Do better driving tests save lives?

Earlier this morning, I was talking a friend through the painful process of getting a UK driving license. My friend is a Chartered Accountant and a banker. He is bringing up a family. He has been driving for about 20 years in India, the USA and various holiday destinations. It's hard to find a lower risk-profile than him. But getting a UK license remains a painful process, low-risk-profile or otherwise.

Part of the pain is, of course, the sheer bureaucracy. But a part of the pain is that there is a real risk of cautious and experienced drivers failing the test. The UK test is a heck of a lot more rigorous than equivalents in either India or, slightly more surprisingly, the USA.

Does the UK get anything valuable out of these rigourous tests (apart from the perverse pleasure oily government employees get from randomly saying no)?

A quick Google search seems to show that the testing works. The per capita death rate through road accidents in the UK is about half US levels. That is massive, a lot more than I was expecting.

An interesting twist in the data is that almost 65% of the difference in death rates seems to be explained the fact that the US has more cars per capita. A first glance the more money -> more cars -> more road deaths pattern seemed natural. But no. One might have expected a society that is more dependent on cars to invest more in road safety. And at some human level, the risk of death per individual just feels like a much more important metric than the risk of death per vehicle.

Another interesting slant in the data is the ratio of injuries to deaths. The UK and the US are around the same level here, suggesting that there are no material differences in the quality of medical care delivered to accident victims. If anything the much-reviled NHS seems to be delivering a slightly better ratio than the USA.

There is a specter haunting Eurpoe

Here is another surprisingly simple reason why property prices in the UK are unreasonably high.

A price fixing building cartel with more than a 100 members. I'm surprised that the cartel manaegd to hold.

Fundas on the IPL

In the cacophony of media hype about the IPL and Twenty20 cricket, one crucial point almost everybody seems to have forgotten: this is not a new idea.

The only interesting media piece so far which sets Twenty20 in historical perspective is here.

Admittedly, the fact that test cricket was invented by an upper-class MCC establishment trying to defend its power base when challenged by a professional league playing an exciting, abbreviated version of the game is news even to a die-hard and relatively well read cricket fan like me. Hope the facts are right.

Another bit of historical perspective is from CLR James in Beyond the Boundary. He watches Learie Constantine playing limited overs cricket in Lancashire in the 1950s, notes that the game is both pure and innovative, and calls it the future.

The other bit of nonsense that keeps cropping up is that Twenty20 is a batsman's game. Cricket has always been a batsman's game. Arthur Mailey, the Australian leggie from the 1920s, noted that "the last bowler to be knighted was Sir Francis Drake".

There is a clear role reversal for bowlers in tests and limited overs. In tests, the bowlers are the attack. In limited overs they play defence. But in that, Twenty20 isn't really different from 50 over cricket. There are silly features like shorter boundaries that can be scrapped, but that doesn't really change the big picture.

My initial worry with the IPL was that the stars would take their money and play in cruise control mode. That worry was unfounded. Now that the top players are showing up to work, we have a great tournament on our hands.

CMJ on IPL

Christopher Martin Jenkins writing in Cricinfo magazine on the opening game of the IPL in Bangalore:

local interest was spurious, because they were watching a game between sides made up of mercenaries and little-known youths.

When Bangalore cheers for Mark Boucher, the sportsman becomes a mercenary and the interest spurious. Manchester United supporters cheering for Christiano Ronaldo if fine. Did CMJ ever describe Mushtaq Ahmed as a mercenary, or Sussex supporter's interest as spurious, when Mushy bowled Sussex to the county championship?

The English cricket establishment's sniffy insecurity when confronted with the success of Indian cricket is downright embarrassing. It starts getting nasty when the sniffiness results in ECB bureaucrats elbowing professional cricketers away from a decent chance to make good money.

Zorro. By Isabel Allende

Completely satisfying. Just the right mix of emotions, just the right balance of historical context and personal drama, just the right length, just the right complexity (for someone who typically reads after a hard day in the office and putting the kids to bed). Couldn't recommend it more strongly.

Don't read on if you like to read in suspense. But if you've read the book, or don't plan to read the book, or trust that I've given away nothing essentially suspenseful, or don't really care about suspense, here are some of my favourite nuggets/ reflections:

- "from the literary point of view, (childhood) has no suspense, children tend to be a little dull. Furthermore, they have no power, adults decide for them." Interesting point. Children are great as subjects, as authentic voices through which to observe the adult world. Think back to To Kill a Mocking Bird. Or the precocious Oskar Schnell in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. Or even Richmal Compton's William. Maybe children, or even completely powerless adults, don't really work as the objects of fiction

- I loved the historical context. Spain had been annexed by Napoleon's France. Mexico was a Spanish colony. California was a Mexican territory. New Orleans had been sold by Napoleon to the Americans in the Louisiana land purchase. Britain fought America for Louisiana, and was defeated. Pirates ruled. The stench of the slave trade permeated the Caribbean. The Gypsies are a hunted, haunted European tribe, tenaciously holding onto their Indian roots. The Indians are a hunted, haunted American tribe, tenaciously holding on to their pre-European roots. None of this is hammered home. One picks up all of this casually wandering through the plot

- "Diego was a Gemini". Makes sense. The cultured, dandified, effeminate, patrician: Don Diego de la Vega. The fearless, swashbuckling, dashing, darling of the masses: Zorro. Are all super-heroes Geminis? Clark Kent and Superman. Parker and Spiderman. Bruce Wayne and Batman. Could they be Libras? No. The two sides of the balance are yoked together. Super-hero identities are completely separate. Could they be Pisces? No. Piscean fish swim in opposite directions. Super-hero identities swim together. Had to be Gemini

- Diego does not get his girl: Juliana de Romeu. That had to be. Diego's love was real. Juliana was worthy of his love. It was not their destiny. If Diego had got his girl that would have been the end of the story, he would have become a happy and wealthy ranchero in Alta California. The lost love was essential to Diego remaining forever hungry, forever young, to Diego remaining Zorro

- Juliana de Romeu would have been the perfect girl for Zorro. She is the wrong girl for the Diego de la Vega + Zorro combine. Juliana is about pale skin, cascading curls, beauty, grace, care, perfect taste, dignity under duress. She is all yin. Her man would need to be all yang. Every couple needs a balance of animus and anima

- "We shall soon be saying goodbye, dear readers, since the story ends when the hero returns to where he began, transformed by adventures and by obstacles overcome. This is the norm in epic narratives from the Odyssey to fairy tales, and I shall not be the one to attempt innovation"

London Marathon

Just ran my first marathon. The Flora London Marathon. On April 13, 2008. Had a totally fantastic time. Also had some reflections on marathon running while running the marathon. Hallucinatory reflections of this sort may be a symptom of extreme glycogen deprivation.

Yin and yang

A Jungian framework I happened upon years ago maps all social motivation onto a single axis. The psyche has an innate desire to feel connected, to belong, to feel at one with, to be a part of a larger whole. Yin. The psyche also has an innate desire to stand out, to be unique, to win, to conquer. Yang. The greatest fun happens when the psyche reaches both the yin and yang ends of the axis.

That happens at a big marathon. The sheer fact of running 26.2 miles delivers the yang. There is something special about the physical achievement...even in these days of mass participation marathons. Yet, that's only a part of the story. The training runs on foggy grey mornings stretching out over 20+ miles feel meaningful (and get done) only in the context of a framing event.

And what a great event it is. The company I work for had done a great job, putting up posters across town wishing our runners good luck. My daughter was delighted to see my picture on an advert while riding on the tram. Travel in London is free for runners. You start the run at the Greenwich observatory. The streets in front packed with other runners, with whom you feel a reflexive kinship. The route is packed with hundreds of thousands of cheering spectators. This is clearly the only time in my life >100000 people have cheered me on. My family and friends were along to cheer. It was fantastic.

Agoraphilia

I love the word. Will never have a better opportunity to use it.

After training outdoors through crisp winter sunshine, persistent rain, the occasional snow or hail, and - worst of all from a running perspective - gusty winds, I am more aware of the weather and it's moods than I've ever been. Less obviously but more powerfully, I love the sense of physical space, of eating up the distance, that I get running outdoors. I've had the same feeling when I'm out hiking.

There is a specter haunting Europe (2)

Britain is one of the world's more over-priced property markets. Prices can go into free-fall.

So what should be done about that? Cut interest rates to prop up prices? Or use the inevitable carnage as an opportunity to massively expand housing supply...to deliver a step-change improvement in the real lives of real people?

My (contrarian) vote is for the supply side expansion.

The elephant in the very-tiny-room during any conversation about housing in Britain is that the quality of housing really sucks. A country as rich as Britain need not live in homes that are so small that a standard "bedroom" is about the size of an American walk-in closet. Where double bedrooms don't fit double beds. Or where faucets that mix hot and cold water are an exotic luxury.

The simple and obvious solution is to develop large tracts of high quality housing, either on greenfield sites or by bulldozing some of the existing housing stock. But this simply has not happened. Is there a subtle but powerful political pressure from property owners defending high prices?

A counter-argument that is sometimes reflexively trotted out is: Britain is a small island and land is scarce. This is pure hokum. Britain can easily import tomatoes or milk. Britain can't import land. A very similar argument was used in the 80s to justify Japan's over-priced "rabbit hutches" and its heavily subsidized rice farms.

More realistically, a supply side expansion that might happen during this downturn is that sellers might be forced to spend more on the house to sell it at the same price. This will not get picked up as deflation in the published house price indices. But that investment will be a welcome improvement in the real lives in real people.