Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Colen" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: OT: Kids are Dying in Cars
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.
They do save lives, but at what cost?
They do produce injuries in those that survive and car companies have been
sued because of that.
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
--
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.
