10

I heard a story recently in which someone said if they wanted to kill somebody (and get away with it) they would do it with their car. They cited various statistics about the number of auto-related deaths (including car-on-pedestrians) coupled with additional stats about the number of drivers actually sentenced to any sort of crime...blah, blah, blah.

My question is this: Is it statistically feasible to demonstrate that cars ARE (statistically speaking) actually used as weapons to commit murder?

In other words, I realize it may not be possible to demonstrate that any single car-on-pedestrian 'accident' was actually an attempted/committed murder. Rather, I'm wondering if a method might be imagined in which it could be demonstrated that some percentage of those 'accidents' are actually, in all likelihood, not accidents at all...

conjugateprior
  • 20,883
sfletche
  • 201
  • 2
    Was this on the Freakonomics podcast? – Steve S Sep 08 '14 at 07:09
  • I can't easily imagine how: the difference between murder and killing is 'malice aforethought' (a mental or motivational state); murder and manslaughter are also distinguished by type of intention. Neither distinctions seem very amenable to statistical analysis. – conjugateprior Sep 08 '14 at 09:03
  • I've adjusted the title to make it reflect your actual question. – conjugateprior Sep 08 '14 at 09:06
  • Given how often people are run over on dirveways, I think it will be very hard. – Ian Ringrose Sep 08 '14 at 09:11
  • While not specifically a statistical method, depending on where the accident happened, it's entirely possible for forensic science to determine that an accident could have been murder. It's not possible for all accidents, but depending on markings on the floor that indicate speed changes, eye witness reports of specific maneuvers, and other crime scene evidence, you can determine that certain incidents weren't actually accidents, but intentional attacks. Also, in a number or legal jurisdictions, there are people that have been convicted of manslaughter for hitting someone with their vehicle. – Nzall Sep 08 '14 at 14:54
  • If you can find some other variable that is correlated with homicide, and show that a certain type of vehicle accident increases at the same time, that might at least hint towards it. I'm reminded of an analysis of suicides - after a celebrity suicide, the suicide rate increases, as does the single vehicle fatal accident rate, showing that some of these accidents were likely to be suicides. – Jeremy Miles Jan 30 '16 at 01:26

1 Answers1

13

This may be a long-shot (practically speaking), but if you could get your hands on the (victim, driver) pairs and had a decent social network search engine, you could calculate the "degrees of separation" between the driver and victim and then construct a null distribution of "degrees of separation" by assuming random assignment of driver and victim from the local population where the accident occurred (e.g., everyone within typical commuting distance). This would correct for the "small town" effect, where everyone has close ties to everyone else.

The key hypothesis is: do the actual driver/victim pairs have fewer degrees of separation than the population at large? If so, it means that either (a) close acquaintances are somehow "synched" in their movements about town [e.g., demographic stratification] (b), at least some of the incidents appear to involve an unusually large number of close acquaintances.

Another approach would be to do logistic regression with "degrees of separation" as the variable, and "probability of accident/victim pariing" on the y axis. A strongly increasing function would suggest a "closeness" effect.

You would need to corroborate this by seeing if any of the "high relation" pairs actually resulted in a homicide trial and compare it to the overall rate of homicide indictments for pedestrian collisions.

  • 8
    Alternately, do the actual driver/victim pairs have the equivalent degrees of separation as known murderer/victim pairs? – Alexis Sep 08 '14 at 05:54
  • @Alexis Great suggestion! My only concern is the "dilution" effect...most pedestrian hits are probably not premeditated (i.e., they really are accidents), so I doubt the overall test of equality of means for separation would show they are similar to that for the class of murders. However, your suggestion would be very useful if we envision the population of driver/victim pairs as a mixture of what are essentially murders and actual accidents. Then we could perform inference on the mixing parameter :-) Thanks for the great suggestion!! –  Sep 08 '14 at 12:54
  • Two points. Foremost: your concern is a great example of why to consider what effect size is large enough to be relevant while using a priori power analysis to plan sample sizes. Next: did you notice my subtle insinuation of an hypothesis appropriate to equivalence testing (and relevance testing). – Alexis Sep 08 '14 at 14:40
  • @Alexis points well taken! Thanks for clarifying...I missed your insinuation –  Sep 08 '14 at 15:15
  • "Everyone within commuting distance" likely isn't a good proxy for "everyone on the route". Just the mere fact of visiting a friend is going to cause you to drive in close proximity to their neighbors. Any sort of by-invitation event is going to have a very high concentration of closely acquainted people driving in proximity. – Ben Voigt Sep 08 '14 at 16:44
  • @BenVoigt Yes, you are correct. Getting a good null distribution will be tricky, as you would want to be as specific as possible. I think your description would be much more accurate, but its the data that would be hard. Perhaps cell phone GPS? Now we're getting very 1984 ;-) –  Sep 08 '14 at 17:08
  • Then add in the distraction value of highly charged emotions... and it's likely that people with motive also cause a higher rate of real (unintentional) accidents. – Ben Voigt Sep 08 '14 at 17:13