CB HI

Air pollution is blamed for increases in road accidents | News | The Times & The Sunday Times

Maybe this PhD student of economics should learn something about the scientific method and that correlation is not the same as causation.

Just maybe higher pollution levels are a result of more motorist on the road at the time and that more accidents at that time are also due to more motorist on the road at that time.

mr_bill

Maybe you might want to read the paper before critiquing it? (Is there a reason why you linked to an article behind a paywall btw?)

The working paper.

-mr. bill

dynodonn 

Nothing new, and one reason why leaded gasoline was banned for sale for vehicles operating on public roadways in the US.
I have one client that travels regularly to London to visit family, he commented that the current pollution levels in Los Angeles, couldn't hold a candle to today's downtown London, and with his saying that his eyes start to water almost immediately when he arrives in downtown London.

Milton Keynes

I used to visit London in the early 90's and it often smelled like diesel exhaust due to a massive number of buses and trucks driving around the city. Of course there were also a large number of gasoline powered vehicles.

bulldog1935

observations on the road - attitudes change when a front pushes in dust and pollen.

I heard long ago it was because the dust carried a protonic charge and we prefer to be bathed in electrons, which will make us jovial.

howsteepisit

Thanks mr bill

CB HI

First off, the full article is posted above what you call the paywall; it is a short article and you should have paid closer attention rather than just looking for something to jump on me about.

Second, from your link:
And he concluded:
In a quick review of his paper do I see any effort to normalize for traffic congestion. Thus the OP stands.

Moe Zhoost

Analysis of paper with translation from "Scholarly" to "Plain" language

Translation: This paper probably won't hold up to peer review

Translation: In all probability, higher numbers of accidents result from higher traffic flows and cause local decrements in air quality. But what the heck, us economists have to have a new angle to be taken seriously as scientists.

Translation: Darn weather.

Translation: If only folks would keep to their routines.

Translation: Yeah, there may be some other variables, but don't look behind that curtain.

Translation: Drivers in third world countries are used to pollution so it doesn't have the same effect there.

Translation: Hey, who really knows anyway? Our erudition is impressive though, don't you think?

Translation: Seriously, everybody needs to ride their bikes more. No cars mean no pollution which means no car accidents.

My take: Interesting paper, pretty much what one can expect from an economist. Having worked with a number of economics students and faculty, I have to say that they are darn interesting folk always ready with rather surprising views on a rather diverse series of subjects. I think it's flawed but the author done good.

Chris0516

I lived in London in the late-1970's. It was even bad then.

mr_bill

Insert PAYWALL here....

Of course you don't. Maybe you should try to actually read his paper, less quickly this time?

-mr. bill

CB HI

Please do show a valid normalization of traffic congestion. He only blamed congestion on accidents he claims are caused by pollution, ignoring that traffic congestion may be the cause of higher pollution.

He also makes some obscure reference to a variable of drivers trying to avoid pollution. Odd how he pulled that out of his ass.

PS - the site only requested an e-mail for the rest of the article which was pretty much irrelevant as the conclusion was already made in full. So no PAYWALL, just a simple e-mail request. Maybe you should figure out how to do a throw away e-mail address for such things.

mr_bill

There are TWO complimentary articles per week. The Times (of London) has a HARD PAYWALL.

ps. Identify the independent variable(s) in the study.

-mr. bill

Maelochs

Basically ... students looking for higher degrees and those who have earned higher degrees, need to publish papers ... and those papers need to explore New ideas or new interpretations ... even if they are basically Bull shorts.

Economists are the worst (in a comical sense.) They come up with all kinds of theories which are so vaguely related to reality it is ridiculous. But ... to get a higher degree or to get tenure, those people need to keep publishing.

CB HI

But mr. bill seems to like this economists Bull shorts.

Chris0516

Just to clarify in my earlier post about living in London. I mean London(UK), not London, Ontario, Canada.

Maelochs

So how was it, with Boris the Cycling Mayor in power? Anything change?

Chris0516

Boris wasn't mayor in the 1970's. I sort of wish he was. But the city has become filthier in forty years.

mr_bill

Neither of you have offered any specific criticism of this paper, you've just laughed at economists.

At least Moe offered a critique worthy of a first year high schooler.

You two are operating, at best, at less than grade five level.

Can either of you tell me more about the instrumental variable?

ps. Nobel Prize in Economics awarded. Spoiler alert. Lutz Sager didn't win.

-mr. bill

CB HI

Can't back up your BS, so you just send out the insults.

rydabent

Some people will come up with the damnedest excuses of why they are not at fault.

Moe Zhoost

Urban Dictionary: economist

One who, starting from a position of over-educated and under-informed logical supposition, commences making erroneous and devastating judgements about the functioning of the world, and then formally codifies their misunderstanding in dogmatic and arrogant absurdity.

In their defence, economics is not an experimental science (or is it?) so they are compelled to use instrumental variable models.

mr_bill

So, after adjusting for weather, just how is it that the three of you propose that inversions cause motor traffic?

-mr. bill

CB HI

Your post reads as if it were written by an economist.

Moe Zhoost

So, you have not yet offered anything to this discussion except how other contributions have no value. I'd be interested in hearing your analysis of this paper, especially how you support whatever views you have.

I take it that you lean toward the conclusions laid out by the author, but you never have said anything substantive one way or another. Here's your chance.

mr_bill

Actually, I posted the link to the paper - and actually read the paper.

I don't think the paper is flawed.

In particular - "We will argue that such inversion periods present an exogenous source of variation in air pollution levels (after controlling for potentially related weather conditions)."

The argument presented is surprisingly strong.

Fundamentally it looks like inversions are a fair coin-flip. I look forward to the final publication after the author responds to legitimate critiques.

I also think writing without reading is lazy.

ps. Without resorting to making fun of economists (which I also think is lazy), what do you *really* think of the paper?

-mr. bill