Replies to this message are sent to The Chevelle Mailing List
------------------------------------------------------------
> > Seat belts are good. Helmets too. But they do not reduce the overall
> > cost due to accidental injury. Death reduces cost.
>
> So in an accident where an unbelted occupant would sustain major injuries and
> cost a bundle, a belted occupant who sustains light injuries wouldn't cost less?
The question is the overall cost to, not a particular cost. The
argumetation technique you are using, picking a contrived example in
attempt to prove a point, is rather lame.
> A person with a helmet that falls off ther bike getting scratched and a
> concussion isn't cheaper than someone without a helmet falling off their bike
> and causing brain damage and becoming unable to work, move, or think?
Circular reasoning alert!
A person that cannot think has to have others care for him. So
society must pay. Another bad example and lame argument.
If the person cannot think, with no aid from society, he will die.
Death is cheaper. So yes, a concussion is more expensive.
-----------------------------------------------------
To Unsubscribe please visit www.chevelles.net/list.html
To start a new topic, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
