It's not just white vans apparently
Image: chrisroll / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

The BBC News website recently had an interesting feature about road accidents in the UK. There were maps of accident clusters and all sorts of interactive goodies. One thing that caught my eye was the section on 'Dangerous driving', which reported some studies into accident statistics.

Apparently, for every fatal collision, there is a one in two chance that the driver responsible has a criminal record. Drivers involved in a crash are amongst the most likely to have either a motoring offence or a criminal record.

So far, so good. But then the report goes on to quote the researchers as saying:

'Engaging in a risky activity such as crime, seems to indicate a readiness to take risks behind the wheel.'

Wait a minute! What's going on here? I agree that both crime and dangerous driving are risky. But that's not necessarily what links them. This is a supposition based on the common fallacy that all risk is bad.

It seems to me that crime and dangerous driving are more likely to be correlated by the fact that both activities are selfish and anti-social. Diving into a swollen river to save a drowning child is also risky. But I would not expect such a hero to have a criminal record.

Reference

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15975564 (then click on 'Dangerous driving')