3 ms·
Why do you think traffic accident victims are not reasonable examples of negative externalities of cars? As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread: 35.000 motor v
by pg314 10y ago
Why do you think traffic accident victims are not reasonable examples of negative externalities of cars? As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread: 35.000 motor vehicle deaths in 2015 in the US alone [1]. According to the US department of transportation [2], the total economic cost of motor vehicle crashes in 2010 is estimated to have been $242.0 billion. I don't see how you can reasonably ignore that in any discussion about transportation and cars.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...
[2] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812013 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
- baddox 10y agoI don't think they're an example of something that markets would be unlikely to handle. I suspect any system of private roads would at the bare minimum require liability insurance.
- pg314 10y agoInteresting perspective. Now I understand what you're saying. I think it would be dubious that private roads would require liability insurance. At present, liability insurance is only widespread because of regulation (i.e. a non-market mechanism). I do not see the economic case for the owner of the road to require liability insurance of its users. Insurance wouldn't cover the full cost either. According to [2], total car insurance losses were $117.5 billion in 2011, compared to the $242.0 billion in economic losses cited in my previous post. [1] https://www.ibisworld.com/industry/automobile-insurance.html https://www.ibisworld.com/industry/automobile-insurance.html [2] http://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/auto-insurance http://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/auto-insurance