On May 30, 2010, at 1:49 PM, 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?
The NASA device stays in the baby seat. It's only activated when the baby is placed in the seat. It would work as an integral part of all baby seats. That's probably the best solution, assuming a solution is desirable. I assume nothing; it's my job:--). Paul > >> >> 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. > > -- > Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est > > > > > > -- > 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.
