3 ms·

This seems to be the cue for those annoying people to start reciting "if it saves even one life...". In reality, these numbers are incredibly good, so much tha

This seems to be the cue for those annoying people to start reciting "if it saves even one life...". In reality, these numbers are incredibly good, so much that chasing after any improvement is bound to be extremely expensive. The money that would be spent on seatbelts or whatever could obviously be invested to greater effect in some other effort.

rookie 16y ago
Yeah, and not only extremely expensive but because of things like misuse, what if the addition of seatbelts actually results in more deaths?
bayleo 16y ago
If you wanted to be even more heartless (rational) you could approximate a statistical value of life for those casualties. It wouldn't compare favorably to even the costs of installing seat-belts in one urban school district.
- pjscott 16y ago
  Incidentally, this is what the FAA does when evaluating the costs of new safety measures against the projected number of lives saved.
tomjen3 16y ago
Sometimes those people are wrong, but it seems that in this case the cost is purely monetary and the budget has plenty of bloat in it where we could move money from which could make the final 6 lives be saved (it is what, the cost of two helicopters and 7 hellfire missiles? Half a bridge to nowhere?). Given these things, I would have to disagree with you, in this case it would be worth saving the final 6 lives.
- akgerber 16y ago
  Would installing seat belts actually save those lives? An accident that would be fatal without a seatbelt may well be fatal with one, involving perhaps a fire or train or semi truck. Improving general road, pedestrian, and bicycle safety would be a far better preventative measure (or even offering more/more convenient school bus service) using any money that would fund seat belts, as car accidents are the number one killer of children.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  Of course there's a ton of bloat in the budget. But once we've pared down that money (if we could pare it down -- bureaucrats have been promising to do so forever, but it just gets worse), there are other ways to spend the money that would be more effective. It's a question of the opportunity cost: spending the money here means that it's not available to spend elsewhere. We must choose the most effective way to spend it. We could install those seat belts on every bus in the nation, but that would cost hundreds of millions (and the article quotes information indicating that it might actually be counterproductive anyway, but set that aside for this argument). But that money could instead be invested in finding a cure for some childhood disease, or building a poison treatment center, or better law enforcement to keep some drunks off the road, and on and on. It seems to me that any of my suggestions are likely to save more than six lives a year, so why would you want to invest that money on something that is going to do less good?

rookie 16y ago

Yeah, and not only extremely expensive but because of things like misuse, what if the addition of seatbelts actually results in more deaths?

bayleo 16y ago

If you wanted to be even more heartless (rational) you could approximate a statistical value of life for those casualties. It wouldn't compare favorably to even the costs of installing seat-belts in one urban school district.

pjscott 16y ago
Incidentally, this is what the FAA does when evaluating the costs of new safety measures against the projected number of lives saved.

tomjen3 16y ago

Sometimes those people are wrong, but it seems that in this case the cost is purely monetary and the budget has plenty of bloat in it where we could move money from which could make the final 6 lives be saved (it is what, the cost of two helicopters and 7 hellfire missiles? Half a bridge to nowhere?). Given these things, I would have to disagree with you, in this case it would be worth saving the final 6 lives.

akgerber 16y ago
Would installing seat belts actually save those lives? An accident that would be fatal without a seatbelt may well be fatal with one, involving perhaps a fire or train or semi truck. Improving general road, pedestrian, and bicycle safety would be a far better preventative measure (or even offering more/more convenient school bus service) using any money that would fund seat belts, as car accidents are the number one killer of children.
CWuestefeld 16y ago
Of course there's a ton of bloat in the budget. But once we've pared down that money (if we could pare it down -- bureaucrats have been promising to do so forever, but it just gets worse), there are other ways to spend the money that would be more effective. It's a question of the opportunity cost: spending the money here means that it's not available to spend elsewhere. We must choose the most effective way to spend it. We could install those seat belts on every bus in the nation, but that would cost hundreds of millions (and the article quotes information indicating that it might actually be counterproductive anyway, but set that aside for this argument). But that money could instead be invested in finding a cure for some childhood disease, or building a poison treatment center, or better law enforcement to keep some drunks off the road, and on and on. It seems to me that any of my suggestions are likely to save more than six lives a year, so why would you want to invest that money on something that is going to do less good?