On May 29, 2010, at 4:17 PM, eckinator wrote: > 2010/5/29 Larry Colen <l...@red4est.com>: >> >> It's a good article, but let's take a look at it. Let's assume that we >> could develop a system that would prevent every one of these deaths, and >> that it could be implemented for $10 per car. Now let's say that there are >> 30 million cars sold in the US each year (one car per decade per person), >> that means it would cost $300,000,000 to prevent these deaths. The article >> says that there are 30 of these deaths per year, so that's $100,000 per life >> saved. >> >> On the surface, that seems like it might be a reasonable cost benefit ratio. >> I'm certain that the parents of the kids would certainly think so. >> >> On the other hand, how many more lives could be saved by applying that third >> of a billion dollars to a problem that kills far more people every year? > > The math of it may be fine but I remember how the mere thought of > losing Mattis had me crying when he was in intensive care for the > first few days after birth without even such a thing as a risk of > death of any kind. No logic in the world can lessen the pain and grief > of a parent. I could tell you some stories.
I certainly don't doubt that for the parent of the child, no price would be to high to save the kid. But my complaint is with trying to equip every car with that solution. Should every person in the US pay a dollar to maybe save half a dozen babies, when that same money could probably save hundreds if spent elsewhere? My inclination would be a bluetooth device that you could clip to the baby seat, and a program that would run on your cell phone, or a dedicated device) that would alert when the sensor got out of range. Likewise, it could alert if the temperature got too high, or too low. > -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
