PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: President-Elect Bob Noel on March 25, 2016, 08:40:41 AM
-
Let's say there is a $200 device that, if added to every vehicle, could prevent deaths caused by cars backing into people?
Sounds great, doesn't it? The possibility of saving an estimated 300 fatalities each year.
But, let's do some math.
According to wikipedia, there about 250,000,000 registered highway vehicles.
For math simplicity, let's assume the average vehicle age is 10 years, that give us 25,000,000 new vehicles every year which will have this $200 safety feature. Total annual cost is: Five billion dollars, every year. To save 300 people. Or over 16 millions dollars per life saved. (even if the number of new vehicles is only 15,000,000, the cost to society would still be 10 millions dollars per life saved - but in 2015 there were over 17 million cars sold in the US)
And people are talking about other safety features being mandated for cars (e.g., automatic breaking systems to the tune of more than what? $1500?)
what cost safety?
-
Let's say there is a $200 device that, if added to every vehicle, could prevent deaths caused by cars backing into people?
Sounds great, doesn't it? The possibility of saving an estimated 300 fatalities each year.
But, let's do some math.
According to wikipedia, there about 250,000,000 registered highway vehicles.
For math simplicity, let's assume the average vehicle age is 10 years, that give us 25,000,000 new vehicles every year which will have this $200 safety feature. Total annual cost is: Five billion dollars, every year. To save 300 people. Or over 16 millions dollars per life saved. (even if the number of new vehicles is only 15,000,000, the cost to society would still be 10 millions dollars per life saved - but in 2015 there were over 17 million cars sold in the US)
And people are talking about other safety features being mandated for cars (e.g., automatic breaking systems to the tune of more than what? $1500?)
what cost safety?
Think of the children! ;)
Is there a push for this $200 device, or was this a theoretical question?
-
Not so simple on the math when you factor in the lowered insurance premiums due to saving 300 death claims (and the lawsuits that accompany them) per year.
-
The dirty little secret with respect to safety in general is that has always been a financial equation. When people talk about airline safety it is almost always in terms of cost per life or cost per injury.
Within the Aerospace Safety Engineering community we jokingly say that every FAR is written in blood, as a reaction to some accident or another - it is not far from the truth.
But we always evaluate any hazard not only in terms of probability, but also with respect to possible mitigations ranging from design change (costly) to training and documentation (cheap) - something that is 100% safe is a myth, it cannot be built by human beings.
We have to balance safety in terms of risk (hazard and probability) as well as cost - and within aerospace I think we get it right.
'Gimp
-
Not so simple on the math when you factor in the lowered insurance premiums due to saving 300 death claims (and the lawsuits that accompany them) per year.
or on the repair costs to keep the 250,000,000 devices working properly every year.
How much would be the death claims on 300 deaths?
If you (or someone else) has recently purchased a car with a backup camera, how much discount have you received because of the camera?
Math isn't that hard.
-
or on the repair costs to keep the 250,000,000 devices working properly every year.
How much would be the death claims on 300 deaths?
If you (or someone else) has recently purchased a car with a backup camera, how much discount have you received because of the camera?
Math isn't that hard.
For starters I was talking about the costs on a macroeconomic scale.
Since you personalized it:
We bought a 2013 vehicle with a camera. I'm not aware of the premium being tied specifically to the camera but rather the make, model of the vehicle itself and it's overall safety rating. I'm sure they bumped the premium a bit because we got it fully loaded.
I don't think you can make a case for this one Bob but I'm open.
-
For starters I was talking about the costs on a macroeconomic scale.
Since you personalized it:
We bought a 2013 vehicle with a camera. I'm not aware of the premium being tied specifically to the camera but rather the make, model of the vehicle itself and it's overall safety rating. I'm sure they bumped the premium a bit because we got it fully loaded.
I don't think you can make a case for this one Bob but I'm open.
btw - I am indeed talking about the macro. The specific question was a way to get a data point that could then be extrapolated to society in general. You suggested that claims should be considered. Well, insurance companies are pretty good with actuarial tables and if backup cameras reduced overall expenses for them, then there should be a discount on the liability insurance (easiest to see if comparing cars with/without the camera)
anyway, um, you are ok with with society spending over $10,000,000 every year to save 1 life?
If so, in your mind. is there an upper limit? Would 20 billion dollars be ok to spend to save 1 life?
What about consideration of less expensive ways to reduce risk?
-
Crony capitalism baby, doesn't have to make sense, do it for the chilllllllllldren.
-
If it saves just one life, isn't it worth it? :'(
-
Crony capitalism baby, doesn't have to make sense, do it for the chilllllllllldren.
^^^^^^This. Somebody close to the Administration is making a fortune off the mandatory cameras we are all going to pay for in new cars. It is RIDICULOUS.
-
Just like someone is making fortunes off of hands-free mandates (i.e. Bluetooth), that police barely enforce.
-
btw - I am indeed talking about the macro. The specific question was a way to get a data point that could then be extrapolated to society in general. You suggested that claims should be considered. Well, insurance companies are pretty good with actuarial tables and if backup cameras reduced overall expenses for them, then there should be a discount on the liability insurance (easiest to see if comparing cars with/without the camera)
anyway, um, you are ok with with society spending over $10,000,000 every year to save 1 life?
If so, in your mind. is there an upper limit? Would 20 billion dollars be ok to spend to save 1 life?
What about consideration of less expensive ways to reduce risk?
There is a concept (can't recall the name right now, so I'll just call it the great pool) similar to the law of conservation of matter and energy; money is never lost or gained, it simply changes hands.
The automakers tack a few dollars to the price of the car that the consumer hardly notices, and Bob and Jill get to brag to their neighbors on how cool their neat little new toy is on their car. Eventually, the costs of technology comes down, but all the while there are a lot of people employed to make that happen and it keeps the exchange of skills and intellectual fodder going. For every new technological advance, new applications for it are dreamt up until eventually it become mainstream - just look at what's happened to cellphones in the last 25 years and now wearable tech is on the rise.
I'm not crying about it. Not sure what your complaint really is. If you want to do some real good, go complain about how stupid speed limits are when the US DOT commissioned a study that concluded removing speed limits from highways make them safer. Good luck on getting a politician to pitch it.