I'm engrossed by SuperFreakonomics (up to page 21). It is a page turner* but I can't help wonder if it is all quite right. For example, at this point in the book, the drunk walking result is an assertion based on a dubious assumption:
If we assume that 1 of every 140 of those miles are walked drunk--the same proportion of miles that are driven drunk--then 307 million miles are walked drunk each year.
Doing the math, you find that on a per-mile basis, a drunk walker is eight times more likely to get killed than a drunk driver.
Why would miles walked drunk be the same as miles driven drunk? If the proportion is less then a drunk walker is less than eight times more likely to get killed than a drunk driver. It might even be safer to walk drunk. What is needed is the evidence ("statistics don't lie"). I hope that I'll find it in later pages.
Update: I forgot to mention that the endnotes mention that the walking drunk item was suggested by the "brilliant economist Kevin Murphy" but there is no reference for the 1 in 140 assumption.
Note: I went to high school with a Page Turner (not really, but I'm sure someone did, let us know in the comments section).
Personal note: I had my wallet stolen out of my gym locker today as my lock lay helplessly in my gym bag. I canceled my cards and proceeded to the DMV to get a new drivers license when my phone rang. A nice fellow had found it in a bathroom stall (ugh). Nothing was missing except all of my liquid wealth -- $3.