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.