How many taxpayer dollars is a human life worth?

[exdeath]

So it's worth 40,000 deaths a year for people to have more time to enjoy themselves? :hmm:

Yes. My going 65 mph did not kill those people, they killed themselves. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Is it better that 300,000,000 not enjoy themselves and have nothing to live for outside of metabolizing oxygen like bacteria so that 40,000 can "live"? By the time those lives are saved, people will be killing themselves because life as a vegetable with curfew isn't a life worth living. We can all be one massive blob of pulsating meat locked up in cages, but hey, well be safe!

Let me ask a better question, what is the value of human life in being a meat puppet in a hamster ball and unable to live for itself?

Shit happens. Life happens. The rest of us live on until we eventually die anyway. Don't erode and punish the lives of the living for something that happened to someone else they had nothing to do with. To think otherwise is a dangerous game of fantasy and idealism.

 

[Zebo]

How are they killed is a big factor so your choices suck.

Spans

Simple negligence to first degree murder and everything in between.

This case maybe $500K. Kent State Killings maybe 10 million each.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Yes. My going 65 mph did not kill those people, they killed themselves. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Is it better that 300,000,000 not enjoy themselves and have nothing to live for outside of metabolizing oxygen like bacteria so that 40,000 can "live"? By the time those lives are saved, people will be killing themselves because life as a vegetable with curfew isn't a life worth living. We can all be one massive blob of pulsating meat locked up in cages, but hey, well be safe!

Let me ask a better question, what is the value of human life in being a meat puppet in a hamster ball and unable to live for itself?

Shit happens. Life happens. The rest of us live on until we eventually die anyway. Don't erode and punish the lives of the living for something that happened to someone else they had nothing to do with. To think otherwise is a dangerous game of fantasy and idealism.

Indeed. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Can you take out a mortgage on your life? Or do any refinancing? :biggrin:

Yes, it is called "student loans"

The needs of many outweigh the needs of one. 😱

One should not put a price on life nor consider the cost of anything before taking action to prevent loss of said life. Such hesitation in a crisis where each millisecond counts could be far more costly.

huh?

People accept traffic deaths because they feel they get something out of driving faster, more time. Our society has traded time for life.

This!

Think of all of the lives worth of time lost on the highway, thing of all the lives literally lost because of economic upheaval;

So it's worth 40,000 deaths a year for people to have more time to enjoy themselves?

If the average person drives about 15k miles a year, that would be 750 hours a year at 20mph on average and 300 hours a year at 50mph.

If the typical person lives 75 years, or about 660,000 hours; then having high speed limits saves an entire life time worth of a person, every year, for every 1400 people on the road.
If there are about 200 million people on the road then going 80 on the highway, so we can average 50 over all, SAVES 142k lives worth of time every year; If the exchange for that is 42k lives a year, then we are still netting an additional 100 thousand people's life times.

Keep in mind that of the 42k lives lost almost none of them are actually newly born babies with a whole life of time lost when they die... so it is likely that the number of life-hours lost to driving fast is half that; making the benefits of high-speed driving over six times higher than the costs.

 

[Meghan54]

True, over 33K people died from some sort of auto accidents in 2009, a number that has been fairly consistent in level despite a continual increase in miles traveled. But you need to put it into context.....

In 2009, per 100M vehicle miles traveled, there were 1.13 fatalities from auto accidents. And this is a number that has been trending downward consistently, at least for the last 16 years since 1994, which had 1.73 fatalities per 100M vehicle miles traveled.

So, just over one person died for every 100,000,000 miles of vehicle travel.

And when you consider that in the U.S. in 2009 there were 2.979T (trillion) vehicle miles traveled, that's pretty amazing it's not higher, esp. given the almost total lack of decent driver preparation/education that's done.

Source: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx


But, what other sort of transportation system would you have us use, Kaido, that gives the population the sort of freedom that personal vehicles give?

And then what do you do with all the ancillary industries that depend upon the population having access to cars/trucks? Off-roading, boating, major sectors of the economy, etc.?

Yes, get indignant about death on the roads. But learn to accept risk for the benefits that, in this case, driving personal vehicles gives us.....the ability to go anywhere at any time without constraints. It's said the ability of the population to buy and drive a car is one of the major factors in moving this country out of being agriculture based and into an industrialized country. Would you have us move backward into a 19th century country/setting?

Or would you have us spend so much on vehicles making them "completely safe" ( a pipe dream at best) that no one could afford to buy one? There are trade-offs for driving, and most people seem quite comfortable with the current risks involved.

 

[Bignate603]

So it's worth 40,000 deaths a year for people to have more time to enjoy themselves? :hmm:

If someone really wants to eliminate the chance of a traffic accident they can, their are cities around the US where you wouldn't ever need to get in a vehicle smaller than a bus (which are safer than passenger cars) because they have decent public transportation.

Everyone that's willing to trade the risk for different things in life (more free time, ability to have higher income, ability to buy house of their own rather than living in a more densely packed community, etc) should have that right. People understand that traffic accidents can kill them. While government standards should do some things to protect people I do think that people should have the right to choose about how much risk they will take.

Also, I've wondered how many of those traffic deaths only killed a person that was doing something stupid or a person that chose to get in the car with them while they did something stupid. If it only kills a drunk driver, someone driving a car that has deteriorated to the point of being dangerous, or someone driving recklessly I don't consider that a real part of the statistic that I should be worried about. I'm only worried about accidents that involve people that are paying attention and driving safely which I'm sure is a much lower number.

 

[Modular]

Also, I've wondered how many of those traffic deaths only killed a person that was doing something stupid or a person that chose to get in the car with them while they did something stupid. If it only kills a drunk driver, someone driving a car that has deteriorated to the point of being dangerous, or someone driving recklessly I don't consider that a real part of the statistic that I should be worried about. I'm only worried about accidents that involve people that are paying attention and driving safely which I'm sure is a much lower number.

I hear what you're saying, but you have to take into account the number of people who are hit by an idiotic driver. Also, accidents can happen to those who are prepared for them. My brother was sideswiped by a kid coming out of his driveway at 40mph (police estimate). He was just driving along on a 35mph road on his way to work when...BAM!

How could he have prepared for that? Thankfully he did not pass away, but his car was a mess.

 

[JulesMaximus]

My Dad has major medical issues and has been living off medicare for a while now, he's on dialysis 3 days a week, his feet are rotting away, he is bed ridden and about a week ago my sister (who is his medical proxy) signed a DNR and told the doctors to stop giving him dialysis so he's going to die soon. Better to end the suffering than to keep him alive in the state he's in. :'(

 

[Ackmed]

Well, if you're a Marine and die, say in a combat zone its worth only $400,000.

 

[Bignate603]

I hear what you're saying, but you have to take into account the number of people who are hit by an idiotic driver. Also, accidents can happen to those who are prepared for them. My brother was sideswiped by a kid coming out of his driveway at 40mph (police estimate). He was just driving along on a 35mph road on his way to work when...BAM!

How could he have prepared for that? Thankfully he did not pass away, but his car was a mess.

Yes, and that's why I said to only throw out the traffic accidents where the idiot only killed themselves or the people that chose to ride with them. I'm not going to be so callous to say that I don't car if people are stupid and kill themselves because of it but I also don't believe its a good use of my money to try and save people that don't care enough about their own lives to actually drive responsibly.

I personally would prefer that money and effort go into driver education and driver testing than some of the technologies that they're trying to push into cars. Improving the quality of drivers would drastically increase the safety rather than many of the efforts that the government keeps proposing.

 

[fire400]

first off, that's a stupid as hell poll, and it's not even funny.

5 U.S. prisoners = $100K/year

Americans live off of less, some. I worked at a Taco Bell job making less than $16,000/year when I was 19/20.

If I can get by with that and paid for ridiculous car insurance at the same time, I'm not quite sure how a prisoner cost more than my living expenses at the time. The only difference, I worked hard at my job for lousy pay, but somehow managed to enjoy ... "LIVING FAST AND DYING YOUNG!" -Aqua

WRECKLESS FAST-LIFE!
Not doing anything? Go on a date. Bored? Play video games and turn up the bass. Feeling stupid, take an elective at your college. Don't think you're sleeping tonight(?), hit the club. Hang out with friends, eat out, cook with family, etc.
Even though these things cost some money, not a super ton though, money itself cannot 'completely' justify the freedom of enjoyment.

So how much does an American life cost in taxpayer dollars?

...DEPENDS ON WHICH TAX BRACKET THE PARTICULAR INDIVITUAL FALLS UNDER!
---LOL---

 

[waggy]

the #1 thing that would reduce automobile deaths would be a real driver training program and actual enforcement of the laws.

i started driving at 13. from driving on my uncles ranch to driving vehicles around my grandfathers car lot. Then driving my mother to medical appointments.

i had to take a driver training class that was a hell of a lot tougher then teh BS they do now.

we need a real driver training class that everyone has to pass BEFORE they can drive. its silly how fucking easy it is to get a license now

 

[Chaotic42]

the #1 thing that would reduce automobile deaths would be a real driver training program and actual enforcement of the laws.

i started driving at 13. from driving on my uncles ranch to driving vehicles around my grandfathers car lot. Then driving my mother to medical appointments.

i had to take a driver training class that was a hell of a lot tougher then teh BS they do now.

we need a real driver training class that everyone has to pass BEFORE they can drive. its silly how fucking easy it is to get a license now

I agree.

I'd also like for them to replace "Speed Limit" with "Speed". Maybe you could have two speeds, one for regular weather, one for incliment weather. So if the "Speed" on Interstate 10 is 85, it's just as much of a crime to go 80 as it is to go 90. Obviously there would be logical exceptions for things like damaged vehicles or heavy loads.

 

[Bignate603]

I agree.

I'd also like for them to replace "Speed Limit" with "Speed". Maybe you could have two speeds, one for regular weather, one for incliment weather. So if the "Speed" on Interstate 10 is 85, it's just as much of a crime to go 80 as it is to go 90. Obviously there would be logical exceptions for things like damaged vehicles or heavy loads.

They already have minimum speeds. There is a speed range that's acceptable. Sticking a single speed is not feasible because there are plenty of things that can require you to go at all different kinds of speeds. Heavy traffic? You might slow down 5 or 10 mph. Heavy rain? Maybe you want to slow down to 60. Heavy snow or ice? You might end up at 30 or less. It's not a workable system because all of the rules and exceptions would fill a book. You can argue that raising the minimum would be useful but they already can pull people over if they're moving so slow that they're a nuisance to traffic.

 

[CRXican]

Garbage like that shouldn't cost us any taxpayer dollars. Then again, I don't want to pay for it when it's added to the price of the car.

Lose Lose

 

[Mark R]

This is a complicated issue. There's a lot of emotion and culture embedded. It's also not as simple as a 'cost-benefit' analysis (as someone suggested above - people get something out of driving, so are willing to pay the cost in reduced life).

The discussions over auto safety are interesting.

Seatbelt laws were widely resisted, both on a public level and at government levels. Yet, there's no doubt over the benefit of seat belts. They reduce your risk of dieing in a car wreck by approximately 40%. They cost only a few bucks to install. The total cost per life saved works out at approximately $20k. That such an effective and cheap system, was so strongly resisted is somewhat baffling.

By contrast, there was rapid mandate of air bags. These are more expensive devices, with lower benefits. They cost about $1000 to install, and once seat belts are used only reduce your risk of death by 5%. The net result is that they cost approximately $1 million per life saved.

Then look at child car seats. There's no good evidence as to how effective they are. However, taking some rather optimistic figures from a (heavily confounded) study - this suggests a cost of approximately $5-10 million per life saved.

 

[Chaotic42]

They already have minimum speeds. There is a speed range that's acceptable. Sticking a single speed is not feasible because there are plenty of things that can require you to go at all different kinds of speeds. Heavy traffic? You might slow down 5 or 10 mph. Heavy rain? Maybe you want to slow down to 60. Heavy snow or ice? You might end up at 30 or less. It's not a workable system because all of the rules and exceptions would fill a book. You can argue that raising the minimum would be useful but they already can pull people over if they're moving so slow that they're a nuisance to traffic.

They might be able to pull over people who are disrupting traffic, but I've never seen it happen. Traffic flows at about 85 on the interstate near my house. About every 20th car is either an old person, Mexicans towing stuff, or someone on a cell phone going 60. Cops fly right by.

 

[Bignate603]

They might be able to pull over people who are disrupting traffic, but I've never seen it happen. Traffic flows at about 85 on the interstate near my house. About every 20th car is either an old person, Mexicans towing stuff, or someone on a cell phone going 60. Cops fly right by.

Besides the person talking on the cell phone I think it's fine that somebody goes 60 on the highway in the slow lane if that's what they're comfortable with. I've owned plenty of older cars where they were fine at 60 or so but should not have been pushed much past that. Hell, in my old jeep I stay all the way to the right and stay around 55 because that's about as fast as I should push it. It's mechanically fine, it's just a top heavy vehicle with low gearing that doesn't like to be pushed at high speeds.

Anyways, you say you live in Florida where the max speed limit is 70. You have no problem with people going 15 mph OVER the speed limit yet you whine about people going 10 mph UNDER the speed limit. You don't have a legal right to speed but they do have a legal right to go 60 if they want.

But of course you're a special snowflake and everybody should go faster because they're getting in your way when you want to break traffic laws! It just isn't fair! 🙄

 

[darkswordsman17]

the #1 thing that would reduce automobile deaths would be a real driver training program and actual enforcement of the laws.

i started driving at 13. from driving on my uncles ranch to driving vehicles around my grandfathers car lot. Then driving my mother to medical appointments.

i had to take a driver training class that was a hell of a lot tougher then teh BS they do now.

we need a real driver training class that everyone has to pass BEFORE they can drive. its silly how fucking easy it is to get a license now

Absolutely, but I think it needs to be significantly more in depth than even the tests you took. Its never been what you call that great in the US. They really need to have people deal with inclement conditions (weather, car problems, etc) under guidance so they know better how to act and react.

 

[Bignate603]

Absolutely, but I think it needs to be significantly more in depth than even the tests you took. Its never been what you call that great in the US. They really need to have people deal with inclement conditions (weather, car problems, etc) under guidance so they know better how to act and react.

You mean like the Finnish driving training?


From Wikipedia:

In Finland, the car driver's training can be obtained either in a private driving school or given by a near relative who has a driver's license. If the person is trained by a relative, the relative must obtain a special instructor's permit and have a car fitted and inspected with an extra set of brake pedals for the front passenger. The training for B class license requires 30 hours of instructed driving, including a spell on a slippery driving course, and 20 theory lessons. After this, the person must pass a computerized theory test and a driving test in city traffic with a minimum length of 30 minutes. C class training is similar, but longer.
The initial license is issued for two years. During this time, the new driver may receive a maximum of two traffic fines in total. If the number of fines is exceeded, the license is revoked and the driver is required to re-take the exam. Even with one fine, the interim period may be extended for a maximum of two years. During the interim period, the new driver must pass a short refresher course, which includes a slippery driving course, and participate in dark time driving training, unless this was part of the initial training. (Finnish lighting conditions prevent the dark time training during summer.)

 

[Kaido]

This is a complicated issue. There's a lot of emotion and culture embedded. It's also not as simple as a 'cost-benefit' analysis (as someone suggested above - people get something out of driving, so are willing to pay the cost in reduced life).

I think that's what it really boils down it - the cost depends on the situation. Sometimes it doesn't make financial sense to do something, even though it could save thousands of lives. In my senior paper I suggested that limited the speed limit to 20 miles per hour would greatly reduce the number of fatalities on the road, but as someone else mentioned, that could also cause a huge economic meltdown because of lost time and productivity. So ultimately, we accept the reality of the world we live in, for better or for worse.

We could slap standard height/spec bumpers on cars, but then people in Corvettes and Ferraris would get all uptight and we'd have to spend billions retrofitting every car on the road, which would also be a form of removing our freedom, since we like what we have already. Here's a Corvette under a semi-truck:

http://imagehost.helluvafast.com/files/3/vette2_original.jpg

Versus a car with a higher bumper:

http://imagehost.helluvafast.com/files/3/18-01-06_1531_original.jpg

Pretty sure the second guy got a better deal. But...it would cost a lot of money to add standard height/spec bumpers and remove some perceived freedom. Not gonna happen! :awe:

 

[Chaotic42]

Anyways, you say you live in Florida where the max speed limit is 70. You have no problem with people going 15 mph OVER the speed limit yet you whine about people going 10 mph UNDER the speed limit. You don't have a legal right to speed but they do have a legal right to go 60 if they want.

But of course you're a special snowflake and everybody should go faster because they're getting in your way when you want to break traffic laws! It just isn't fair! 🙄

Wow, take it easy. Like I said, the flow of traffic is about 85. The combination of people going 85 and others going 60 can cause problems, hence my suggestion of changing the laws so that there is one speed for fair weather and one speed for inclimate weather. There's no need for lots of complicated rules, someone disrupting the flow of traffic would be obvious to a police officer, and that person would get a ticket. Obviously if there is heavy rain and everyone is going 40, the cops wouldn't pull everyone over.

The 70/45 limit is too broad, and I don't live in Florida. I live about 30 miles from New Orleans, but the limit is still 70.

 

[Bignate603]

We could slap standard height/spec bumpers on cars, but then people in Corvettes and Ferraris would get all uptight and we'd have to spend billions retrofitting every car on the road, which would also be a form of removing our freedom, since we like what we have already.

Even if they passed a new regulation for bumper height you'll never see any regulation that requires people to retrofit their cars.

 

[Bignate603]

Wow, take it easy. Like I said, the flow of traffic is about 85. The combination of people going 85 and others going 60 can cause problems, hence my suggestion of changing the laws so that there is one speed for fair weather and one speed for inclimate weather. There's no need for lots of complicated rules, someone disrupting the flow of traffic would be obvious to a police officer, and that person would get a ticket. Obviously if there is heavy rain and everyone is going 40, the cops wouldn't pull everyone over.

The 70/45 limit is too broad, and I don't live in Florida. I live about 30 miles from New Orleans, but the limit is still 70.

Your location under your name says "West Florida", that might be a little confusing.

It doesn't matter if the flow of traffic is 85, you were complaining about people going 60 which is perfectly fine as long as they stay to the right. I'm sorry if you want to cruise 15 over all the time but there's no problem with somebody choosing to stay a bit under the limit in the right lane because that's where they or their vehicle is most comfortable.

I agree that the 45 mph minimum is a bit crazy, especially for your area with a severe lack of hills. On a flat 70 mph road you'd hope people would at least be able to keep up to 55 mph. Around here in Arizona though there are some long climbs where the trucks max out at 45 mph or slower.

 

[Chaotic42]

Your location under your name says "West Florida", that might be a little confusing.

It doesn't matter if the flow of traffic is 85, you were complaining about people going 60 which is perfectly fine as long as they stay to the right. I'm sorry if you want to cruise 15 over all the time but there's no problem with somebody choosing to stay a bit under the limit in the right lane because that's where they or their vehicle is most comfortable.

I agree that the 45 mph minimum is a bit crazy, especially for your area with a severe lack of hills. On a flat 70 mph road you'd hope people would at least be able to keep up to 55 mph. Around here in Arizona though there are some long climbs where the trucks max out at 45 mph or slower.

Yeah, you're only the second person to say something about my location. Republic of West Florida. I figure it's more meaningful to people than Hancock County, MS.

I'm talking about what I think the law should be. I think that 60 on an interstate in a relatively flat rural area is too slow and should be illegal in much the same way that 80 is currently illegal. I *do* think that we should raise the speed limits on those roads to 90, but I understand that will never happen. I just want people to have to drive at the same speed, whatever that may be.