May 2015

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad

« A Bailout Conflict of Interest? | Main | Ronald Coase "Markets, Firms, and Property Rights" »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Three economists at Cornell have tried to calculate estimates. I'll try to summarize.

They estimate that there was a huge effect immediately after 9/11, with 1,000 additional highway deaths in the 4th quarter of 2001 (mostly due to increased fear). The 9/11-effect lessened after that, but through 2003 they estimate at least 2,300 total deaths from the substitution of road for air travel (from both fear and the new regulations).

If I'm reading their research right, they think the effect goes away after 2003. I'm most skeptical of this last claim, so take these as low-end estimates.

Ungated working papers, now both published: (in June 2009 Applied Economics) (in Nov. 2007 JL&E)

Thomas Sowell proves in his book 'knowledge and decisions' that this in fact the case.

Hard to say. Given no extra security, wouldn't the resulting constant hijackings and attacks drive people away from flying anyway?

Not if we believe that vigilant passengers are the best deterrent.

I don't think there would be "constant hijackings and attacks," sans the draconian security measures that are currently being used. . . the Average Citizen is more aware of the danger than they were before (when most hijackings ended with the aircraft on the ground and the hijackers negotiating terms), and would (as we saw with the "Christmas Bomber") put a quick end to any problems. Also, and this has been proven in "shall-issue" and "Vermont-style" concealed carry states, when criminals (and terrorists are nothing but) don't know who's armed, they're less likely to even make an attempt to commit a crime, lest they be prematurely "retired."

The comments to this entry are closed.