The Five Rules of Risk
13:43
614,868
Wendover Productions
Reddit
Get your custom domain or email for 10% off at Hover.com/wendover
Listen to Extremities at ExtremitiesPodcast.com
Buy a Wendover Productions t-shirt: standard.tv/collections/wendover-productions/products/wendover-productions-shirt
Subscribe to Half as Interesting (The other channel from Wendover Productions): uzsoft.info
UZsoft: www.UZsoft.com/WendoverProductions
Instagram: Instagram.com/sam.from.wendover
Twitter: www.Twitter.com/WendoverPro
Sponsorship Enquiries: wendover@standard.tv
Other emails: sam@wendover.productions
Reddit: Reddit.com/r/WendoverProductions
Animation by Josh Sherrington
Sound by Graham Haerther (www.Haerther.net)
Thumbnail by Simon Buckmaster
Music by epidemicsound.com
Select footage courtesy the AP Archive
References:
[1] www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/index.html
[2] www.statista.com/statistics/198029/total-number-of-us-licensed-drivers-by-state/
[3] www.statista.com/statistics/191660/fatality-rate-per-100000-licensed-drivers-in-the-us-since-1988/
[4] www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6843304/
[5] www.cmu.edu/epp/people/faculty/research/PS%20FSLRC%20HowSafe.pdf
[6] www-jstor-org.ezproxy.is.ed.ac.uk/stable/pdf/1727970.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ac48a7fe2f9c0fedf29cba859db4daebd
[7] www.cmu.edu/epp/people/faculty/research/PS%20FSLRC%20HowSafe.pdf
[8] journal.sjdm.org/7303a/jdm7303a.htm

Fikrlar
  • Wendover Productions
    Wendover Productions

    We got some math wrong. The annual fatality odds for licensed drivers in the US is actually 1 in 6,000 which translates to lifetime odds of about 1 in 75.

    • Jeff Timmerberg
      Jeff Timmerberg

      So are we overestimating or underestimating the coronavirus risk?

    • CptKirk FPV
      CptKirk FPV

      @panzerveps not true...

    • Stephan Brun
      Stephan Brun

      I do have to wonder what happens if one omits behaviour like driving drunk, which would increase risk dramatically. Do the odds of death/injury then fall, and by how much?

    • Alex Baker
      Alex Baker

      @Ch LePrince It isn't ehven number of people are this can be can easily be accounted for. It should be deaths/hour/capita or even deaths/distance/capita. Even this is a fallacy, as experience and conditions of both driving and mountain biking come into play. Are the deaths of mountain bikes stacked in the inexperienced or very experience buy extreme mountain bikers or somewhere else, just like driving deaths is it the Highways or the Residential roads? Or is it actually the conditions, i.e. snow, ice, darkness etc.

    • Alex Baker
      Alex Baker

      That isn't really relevant anyway as it should be amount the activity is done per year. This isn't your best made video ever I am afraid. Also it would depend where you drove, where as any form of mountain biking would have a risk as even falling over stationary could mean your head hits a rock and you die, the odds of this are very low. The equivalent is sitting in a parked car, how long until you die? A car will hit that parked car at some point, but even then it has so many safety features you still probably wouldn't die.

  • sor3999
    sor3999

    I knew this video would get to that conclusion.

  • Gerbert Heller
    Gerbert Heller

    I.e. COVID-19 is NOT risky. The lockdown will eventually kill more people and break the lives of billions.

  • Shaldis
    Shaldis

    While I agree with the general concept and you later in the video do say that this list is not complete, I have one question regarding your first point that is decoupled from your argument: Do you think the low risk of mountainbiking could be correlated to the fact that those who do this activity are generally skilled at it, in turn reducing the average risk? Now, while I don't know if that is true or not, I assume that, also due to the perceived risk of mountainbiking, only a few people try it. Of these few people some might get injuries or simply dislike the activity and stop after a couple of times, elaving only those skilled at the activity for a vast number of data points that contribute to this statistic. Now thinking about it, maybe the statistic you used as a example accounts for this behavior, but my pessimistic mind kind of doubts that. Not to say that you misinform anyone with this, just an idea to think about. Really love this video btw!

  • nick parry
    nick parry

    I try to avoid driving due to risk. Yet I love mountain biking.

  • InfiNorth
    InfiNorth

    Please don't become CGPGrey and start making philosophy videos... I just want planes, trains, logistics, and science.

  • BoraCM 39
    BoraCM 39

    The graph shown at around 10 minutes in is wrong. It is the other way round. Also, human brains are extremely pragmatic, so telling us not to trust ourselves is not very helpful.

    • nieooj gotoy
      nieooj gotoy

      Ok but if you never walk outside you will die from no sunlight and no excersize so not doing that is also a risk

  • Will Banister
    Will Banister

    Greetings from the town of Wendover, in Buckinghamshire, England 🤚

  • Kevin Neilson
    Kevin Neilson

    Totally expecting never go for a war in Asia... but this will suffice :P

  • Bryan Croteau
    Bryan Croteau

    Rule #6: Many risks follow the power law distribution or are chaotic but they are reported using the normal distribution. For example, how many people who died in a war (pure chaos) will be reported along side how many people died from coconuts falling on their heads (normal distribution). The former may increase 1000x in a single year, while the latter will rarely deviate more than 1-2 standard deviations between years. This is often used to report that chaotic things are as risky or less risky than common everyday sources of death, and is one of the most common forms of fraud.

  • YINong Xu
    YINong Xu

    "Why do you ever walk outside" Corona:

  • afutla qian
    afutla qian

    final assertion that evokes a call to consciousness in May 2020.

  • Kromster80
    Kromster80

    Seems to be a mistake in numbers. "1 in 600" dies while driving is way off (277mil / 600 = 378k. Do you have 378k deaths on roads annually?)

    • afutla qian
      afutla qian

      This assumes risk is perceived as absolute. I don’t mountain bike because I think I will likely die, but because I don’t want to injure myself.

  • ThoperSought
    ThoperSought

    a lot of people seem to still be irrationally against nuclear power, though

  • Tal Sheynkman
    Tal Sheynkman

    Fun fact: the military is one of the safest environments to be in the developed world.

  • A Gamer
    A Gamer

    Skip to <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="222">3:42</a> to start the video.

  • Eric Johnsson
    Eric Johnsson

    Human perception and opinion is more than purely comparing risk vs risk. For instance, driving a car brings loads of value to the family owning the car in terms of convenience and time saved. Granted people don't normally think of the risk on a daily basis, but I still think the comparison to mountain biking in school is flawed. Mountain biking doesn't add (in parents' view) much more value than other PE activities, so it's not worth the added risk. Compare driving vs taking the bus though and you have loads of added value. So it's not just about comparing risk vs risk, it HAS to be concidered together with the VALUE of taking the risk. Any thoughts?

  • Tomasz Klisz
    Tomasz Klisz

    Covid scamdemic brought me here. Oh lets kill Fauci and Gates. Seriously.

  • Ignacio Irurita
    Ignacio Irurita

    Interesting topic. But very subjective as with anything psychological

  • GyroCannon
    GyroCannon

    There are a few issues I had with the assumptions made in this video, but the one I disagreed with the most is this: "The value of your first dollar is the same as your millionth" Well, the first dollar I earn goes towards lunch. The millionth gets me unnecessary luxury. I don't think those two are equivalent in any way.

  • Abhiyan Bhandari
    Abhiyan Bhandari

    <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="166">2:46</a> that's a Tesla Cybertruck, I see what you did there 😏

  • RNG-esus
    RNG-esus

    I think the intro to the video took a weird perspective. For the sidewalk analogy there was no alternative. The risk that came to mind for me was not whether or not to use the side walk, it was should I use the road or sidewalk to walk on. Obviously the risk of walking on the road is significantly higher than the sidewalk so I'll choose the sidewalk. For the mountain biking one you weighed the risk of death from driving or biking but not injury. I don't know for sure but I'd be willing to bet that the statistics for biking injuries is much higher. Although it would be a tough stat to track cause not everyone is going to report their biking mishaps.

    • nieooj gotoy
      nieooj gotoy

      Love how he used a Tesla truck as the vehicle representation👍🏼👍🏼 ironically those vehicles will probably change the death rate statistics

  • Fizzy Zailani
    Fizzy Zailani

    I think this might be a bad video?! There certainly is fact, value and knowledge... So the overall content should be good, but somehow the video is bad. Like it's not articulate enough to it's point and it brushes over deeper reasoning without consideration. Point: video ought be good, objective and nuanced, but it isn't. It's choppy and open to misinterpretation, which is also risky. P. S. Long time fan, love your work. Some of your work is truly great and informative but this vid falls pretty short. Thus my (hopefully constructive) criticism.

    • nieooj gotoy
      nieooj gotoy

      This video is riddled with logical fallacies and I've only been watching for 3 minutes

  • Chongo Ok
    Chongo Ok

    Ok but if you never walk outside you will die from no sunlight and no excersize so not doing that is also a risk

  • Andrea Foglia
    Andrea Foglia

    Okay the fatality rate of driving is higher than mountain biking, but what about injury rate? Possibly parents were more worried about injuries rather than straight up death

  • Chris Doms
    Chris Doms

    Your maths on vehicle deaths - 1 in 600 per year - is laughably far off. It's not even close, your LIFETIME risk of dying in a car is still orders of magnitude less than that.

  • jayjay.24
    jayjay.24

    When comparing life and risk, there is a catch 22 - because when I step out of the door I risk my life, but if I don't, I don't live it.

  • Rage Knight
    Rage Knight

    <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="161">2:41</a> Now we know where Elon Musk got his concept for his Tesla rover.

  • Casey Berner
    Casey Berner

    This assumes risk is perceived as absolute. I don’t mountain bike because I think I will likely die, but because I don’t want to injure myself.

  • spaghetti is deadi
    spaghetti is deadi

    came for board game, got existentialism.

  • Ronak Nikam
    Ronak Nikam

    I hope i don't' die after watching this video this dude made pandemic video before

  • Brandon Waters
    Brandon Waters

    <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="480">8:00</a> railroads is misspelled. "Rairoads"

  • LexieAssassin
    LexieAssassin

    "If you kill one, it is a tragedy. If you kill ten million, it is a statistic."

  • kolim jone
    kolim jone

    "Why do you walk outside?" I don't. I'm in social quarantine. Checkmate buddy.

  • قيس الجدياني | QGamer_Ar
    قيس الجدياني | QGamer_Ar

    You cant compare driving to mountain biking The number of drivers are much higher than bikers

    • kolim jone
      kolim jone

      more exposure to cows than sharks for a fatality to even occur; I don't think you'd say based on that alone that it's riskier to work with cows than it would be to swim with shark

  • caquitows
    caquitows

    Eu fiz uma legenda em português-brasileiro... se alguém puder me ajudar a deixar disponível já está na área de legendas do vídeo...

  • Sam Garcia
    Sam Garcia

    I think some risk numbers are just "correlation not causation" figures.

  • Seth Apex
    Seth Apex

    well consdering humans will always have some degree of error in our risk management system, our leaders will always over shoot or undershoot the risks of some things.

  • S Edwards
    S Edwards

    This video is riddled with logical fallacies and I've only been watching for 3 minutes

  • Michael Harrison
    Michael Harrison

    Love how he used a Tesla truck as the vehicle representation👍🏼👍🏼 ironically those vehicles will probably change the death rate statistics

  • ХОРОШО
    ХОРОШО

    It's unbelievable most people can't understand such simple things.

  • Captive
    Captive

    Waited for risks of climate change as an example

  • stinksmcc
    stinksmcc

    <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="134">2:14</a> wasatch crest!!

  • Joseph Waddell
    Joseph Waddell

    Flawed? Really? How about the fact that mountain biking has no useful utility in our lives; while driving is necessary to accomplish nearly everything.... Most of us have jobs away from home. Simple as...

  • psammiad
    psammiad

    Walking outside vs staying at home isn't zero-sum - a huge number of accidents happen in the home. The risk of not getting exercise is very high, etc.

  • Jackamomo
    Jackamomo

    I went driving along a motorway once. It was more scary to me than a roller coaster as it was clear I was taking my life into my hands. I wish the government would make proper public transport. I don't intend to ever drive again.

  • Sanajit Das
    Sanajit Das

    Did you just draw a image of tesla cyber truck

  • Urza9814
    Urza9814

    I think how much I value my life is fairly irrelevant for a risk calculation. When you weigh the value of the reward against the value of your life, how do you get the value of that reward? I think typically it could be understood in terms of mitigating some other risk. So it's not a series of isolated risk vs reward calculations, it's a single infinite web of risk vs risk vs risk. Driving is fine, because not getting to work or not getting to the grocery store is also pretty risky. Mountain biking after school isn't, because the risk from lack of exercise and entertainment isn't as severe. Or because there are less risky alternatives that solve the problem just as well. I also wonder if the thing about the 100th life having less value than the first could just be the effect of the other principles. I think your example was a terrorist attack which kills a few hundred being about as significant as a natural disaster that kills thousands...but while natural disasters aren't often predictable, they are known. They tend to be regional too which can make then seem more voluntary. You know what disasters might happen in your area, you know how to prepare for them, you move if you really don't want to take that risk. So that's a semi-known, voluntary risk against a generally unknown and "mandatory" risk. Not quite the same thing. Could even be as simple as more people dying means more people discussing it, which means more explanations for it are given making it seem more known or predictable too. Finally...humans wouldn't have evolved if we didn't also care about the survival of our family/tribe/species...which explains the "illogical" behavior around mandatory/unknown/high exposure risks. We're more willing to accept that we might die as long as it doesn't wipe out all of us at once.

  • Ariel Kass
    Ariel Kass

    I don't understand the statistics claims here. <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="115">1:55</a>,000 change of dying if walking outside? reference 1 doesn't have that value. what it says is that there is a pedestrian death once every 88 mins in the US. So how many people walk outside every 88 mins? how many of those seconds of those walks were people not killed at? clearly dividing the number of pedestrian deaths per minute divided by the amount of persons minutes walked in the US every year, will show that the odds of dying by walking outside is extremely low. so maybe some other calculation? maybe the amount of pedestrian deaths in a given year divided by total amount of deaths in the US in a given year? that too doesn't reveal the correct risk, since it doesn't consider all the people in the US that DIDN'T DIE in that year. So the correct calculation should be the probability of dying in a given year * the probability of dying as a pedestrian hit by a car. Clearly this is much much lower than <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="115">1:55</a>,000 claimed in the video this is the same for all other odds/risks presented. i don't think anyone would walk outside if the odds were so high. they simply aren't and that's why everyone does it. and in regards to mountain biking - the magnitude of the 2 death rates is simply nowhere near comparable. without taking into consider the trillions of driving hours of all americans a year is a warping of reality. what we all know intuitively is that if only 10 people do something and 1 person die due to a crash (for example), this activity is extremely more riskier than a different activity that has trillions of people doing it, but of all deaths during that activity 100% were caused by a crash (for example). the shear rarity of the death event itself is being ignored in the considerations presented in this video and skew what we all intuitively consider. that said, once the math is corrected, then indeed we all consider the value of risk vs. reward and make decisions accordingly

  • bowen voowy
    bowen voowy

    "infinity multiplied by anything is infinity" zero enters the chat

  • Vlad Pintea-Gärtner
    Vlad Pintea-Gärtner

    if 2/3 of people drive of course the numbers go up, the number of people that mountainbike likely leads to less risk because of selection bias, the people that do are less likely than the average person to suffer an accident in the situation; if 2/3 of people did mountain bike the numbers would go up, maybe not to the same number but yeah. In the US 1 person dies by a shark every 2 years, cows kill 20 people per year; Does that mean cows are more dangerous than sharks? No, it probably indicates that there's considerably more exposure to cows than sharks for a fatality to even occur; I don't think you'd say based on that alone that it's riskier to work with cows than it would be to swim with sharks.

    • bowen voowy
      bowen voowy

      Wealth is relative. The comparison with the dollar doesn’t hold up because in the case of a dollar, the perceived value loss at higher quantities is logically true as well. 10$ is

  • kityew23
    kityew23

    The animation in the video was really distracting

  • LoungeSpecialist
    LoungeSpecialist

    All of us Christians watching this: NBD

  • bob smith
    bob smith

    Cough cough, cdc, cough, cough

  • Julian Manieson Jr
    Julian Manieson Jr

    Is there not some Irony in this video ending with the words "or someone else will take it" re the domains?

  • Marc Goodman
    Marc Goodman

    We drive motorized vehicles because of the convenience, utility, necessity and pleasure they provide therefore we accept a higher risk (though we rarely think about it). We don't ride mountain bikes for the same reasons we drive therefore we accept a lower risk. If the very last image was some sort of 'dig' at the need for mass self-isolation, when was the last time so many did so much for so many? Thank you for not coviding.

  • jun ski
    jun ski

    not walk outside is guaranteed death by hunger.

  • Grzegorz Dyk
    Grzegorz Dyk

    Ha! I love it how you used a Cybertruck silhouette to represent a car :D

  • Axel Petersson
    Axel Petersson

    <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="163">2:43</a> this is true and i understand your point but comapred to other sports like soccer or basket ball, Mountain bikini is more dangeroise

  • Dean9419
    Dean9419

    @wendoverproductions The numbering on the 'Activity or Technology' is wrong @ <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="497">8:17</a>, on the students side there's two #6's and #16 is missing

  • Jan P
    Jan P

    Comparing the risk of driving a car and the risk of mountain biking solely on the death toll is very skewed logic. Parents being against mountainbiking as a school activity is probably not because they are fearing their kids dying, but because of (severe) accidents, which especially untrained DO happen a lot.

  • Wertsir
    Wertsir

    This video: “Why do you walk outside?” Coronavirus: “Let me stop you right there.”

  • Tom Hammond
    Tom Hammond

    The moving kaleidoscope background is really disorienting and makes it harder to read FYI. Good video otherwise

  • bodoti qwiu
    bodoti qwiu

    "infinity multiplied by anything is infinity" zero enters the chat

  • Price Thomas
    Price Thomas

    I thought this was gonna be about a board game!

  • SJG
    SJG

    I have always been completely baffled by everyones blind acceptance of cars. Everybody just acts as though there is nothing that needs to be fixed and that it is a completely safe thing to do. Everyone deploys the them but not me defense. "Oh somebody else will get hurt, but I'm a good driver." When in reality, we are all just as likely to get hit by the drunk driver and killed, just as a few in my life have been.

    • bodoti qwiu
      bodoti qwiu

      With this lockdown entering the third month, about 6,300 people who were supposed to die in car accidents during these two months, are not going to die. Maybe you’re one

  • kelvink9999
    kelvink9999

    Sadly this is why paintball isnt popular enough

  • Tristan Möller
    Tristan Möller

    Wealth is relative. The comparison with the dollar doesn’t hold up because in the case of a dollar, the perceived value loss at higher quantities is logically true as well. 10$ is as much money to someone who has 1000$, as 1000$ is to someone who 100,000$. It is us humans who assign value to the money, otherwise it would only be printed paper. Because that is the case, any perceived value equals the real value. If everybody was rich, nobody would be rich.

  • Tobix
    Tobix

    Well, did not know that the risk to die while i go for a walk is 1/55.000. Maybe i should not go outside anymore.

  • Harpax A
    Harpax A

    In the end I would expect it to punch Trump & his Covid19 policies.. but guess Wendover love audiences too much... 😏

  • Eman M
    Eman M

    But I’ve been in more mountain bike accidents than I can remember and I’ve never ever been in a car accident

  • Bill Kong
    Bill Kong

    Also I don't think it's not exactly lives that are worth saving. It's more like living that's worth saving. That's why it's such a tragedy when a 10 year old dies of cancer but we basically accept that 80 year olds will die of cancer. That's why so many people are insensitive to the human cost of Covid - the average age of a covid victim greater than the average age of total mortality.

  • Bill Kong
    Bill Kong

    It's also not novelty that increases perceived risk. It's more like uncertainty gives a range of possible perceived risks. If you're a person who is risk averse then you will perceive risk at - say - the 99th percentile. Then a high uncertainty activity will seem very high risk because the chance of something terrible happening seems high. But some people are risk tolerant they may perceive risk at the 5th percentile. They'll look at the same event and think hey there's a very high chance that nothing bad at all will happen.

  • Bill Kong
    Bill Kong

    The yardstick isn't disease the yardstick is total mortality. The only reason it looks like disease is because that's what currently dominates total mortality. This is very natural: we care about a new source of mortality when it significantly contributes to total mortality. That's basically how we evaluate everything.

  • Bill Kong
    Bill Kong

    The example of driving is a perfect counterexample to the idea that prevalence is inversely proportional to acceptance. I think there's very much an opposite effect too. People don't want to be the only idiot getting killed. But if everyone is doing it, even if a lot of them are dying, then maybe this is how life is meant to be. People smoke and drink and drive and sometimes they go to war.

  • Bill Kong
    Bill Kong

    There's some bad statistical interpretation in this video. I ride a bike a lot more than the average person and if I went off a 20 foot jump right now my chance of dying isn't 1/30,000 per year it'd be like 1/10 in 2 seconds along with 8/10 chance of serious injury. So most people, like me, evaluate this rationally, and then avoid doing the risky thing they can't manage. The reason why the risk of mountain bikers dying of mountain biking per year is so low is that they are subject to super strong self selection to be good at it, and even when they do they don't spend nearly as much time doing it as people spend driving cars: it's a recreational activity. So comparing per year population mortality for the two activity has basically no relevance for comparing instantaneous individual mortality.

  • jawbreaker
    jawbreaker

    In a car you can choose to drive slowly and carefully and even if someone else hits you you will not die. You will die only if you do something stupid. On the other hand with the bike if you fall off a cliff your dead. Even if driving slowly if you fall you will hurt your knee.

  • joe sharp
    joe sharp

    More risk to get injured mountain biking and is unimportant for daily life so I would say the risk involved in mountain biking is higher

  • Andrew James
    Andrew James

    ok kurzgesagt

  • Nico
    Nico

    Rule 1 (voluntary over involuntary risk) and rule 4 (new things riskier) really explain why people are so scared or not onboard with self driving cars

Keyingisi