On May 30, 2010, at 9:31 PM, William Robb wrote: > 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. > Good arguments for the most part. However, your last point may not hold up in light of the evidence. Children have been forgotten and lost by rocket scientists, physicians, engineers and teachers as well as working class people. In all, the demographics of those who have left a child behind are a pretty close match to the population at large. Rather than a bad gene pool, the incidents seem to be more the result of intense, distracted lifestyles. First stop is the grocery store, then the dry cleaners, then the day care center, then work. Oops, forgot the day care center.
I have no opinion or at least none that I care to espouse. I just try to lay out the facts and quote the principal players, so that those who are much smarter than me can decide what, if anything, should be done. However, the issue has been evaded in some circles. It's worthy of discussion, and I'm pleased to see how earnestly it has been debated here. Paul > -- > > William Robb > > -- > 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. -- 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.
