Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC830713); site erix.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcvax!enea!erix!robert From: robert@erix.UUCP (Robert Virding) Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: Fast driving Message-ID: <261@erix.UUCP> Date: Mon, 13-Feb-84 14:11:09 EST Article-I.D.: erix.261 Posted: Mon Feb 13 14:11:09 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 17-Feb-84 06:19:26 EST References: <244@erix.UUCP> <314@denelcor.UUCP> Organization: L M Ericsson, Stockholm, Sweden Lines: 23 >> Given that some sort of balance is needed, we might as well approach it >> rationally. (I realize that since we're involved with laws and therefore >> politics, that will never happen; but I can dream.) Balancing lives saved >> by not being in an accident with lives wasted by taking (e.g.) twice as >> long to get where you want to go sounds like a reasonable first approach >> to me. Then we will start trying to balance: On a personal level. How much time are willing to offer to increase the chance that you will get where you want to go? How much time is it worth to you not to end up in hospital (if you die we'll assume that you stop worrying about time) and maybe never get where you wanted to go? How much time are you willing to offer not to have to pay for the effects or your accident? On a more national level. How much does an accident cost society (or the tax payer)? If you ignore any personal suffering the cost of any non-trivial accident is large. The amount of time and money saved in reducing traffic accidents would be such a benifit to society (and the inviduals living in it) that it would more than balance (what you wanted to do) the effort involved.