On May 29, 2010, at 6:37 PM, frank theriault wrote: > On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Larry Colen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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? > > You're baffling with bullshit, Larry. > > Crunch the numbers anyway you want, if it's $10 a car, or even $100 a > car, that's what it is. > > Folks are happy to pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars or > more per car. On a car by car basis, the cost of implementing such a > system is negligible. If such a small amount paid per driver saves 30 > lives a year, it's totally worth it.
I disagree. First of all, you're making the assumption that it would work. Second of all, you're making the assumption that it would work better than another method. This is a classic case of: Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, we must do it. Take a look at the actual safety effectiveness of such things as passive restraint systems and anti-lock brakes. All that passive restraints did was make seatbelts less effective for people who wore them anyways. Likewise, the data on ABS shows that it has caused no net reduction in accident rates. And frankly, I'm dubious about the overall effectiveness of airbags, I'm willing to believe that they save more lives than they cost, but wouldn't be surprised if they didn't. > > As far as spending that money on other things, perhaps that should be > done, but it's not an "either/or" situation. If the baby sensors > aren't put into automobiles, you know damned well it's not as if that > money will suddenly be applied to some other life saver. No, but perhaps the people pushing for them should look to see what would be the most effective use of their resources. Rather than equipping new cars (which most new families can't afford) with a device that isn't useful to most people, why not develop a device that is directly applicable to just the cars with the babies, and only those cars. For that matter, those devices could then be passed on to the next family with small kids along with the car seats. > > cheers, > frank > > > -- > "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- Larry Colen [email protected] sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
