Posted on 02/23/2008 1:54:36 PM PST by SeekAndFind
If we look to benefits only, we'll do darn near anything because there's always a benefit. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported there were 43,443 highway fatalities in 2005. If we had a maximum speed law of 15 miles per hour, the death toll wouldn't be nearly as high, probably not even as high as 500. You say, "Williams, that's a crazy idea."
You're right, but let's not call it crazy; it's more accurate to say: saving some 43,000 lives aren't worth the cost and inconvenience of a 15 mph speed limit.
Given a 1 percent risk of a $10,000 loss, how much are you willing to pay to try to prevent or insure against it? I doubt any reasonable person would be willing to pay $9,000, $5,000 or even $1,000, though he might be willing to pay $100. Surely there's a benefit to preventing a loss, but at what cost?
Let's apply cost versus benefits to antiterrorism expenditures. Wyoming has two major cities: Cheyenne, its capital, with 53,000 residents; and Casper, with 50,000. Federal and state homeland security anti-terrorism expenditures in 2007 totaled $6,673,910. What is the risk of Wyoming being a terrorist target and, if so, what is the expected cost in terms of human lives and property?
There's no precise way to determine Wyoming's risk of a terrorist attack and its cost, but simple reasoning suggests too little or too much can be spent. The effect of spending too little might result in a devastating terrorist attack that could have been prevented. The effect of spending too much is less obvious because the victims are invisible.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Your excerpt failed to get to the actual argument of the piece—a very good argument against the ban on organ sales.
I have heard him make his case on Rush before. I am all for selling organs.
My view is this.The founding fathers set up a government we the people are responsible for maintaining, not a government that has ownership of our bodies. If we own our parts we have the right to sell, if the government owns the parts, they have the right to sell.
Didn’t read the whole piece, but what I saw was the part that the Left always seems to miss: their good ideas always promise (notice I didn’t say “deliver”) some benefit. But they never take the cost into account. So they’re full of noble ideas (many of which are simplistic, stupid, and just plain disproven) that cost way more than they contribute. Then, when people rightfully resist them, they are forced to jam them down their throats at the point of a gun. Why? For their own good, of course!
For the record, there are many many ski accidents in the lift line.
Speed has nothing to do with them. Speed is not a cause of auto accidents
speed is definately a factor that determines whether you survive an auto accident, or not.
A 20 mph speed limit would create economic problems which would cost vastly more lives than we lose on the highways now.
Williams wasn't talking about accidents. He was talking about deaths. It's prety difficult to sustain fatal injuries in a car going 15 MPH or less provided that you don't encounter something going faster than 15 MPM.
ML/NJ
Actual studies showed accident rates dropping when they raised the limits from 55 to 65 in the 90s.
Have you ever driven 15 MPH? It's barely tapping the accelerator. Plus the opportunity cost in terms of lost time and congestion simply isn't worth it.
Obviously he’s not driven on LA freeways ... 15MPH? That’s really zooming down there .....
...unless your car is equipped with a government-mandated air bag, in which case the risk of death is significantly higher...
Duh.
ML/NJ
Speed alone is not a problem if everyone is pretty much speeding at the same rate and all are keeping up with the flow of traffic.
What is dangerous is the unpredictable or aggressive driver who speeds excessively and tailgates and weaves in and out of traffic in an attempt to pass everyone.
Likewise the overly slow driver is also a danger as is the driver who can’t maintain a constant and consistent speed on the highway.
Jut in the last week I encountered two overly slow drivers who were a real danger.
One was on I-95 north of Baltimore where the speed limit is 65mph. This idiot was barely doing 45, causing people to hit their brakes and swerve around him.
The other driver was on 83 North in PA just south of York. He was doing 45 then speeding up to 55 or more then inexplicitly slowing back down to 45 and under. I was stuck behind him for several miles waiting for a safe opportunity to pass him. When I finally was able to move to the left lane and pass, this idiot sped up and kept speed with me so that I was unable to move back into the right lane.
With a straight level stretch of highway and no one in front of me, I hit the accelerator until I was doing about 75 to 80 mph and put enough distance between me and this a-hole so I didn’t have to worry about him any more.
Then drop the speed to 7 mph. I beleive that airbags are not supposed to go off at those collisin speeds.
Many children have been killed by airbags in 5-mph collisions.
Sounds like "cell phone syndrome".
Another brainiac who is sure that being an idiot doesn't affect his driving.
He was using his car to put you danger. Too bad you weren't driving a big old 3/4 ton pick up. Just signal and start edging over! I would have!
Let’s bring back the trains! It would save a lot of lives and we would still not have to reduce our speed. (Even better, if we upgrade to maglev trains, we would be at our intended location much quicker than now.
And bless him for biting the neocon hands of his Hoover benefactors! They will never dare criticize the security state that wastes our $$$ on terrorism boondoggles. Limbaugh/Hannity would call him an Islamofacsist for dissing the Wyoming psychosis.
Walter Williams made me a conservative 30 years ago.
I guess I’d request a reference on that.
15 mph is fine but maybe a little too fast for low-rider.
Couldn’t wuickly find one that mentioned impact speed, but I found this -
” By the mid-February, 1997, airbag deployments had killed 38 children and 21 drivers. By July 1998, 63 children had died in crashes involving airbags; 13 were in infant seats the vehicle’s front seat. “
No speeds indicated; it would seem to include all speeds. I don’t believe that many kids have been killed by airbags in collisions at and below 5 mph (or 7 mph).
So when I turn on my T.V. and see a low speed chase they will be going like 4 mph?
“the vast majority of the deaths appear to have occurred in crashes in which the vehicle was traveling at less than 15 mph when the air bag deployed.” NHTSA’s monthly Special Crash Investigation Report dated February 1, 1998 reveals that three of the air bag deaths were in 5 mph collisions and twenty-five were in collisions of 10 mph or less.”
http://www.citizen.org/print_article.cfm?ID=1354
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag
Airbags are designed to NOT go off at speeds below 8 mph. I'm sure that there are cases where they do for a variey of reasons, but I don't believe that airbags are at all a significant risk for kids at speeds below 8 mph (assuming that the parents are responsible enough to keep the kids belted in as they should.
One of my kids was involved in a air-launching and rollover accident and survived fine as he was properly belted in and riding in an age appropriate booster seat.
I am glad that your son was unharmed.
Thanks for hte research. From reading the article, it's unclear on the ages of those three unfortunates. It's likely that none of them were kids.
I don’t want to belabor the point, but...
All of the were infants, in rear-facing infant carriers, beltet into the front seat of the respective autos.
In one case, the mother was innatententive, and her car rolled into a saftey pole in a grocery parking lot at 5 mph, according to the data chip.
the airbag deployed, hit the child safety seat, pushing it backward against the front passenger seat, where it stopped - and the baby’s head did not. It was found in the rear of the car.
The news reports of this were incessant at the time, of course - and, also of course, none of my kids ever rode in the front seat again, until they outgrew baby, booster, and etc., seats.
It was also in the news at the time (’90’s), that this was far from an isolated incident.
As it turns out, government interference can and does kill the innocent - which is the point I was trying to make, with my original airbag post.
Be careful what you ask the government to do, they might actually do it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.