On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Larry Colen <l...@red4est.com> 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. 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. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- 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.
