around the world, different kinds of accidents, struck by lightning, heart attacks, infections acquired during hospital surgery, terrorism is way down at the bottom.

Obviously, we should start treat terrorism like any other accident. If planes get hijacked and flown into buildings, why, that's what insurance companies are for. Buildings should be built in a more terrorist-proof fashion. Or not at all. When a terrorist attacks, he should should simply be asked to provide his insurance card, just like everyone else. And if he isn't insured, well, lots of drivers aren't insured either.

Accidents will happen. And thanks to this study, we now have scientific proof that terrorism isn't as bad as accidents.

So get over it.

MORE: I note that the author of this "study" is a New Zealand epidemiologist with a lot of expertise in getting people to quit smoking, and going after the evil tobacco industry. I know that smoking kills a lot of people, and I'm wondering why he didn't say the tobacco industry was also more dangerous than terrorism.

Probably just an oversight. Or maybe he didn't think tobacco use was accidental.

Huh?

No, that can't be right, because he blames the tobacco companies. And terrorism isn't accidental either.

Or is it?

Sorry I don't get it, but I'll never understand all this statistical stuff.

MORE: Dr. Wilson also specializes in "global climate change," (which Nobel economist Schelling stated was a bigger concern than terrorism), and he has proposed "carbon taxes" ("particularly in developed countries") as well as methane taxes (no, really) on animal flatulence. Additionally, he asserts that "higher fuel taxes reduce motor vehicle crash fatalities." Here's an excerpt from the study he cites:

Economists view taxes as a more efficient means of reducing the consumption of a product than regulation. They have therefore suggested raising cigarette and alcohol taxes to reduce the undesirable effects of tobacco and alcohol on the public's health. This essay suggests that a gasoline tax can have similar beneficial influences on reducing highway deaths and injuries. Moreover, if some proceeds of the tax are used to finance mass transit, the regressivity of the tax can be ameliorated.

Leaving aside the logic of contrasting taxation with regulation, how about just let's just tax the hell out of the terrorists?

Death rates are a poor way to compare random risks and enemy attacks. The US lost fewer people in the Pearl Harbor attack than it lost on 9/11. It surely lost far fewer people than it lost in accidents that year. So, should the US have just rolled over and ignored the threat posed by Japan? Only a complete moron would answer that in the affirmative.

With respect to taxing terrorists: well, this is starting to happen via law suits. I knew there was a reason why we had lawyers. They are very good at making life difficult for terrorist financiers.

pat · December 2, 2005 12:30 AM