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???
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?
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.
Boris
--
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.
