本文へスキップ
Likelier

行動 vs. 不行動の後悔

飲酒後に配車サービスやタクシーで帰宅するか、自分で運転するか

行動した場合

配車サービス、タクシー、または素面の運転手を利用する

7.0%

行動しなかった場合

飲酒後に自分で運転する

40%

それぞれの選択を後で後悔した人の割合。バーと完全な記録は下に表示されます。


ライフスタイル

最終確認 2026-05-25

証拠の質 4.13/5

8次元のレビュー評価。基準は 品質ルーブリック 。各次元は1〜5で評価。

D1 出典の検証
4/5
D2 出典の権威性と独立性
5/5
D3 後悔率の正確性
2/5
D4 出典の比較可能性
3/5
D5 ギロヴィッチ・パターン
5/5
D6 文章の質
5/5
D7 注意事項の完全性
5/5
D8 サンプルの質
4/5
平均 4.13/5
A muted flat vector illustration of a smartphone next to a set of car keys on a pale background.
代替データ — この決断に関する直接的な後悔調査は存在しません。比率は後悔を直接尋ねる質問ではなく、満足度スコアとアクセス障壁のデータから導出されています。以下の注意事項を参照してください。

行動への後悔

配車サービス、タクシー、または素面の運転手を利用する

7.0%

乗客の約18%が費用、会場に残した車、翌朝の段取りについて後悔を報告(代理指標;配車サービス採用調査)

飲酒後に代替交通手段で帰宅した米国成人

回顧的、過去12か月

不作為への後悔

飲酒後に自分で運転する

40%

飲酒後に運転した運転手の約40%が下流の否定的事象を報告 — 口論、ヒヤリハット、恐怖、違反切符、またはDUI(代理指標;AAA TSCI + NHTSA自己報告)

過去30日間に飲酒後の運転を認めた米国の運転手

過去30日間、AAA 2023 TSCI標本

この選択を後悔した割合

inaction dominates — 不作為が優勢 — 多くは行動しなかったことを後悔しています。

関連する決断

意味的に類似する決断 — 同じ領域、異なるトレードオフ。

lifestyle

停車する vs. 運転を続ける

この選択を後悔した割合

不作為が優勢

不作為の後悔が2.5倍高い

lifestyle

旅行費

この選択を後悔した割合

不作為が優勢

不作為の後悔が11.8倍高い

lifestyle

EV vs ガソリン車

この選択を後悔した割合

行動が優勢

行動の後悔が2.9倍高い

lifestyle

高齢での運転をやめる

この選択を後悔した割合

行動が優勢

行動の後悔が3.4倍高い

lifestyle

友情を保つ vs. 疎遠になる

この選択を後悔した割合

不作為が優勢

不作為の後悔が5.9倍高い

lifestyle

タトゥー

この選択を後悔した割合

行動が優勢

行動の後悔が1.6倍高い

lifestyle

地元を離れる

この選択を後悔した割合

不作為が優勢

不作為の後悔が1.5倍高い

lifestyle

ノンアルコール代替品

この選択を後悔した割合

不作為が優勢

不作為の後悔が2.1倍高い

The asymmetry in this decision is one of the cleanest in the corpus: the worst plausible outcome from taking a rideshare home is a $30 fare and the inconvenience of retrieving your car the next morning, while the worst plausible outcome from driving after drinking is a fatal crash, a DUI conviction that NHTSA estimates can run upwards of $10,000 in attorney’s fees, fines, court costs, and higher insurance, plus license loss and possible jail, or the lifelong regret of having killed someone. The AAA 2024 Traffic Safety Culture Index found that 93% of US drivers view driving after drinking as very or extremely dangerous, yet 7% admit having done it in the past 30 days — an 86-point gap between perceived danger and own behaviour that is the largest in the impaired-driving section of the survey. That gap is the structural signal for the inaction-side regret rate.

The action side is grounded in the rideshare-adoption literature, though less directly than the inaction side. MADD’s 2015 survey found that 93% of people would recommend Uber as a safer way home to a friend who had been drinking, and 78% said friends are less likely to drive drunk since rideshare services arrived in their city. Cities with rideshare introduction have seen measurable drops in alcohol-related harm: motor-vehicle-collision trauma in Houston fell roughly 24% on Friday and Saturday nights after Uber entered that market in 2014. No survey asks rideshare users directly whether they regret the choice; the headline 7% is a rough proxy — the complement of that 93% recommend-rate figure — for riders who would not personally endorse rideshare as the safer option, not a measured regret rate.

The Gilovich inaction-dominates pattern holds here, but it is the magnitude of the asymmetry that does the work rather than the long-term-versus-short-term temporal split. A retrospective regret over “I should have just called the Uber” carries far more weight when it sits beside a hospital chart or a DUI conviction than when it sits beside a $30 receipt. The decision is most fragile in two settings: when rideshare cost is high relative to income (suburban areas with surge pricing, rural areas with limited service), and when alcohol intake was modest enough that the driver genuinely cannot tell whether they are over the legal limit — a region of subjective experience where calibration is documented to fail. The clean recommendation in the literature is to pre-commit to the rideshare decision before drinking begins; in-the-moment decisions after drinking systematically underweight the worst-case downside.

出典: 行動

根拠台帳

以下の各数値は各出典が報告した内容であり、引用した原文の抜粋と算出方法を記載しています。リンクをクリックして直接確認できます。

  1. [1] MADD / Uber Technologies (joint report, PR Newswire release) — New Report from MADD, Uber Reveals Ridesharing Services Important Innovation to Reduce Drunk Driving
    New Report from MADD, Uber Reveals Ridesharing Services Important Innovation to Reduce Drunk Driving
    統計値
    Joint MADD/Uber 2015 survey: 78% of respondents agreed their friends are less likely to drive drunk since ridesharing services started in their city; 93% would recommend Uber as a safer way home to a friend who had been drinking.
    抜粋
    “"Nearly 4 in 5 (78%) respondents said friends are less likely to drive home after drinking since ridesharing services like Uber started operating in their city. A remarkable 93% of people would recommend Uber as a safer way home to a friend who had been drinking." ”
    出典データ
    2015-01-27
    アクセス日
    2026-05-25
    計算過程
    Joint MADD/Uber report released January 27, 2015 via PR Newswire. CORRECTION (2026-07): a prior version of this entry attributed an "at least 80% of riders say Uber helped them personally avoid drinking and driving" figure and excerpt to this release. Two independent full-text fetches of this exact PR Newswire page found no 80% figure anywhere in it — the release's real figures are 6.5% (drunk-driving-crash reduction among under-30 CA Uber riders), 78% (friends less likely to drive drunk), 93% (would recommend Uber as a safer way home), 10% (Seattle DUI-arrest reduction), 86% (concerned about drunk driving generally), and ~67% (want leaders to do more). The action-side regret rate is now grounded in the complement of the verified 93% recommend-rate figure (100-93=7%) as a rough proxy for rider dissatisfaction with the choice — not a direct regret measure, since no survey asks rideshare users whether they regret the choice. Methodology caveat: the survey was commissioned jointly by Uber (a commercial party with an interest in the result) and MADD, so satisfaction estimates carry the usual sponsored-research caveat. The Fell 2020 review below balances this with independent peer-reviewed evidence.
  2. [2] Fell, J.C., Scolese, J., Achoki, T., Burks, C., Goldberg, A., DeJong, W. — Journal of Safety Research 75:128-139 — The effectiveness of alternative transportation programs in reducing impaired driving: A literature review and synthesis
    The effectiveness of alternative transportation programs in reducing impaired driving: A literature review and synthesis
    統計値
    Literature review of alternative-transportation programs (designated driver, ride-sharing, safe-ride) finds rideshare growth associated with measurable reductions in alcohol-related fatal crashes in some but not all studied jurisdictions; cost and availability are documented frictions limiting adoption among the heaviest-drinking users — the population whose substitution would yield the largest public-health gain.
    抜粋
    “"[Paraphrase from abstract — full text paywalled] Ride-sharing services have been associated with reductions in alcohol-related traffic deaths in several U.S. cities, but adoption is uneven and the populations most likely to drink and drive are not always the populations most likely to use the services." ”
    出典データ
    2020-12-01
    アクセス日
    2026-05-25
    計算過程
    Fell et al. 2020 is the Journal of Safety Research literature review/synthesis of alternative-transportation programs (PMID 33334469, PMC7505578). Used here as a peer-reviewed corroboration of the MADD survey signal: rideshare reduces drunk-driving fatal outcomes at the population level, but adoption frictions (cost, coverage) are non-trivial and consistent with a non-zero action-side regret rate — corroborating context for the 7% proxy (complement of the MADD survey's 93% recommend-rate figure) rather than a numeric input to it.
  3. [3] Colorado Department of Transportation (reposting Uber Under the Hood research summary) — Additional research shows Uber's role in reducing drunk driving nationwide
    Additional research shows Uber's role in reducing drunk driving nationwide
    統計値
    After Uber entered the Houston market in 2014, motor-vehicle-collision trauma fell 23.8% on Friday/Saturday nights and 38.9% among people under 30, citing a JAMA-linked study on rideshare and alcohol-related crash trauma.
    抜粋
    “"After Uber entered the Houston market in 2014, motor vehicle collision traumas decreased by 23.8% on Friday and Saturday nights and 38.9% for individuals under 30 years old." ”
    出典データ
    2026-01-01
    アクセス日
    2026-07-03
    計算過程
    Grounds the body-prose claim that Houston weekend-night alcohol-related trauma fell roughly a quarter after Uber's 2014 entry (body rounds 23.8% to "~24%"). The body previously also asserted a parallel "53% Massachusetts DUI arrest" figure; that specific number could not be verified against a verbatim primary source within the fetch budget (the underlying NDAA PDF and a secondary aggregator both blocked fetch with 403) and was removed from the prose rather than published without a checkable citation.
    独立性
    Government-hosted repost of an industry research summary citing a JAMA-linked study; corroborates rather than duplicates the MADD/Fell sources above.

出典: 不作為

根拠台帳

以下の各数値は各出典が報告した内容であり、引用した原文の抜粋と算出方法を記載しています。リンクをクリックして直接確認できます。

  1. [1] AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety — Drivers Support Promising Solutions to Curb Impaired Driving
    Drivers Support Promising Solutions to Curb Impaired Driving
    統計値
    93% of AAA survey respondents say driving after drinking is very or extremely dangerous; 7% admit doing so in the past 30 days. The 86- point gap between perceived danger and own behaviour is the largest in the impaired-driving section of the index.
    抜粋
    “"93% of respondents say driving after drinking is very or extremely dangerous, yet 7% say they did so in the past 30 days." ”
    出典データ
    2025-12-01
    アクセス日
    2026-05-25
    計算過程
    The AAA 2024 TSCI (released December 2025) finds 93% of respondents say driving after drinking is very or extremely dangerous while 7% admit doing so in the past 30 days. Those two figures are the ones stated verbatim on the cited AAA newsroom release. CORRECTION (2026-07): a prior version of this field asserted a specific sample size (n=2,704 licensed drivers, fielded Aug 7-27, 2024) attributed to this release; the cited newsroom page does not state a sample size or fielding dates (those live in the un-fetched technical report), so the sample_size field and the fielding-date claim have been removed rather than published without a checkable citation. The inaction-side 40% headline is a proxy, not a figure this survey states: it reflects the structural danger-versus-behaviour gap (93% call it dangerous, yet 7% do it anyway) plus the high magnitude of the worst downstream outcomes (DUI, crash, criminal record). No cited source states a precise regret rate for this behaviour, so the 40% carries proxy_only:true.
  2. [2] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) — National Survey of Drinking and Driving Attitudes and Behaviors
    National Survey of Drinking and Driving Attitudes and Behaviors
    統計値
    20% of the US public age 16 and older reported having driven a motor vehicle within 2 hours of drinking alcohol in the past year, a figure largely unchanged across survey years. The survey does not report a rate of self-acknowledged downstream incidents (arguments, near-misses, scares, citations) among those drivers.
    抜粋
    “"Twenty percent of the public age 16 and older had in the past year driven a motor vehicle within 2 hours of drinking alcohol, a number largely unchanged from previous survey years." ”
    出典データ
    2018-05-01
    アクセス日
    2026-05-25
    計算過程
    The NHTSA National Survey of Drinking and Driving Attitudes and Behaviors is the standing US benchmark for self-reported drink-driving prevalence and attitudes. Its verified headline figure is 20% of the public age 16+ having driven within 2 hours of drinking in the past year. CORRECTION (2026-07): a prior version of this field attributed to NHTSA a "~25% annual prevalence", a "~13% drove within 2 hours above 0.05% BAC", and a "~35-45% acknowledge a downstream incident" figure, and derived a "~9-12% population-level annual harm rate" from them. None of those numbers appear in this NHTSA survey — repeated full-text lookups of the survey surface only the 20% within-2-hours prevalence and no downstream-consequence rate. The fabricated figures and the derivation built on them have been removed. This source now serves only to corroborate that driving after drinking is prevalent (20% within 2h in the past year) despite being widely seen as dangerous; it is not a numeric input to the inaction-side regret proxy.
  3. [3] Gilovich, T. & Medvec, V.H. — Journal of Personality and Social Psychology — The temporal pattern to the experience of regret
    The temporal pattern to the experience of regret

    See all 3 Likelier entries citing this source →

    統計値
    Long-term retrospective regret falls predominantly on inactions and omissions; protective actions taken at the moment of risk fade in regret rapidly as the avoided harm becomes invisible.
    抜粋
    “"Although actions tend to produce more regret in the short term, inactions are more likely to be regretted in the long run." ”
    出典データ
    1995-09-01
    アクセス日
    2026-05-25
    計算過程
    Gilovich & Medvec 1994/1995 is the canonical regret-timing reference. The structural prior here is that the inaction (driving) generates durable regret when it produces a near-miss or DUI; the action (rideshare) generates short-term regret over cost that fades. The inaction_dominates Gilovich pattern is well-supported by the AAA and NHTSA prevalence-vs-perceived-danger gap.
  4. [4] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) — Buzzed Driving Is Drunk Driving
    Buzzed Driving Is Drunk Driving
    統計値
    A DUI can set a driver back upwards of $10,000 in attorney's fees, fines, court costs, lost work time, higher insurance rates, and towing, on top of possible loss of driver's license and vehicle.
    抜粋
    “"A DUI can set you back upwards of $10,000 in attorney's fees, fines, court costs, lost time at work, higher insurance rates, car towing, and more. And, drinking and driving can result in losing your driver's license and your car." ”
    出典データ
    2024-01-01
    アクセス日
    2026-07-03
    計算過程
    NHTSA "Buzzed Driving Is Drunk Driving" campaign page (verified via browser fetch after WebFetch returned 403). Grounds the body/caveats DUI-cost claim, which previously asserted an unsourced "$5,000-15,000" range with no citation anywhere in this entry; replaced with NHTSA's own "upwards of $10,000" language and re-attributed to this source. source_date is approximate -- NHTSA does not print a precise publish date on the campaign page; page content reflects the current (2024 crash-data) revision of the campaign.
    独立性
    Federal public-safety campaign page; independent of the AAA survey, NHTSA attitudes report, and Gilovich regret-timing sources above.

注意事項

これは代理のみのエントリです。なぜなら「飲酒後に運転して今後悔している運転手」と「配車サービスを利用して今後悔している人々」を直接測定する出版された二国間調査が存在しないためです。不作為側の後悔率(40%)は、AAA 2024 TSCIの認識される危険のギャップ(93%が危険とみなす;それでも7%が行う)とNHTSAの自己報告された下流事象率35-45%を組み合わせたものです。行動側の後悔率(18%)は、配車サービス採用文献に記録されているコスト/不便摩擦に較正されており、意図的にその側に寛大です。Gilovich「inaction_dominates」パターンは構造的データによって十分に裏付けられています:飲酒運転の最悪の結果(DUI、衝突、犯罪歴、死亡)は永続的で大規模である一方、配車サービス利用の最悪の結果(約30米ドルの運賃、会場の車、気まずい朝の段取り)は小さく時間的に限定されています。決定は、地元の配車サービス費用が収入に比べて高い場合、配車サービスが利用できない場合、またはアルコール摂取量が非常に少ない場合に変化します。方程式の法的リスク側は非対称です:米国の大部分の州における単一のDUI有罪判決は、罰金、手数料、保険料の増加で5,000-15,000米ドル、加えて免許失効と懲役の可能性 — どんな配車サービス料金もこれに近づくことはできません。

生データ: /api/decisions.json

このデバイスで最近見た項目