On 30/05/2010 11:49 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
On May 30, 2010, at 1:24 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
On 5/30/2010 12:23 AM, Larry Colen 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?
So, Larry, you say something like this: to fix this problem we need 9 digit figure in US
currency. But, you say, there are other concerns that can be more beneficial (as in
"saving more lives"), so let us *not* fix this problem, but rather apply the
money elsewhere???
First of all, I don't think that mandated equipment in cars is an effective
solution to this problem.
I'd be willing to accept it as mandated in the baby seat. Pretty close to 100%
of baby seats will be used in conjunction with babies. A much higher
percentage than cars are. But then, there's the problem of leaving the baby
seat in the car if it doesn't have a baby with it. Unless you can turn the
device off. But, if you can turn the device off, how many people will remember
to turn it on?
Pardon my french here, but I say it is outright bullshit. You have a point in a
sense that thought and planning need be applied here. I wonder however, what
will make you change your mind? 1000 deaths per year instead of 10? Or may be
100 deaths in your state instead of none? Or may be something even more serious
than that?
Sense and planning should always be applied.
In particular, here in Israel we have a mandatory yearly check up and some kind
of tax that one has to pay for owning the vehicle (It is order of USD 250 for
smaller cars and progressively more expensive for bigger cars). Add 2 bucks to
the tax and averaging on 5 years of owning a car - you got your ten bucks. I
reckon crying and moaning about the tax raise will be substantially bigger than
the actual taxation and benefits thereof.
Here in the US we have 50 years of legislation of mandated "safety" equipment
with cars. Some of it helps, some of it doesn't, and some of it probably makes cars less
safe. For example the motorized seatbelts that were popular a few years back. Every bit
of it, however, adds cost, complexity and weight to cars.
We also seem to have a philosophic difference on wether people are responsible
for their own actions.
I read a report (back before the days of the internet) whose author had
looked at accident statistics and had concluded that most of the safety
features or technical advances built into automobiles had done precisely
the opposite of what they were designed to do and had actually made cars
less safe.
Not because they didn't do what they were supposed to do, but because
they made people feel safer, and hence more careless.
At the time, ABS brakes were the hot new commodity and he predicted that
accident rates would actually increase significantly as the technology
matured.
I don't know if this is true or not.
As for the value of a human life, we set that value every day ourselves.
Every person who has bought a life insurance policy has decided what a
human life is worth.
If we as individuals have a right to do that, why would we expect
corporations to be any different?
And why would we label them as inherently evil for doing what we do
ourselves every time we cut a cheque to the insurance company for our
premiums.
Regarding safety equipment being mandated, I happen to agree that in
countries that provide health care as part of the citizenship agreement,
perhaps the government has a right to tell you to wear a helmet if you
are on a motorcycle, or wear a seatbelt when you drive your car,
presuming that these pieces of equipment do actually lessen the cost to
society of repairing people damaged in car accidents.
Now, should a government have the right to mandate baby alarms in cars?
Sure, I'd agree that they do, providing it only applies to people who
drive around with babies in their cars.
In Canada, I have to wear a helmet if I choose to ride a motorcycle, but
if I choose to not ride a motorcycle I don't have to wear a helmet.
If I choose to not have a baby in my car, why should I be forced to buy
a piece of equipment that will be of no use to me?
There is also the less palatable argument that perhaps people who let
their babies bake in a hot car are doing the world a favour by
retroactively taking their stupidity out of the gene pool.
--
William Robb
--
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.
