Hockey players, fuel efficiency, the state and market failure
An interesting article on hockey players and fuel efficiency in the New Yorker.
Economist Thomas Schelling found in the 1970s that most hockey players didn’t wear helmets if given the chance, even though helmets reduce head injuries, because if you wore a helmet it slightly reduced your vision on the field and hence made you play a little less well. But if asked in secret ballots whether helmets should be compulsory, a majority said yes.
Likewise in the US now, people are buying massive SUVs with low fuel efficiency because they think they are safer and have higher status than small cars. But when these same people are asked what they want the govt to do they say they want the govt to legislate to increase fuel efficiency standards, and hence effectively to legislate to make it harder to buy their massive three-ton SUV.
Sometimes the collective outcome of our individual decisions is irrational and not what we collectively want. In these situations we would acheive a more rational and popular outcome by using our collective agent, the govt, to legislate for the outcome we collectively actually want. Fuel efficiency standards are one of those situations.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Excellent point. Changing light bulbs and recycling and making smarter consumer decisions isn’t going to cut it without the political will to make deep structural changes.
But to build up the momentum for that political will — now there’s the question. How to take this tipping point and make positive use of it without seeming to browbeat the population?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:22 am
There is an alternaive and complimentary reason for the difference between survey responses and individual decisions. One of the lessons that life teaches you is that giving the “right” answer avoids tedious arguments and makes life much easier. But when given the chance people will simply do want they really want.
The fact that our wants are influenced by emotional factors means our decisions are never entirely rational. This is equally true when we exercise our right to vote, hence the low poll ratings for politicians who promise to act in accordance with these survey results.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:47 am
Russell, The current debate in the US isn’t about fuel economy standards for SUVs. That debate essentially ended in 2003 with NHTSA’s introduction of the Reformed CAFE standards for Light Trucks and Vans. The current debate is about extending the reforms to the passenger car CAFE standards which have not changed since 1990.
For a sumary of the standards for cars and LTVs:
http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/fe.php
For the really detailed analysis:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/
July 30th, 2007 at 1:03 am
This seems to be a good summary of where things are currently at:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/06/senate-passes-e.html#more
Or you can just look at the graph comparing the Senate fuel efficiency targets with Japan, China and EU.
http://bioage.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/200 7/06/22/sa17922.png
July 30th, 2007 at 2:10 am
Detroit automakers would gain market share and increase profits under proposed new fuel economy standards, according to a new study by the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI).
http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=5961
July 30th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Typically “the commons” is a resource that people recognize as such, but the same concept be mapped into the safety/efficiency realm.
Simply stated, people can compete to the death. This is the ultimate goal of capitalism, and it redounds against “civilized” societies everywhere it appears.
It is interestingly, part of the sneering commentary of SOME of our right-wing visitors, that we should “practice what we preach” by accepting the disadvantages (helmets for hockey players) without having it applied as a universal rule for all.
The SUV comparison has both sides going for it though.
I can look at it as giving up safety for efficiency… drive a small car in spite of the SUV advantage in a collision.. or look at it as a selfishness argument… I can have an SUV and add some perceived personal safety at the expense of the safety of everyone else on the road.
There’s a fair few Americans who perceive the choices that way and I am quite sure that the explanation offered is the one that pertains most… many people felt and still feel, the need to surround themselves with more steel because others are and were buying bigger and bigger SUVs.
The only way to stop it is, regrettably, to restrict the abuse of the commons with respect to safety, or air quality or whatever. Put a price on it and make it high enough that it makes a difference or simply control it.
respectfully
BJ
July 30th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
It seems it is not so much irrational vs rational decisions. Both decisions are equally “rational”. If helmets are not compulsory then wearing a helmet would put you at a disadvantage. However the disadvantage is removed if everyone has to wear a helmet. Similarly, if everyone drove a tank, then anyone in a small car would be vulnerable, and the “rational” thing to do would be to buy a tank, whether or not you think they are a good thing. But is tanks are illegal then there is no need for such an arms race.
In the same way, I drive a car because public transport is abysmal where I live. But I would vote for any measure that would tax car ownership to fund public transport, providing it was effective. I would then sell my car and take the bus or train.
July 30th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
look fwwog, off subject,
but do yous notice that Rodney Hide announce end of ACT in the weekend news, he say whats the use of banging his head against the wall, the
ROGER DOUGLAS EVERYBODY HATE WALL,
he looking for a reason to livre fwwog, and a dude what can dance with pretty girl and lose weight and grow up is a good dude to deal with.
think about it fwwog yous deal to NAt, yous deal to ACT,
yous could get you own way after all,
July 30th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
PQ has a point…
The next dance is going to leave us looking for a partner… and Rodney HAS shown that he’s willing to try… well pretty much anything at all …
respectfully
BJ
July 31st, 2007 at 3:14 am
To follow up on bj’s point about the percieved safety of SUv’s compared with cars. This is classic example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. The perception that Suv’s are safer than cars is the result of considering just one half of the law of conservation of momentum: that in a collision a large object will push a small object out of the way. The other half of the law says rigid objects will transfer more of their momentum than soft objects. Since SUVs are more rigid than cars this can cancel out the benefit they gain from the first part of the law.
A Department of Transportation study analysed 10 million crashes in which 100,000 drivers were killed. Vehicles were classified according to their wheelbase, body type, and whether they were a car or LTV. Compared with cars of the same wheelbase LTVs killed almost twice as many drivers, both their own drivers and drivers of cars they collided with. The LTVs extra few hundred pounds compared with same wheelbase cars not only does not provide any additional safety for LTV drivers but it actually creates more risk for other drivers. Combine this with the absence of proper crumple zones on LTVs and you end up with safety equivalent to a 10 year old car.
The rollover problem only showed up in single vehicle crashes. Again LTVs were almost twice as deadly as cars. Not only are LTVs more likely to roll over but they put much more weight on their roof pillars which are simply not engineered stronger than car roof pillars.
The ratio of mass to wheelbase is essentially the same as the human BMI. Compared with cars the BMI for SUVs would be declared OBESE by any doctor.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:26 am
PS. Of course large cars are safer than mid-size cars which in turn are safer than small cars. The same is true for SUVs, with the proviso that the crashworthiness of each size of SUV is only equivalent to the next smaller size car. The agressivity (or risk to other road users) is equivalent to the next LARGER size car. A LOSE/LOSE situation for all road users.
But you’ll never convince SUV owner of this, according to car company market research SUV owners are rather insecure people.
July 31st, 2007 at 7:55 pm
The trouble with that idea Russ is that we cannot trust the govt to do what we “collectively” want.
“We” (82%) of us did not want the anti smacking bill yet YOU pushed it through, 75% of us were against the homosexual law reform bill (for various reasons) and yet YOU pushed it through.
We (the voting public) simply cannot trust you.
July 31st, 2007 at 8:16 pm
big bro.
BB has a point. I was cracking up about you guys patting each other on the back and proclaiming democracy has won the day when Labour abandoned the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill. Just a tad ironic.
August 1st, 2007 at 4:47 pm
I dunno BB, I know it’s fun (and easy) to knock the government and god knows they are woefully inadequate when it comes to taking action to protect our climate, our poorest and our future. BUT, I do not think we can and probably should trust them to organise a bit of what we collectively want. Things like all driving on the left hand side of the road (very handy), building hospitals (tricky to get together with one’s neighbours and turn your tax cut into a local emergency department), engaging in international discourse (we might not always like what they say on our behalf but I think it would be pretty bloody hard to negotiate trade deals as individuals), and enforcing environmental standards (once again, they may be failing but good luck doing it better on your own)…I think your ideological anti-statism is flawed. It’s not the right way to do everything, but it does have the capacity to set up structures that while we might not like all the individual instances of, we appreciate the overall advantage of acting collectively.
August 1st, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Ruth
As I see it the govt (of any persuasion) has a duty to defend us, police us, imprison those of us who break the law (build as many prisons as they need) and take as much money as they need from us to provide for the very few genuine welfare cases (and pensions) and that is about it, the rest should be left to the free market and business to sort out.
It should be made illegal for the govt to take more than they need in any given year, massive savings could be made in the areas of social welfare, DPB, treaty settlements, the funding of a state broadcasters, funding of special interest groups, the arts and any racially based projects.
We should have the option of providing our own health care, our own education and our own retirement schemes, those who choose to look after themselves should be taxed at a much lower level.
You are right about the system being flawed, nearly eight years of rampant socialism and the hard left feminist agenda have proven that, what we need is a good dose of Rogernomics to instill a bit of personal responsibility back into the people of NZ
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Of course some people just drive a big car because they pull a boat at the weekends.
August 6th, 2007 at 9:52 am
“massive savings could be made in the areas of social welfare, DPB, treaty settlements, the funding of a state broadcasters, funding of special interest groups, the arts and any racially based projects.”
I tend to agree. Social welfare has become an excuse for employers to not pay a living wage - and for a lot of men to evade responsibility for the costs of their children. If we lived in a culture where such individualist and itrresponsible behaviour was properly stigmatised we could largely end state-run social welfare.
I also resent paying for race-based projects - particularly the government. Why do we tolerate an authority based on English law and tradition and that insists on speaking a foreign language and refuses to recognise New Zealand’s traditional ways of doing things? Why do I have to pay taxes for state-run Pakeha TV, again in a foreign language, that I don’t watch anyway? Why do we have to suffer Pakeha Language Week 51 weeks a year?
I have no problem with people wanting to keep their traditions and culture, but this should be the responsibility of those communities. The state shouldn’t be picking it’s favourites to support with my money.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Sam I agree with most of what you have posted although quite how you can suggest that low wages have anything to do with those on social welfare is somewhat confusing.
I am glad you agree with me on the issue of race based policies, I also want the govt out of broadcasting, the market should determine what language our TV is broadcast in, I would wager that this would see the immediate end to Maori language TV which in my opinion would be a good thing, if Maori TV can survive without govt handouts then so be it, the fact is that it would not.
If we are ever going to bring this nation together then it must be by consensus, ramming an irrelevant culture down the throats of 85% of the people of NZ will not do that.