Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-01-2014, 06:55 AM   #121
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by athena53 View Post
At some point you need to make an intelligent decision about what you're spending to prevent something and whether the money would be better spent elsewhere.
Yet when our society does that, folks who don't like the answer try to claim that their own personal appraisal of what is an "intelligent decision" should trump that of everyone else.
__________________

__________________
bUU is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 08-01-2014, 08:48 AM   #122
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
easysurfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby View Post
... This is one of those "feel good" solutions that doesn't make economic sense.
The situation is still very subjective. A cost benefit analysis and it may not make economic sense, except for the families that suffer the tragedy then saving just one life at any cost makes perfect sense.

Do the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many? Ah..flashbacks of Star Trek movie.
__________________

__________________
Have you ever seen a headstone with these words
"If only I had spent more time at work" ... from "Busy Man" sung by Billy Ray Cyrus
easysurfer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 09:06 AM   #123
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby View Post
Using the numbers provided by Katsmeow above, it appears that between 58 and 69 lives per year will be saved - when it is fully implemented in 2054. .... but even if we only took the annual expense ($100 x 15 million = $1.5 billion), you are still spending $21.74 million ($1.5B / 69) to save a single life. ... This is one of those "feel good" solutions that doesn't make economic sense.
Well, I said we should run the numbers and not dismiss it out of hand. So those numbers are enlightening, but we also need some context.

How many injuries, how many life-long disabilities? Surely not everyone who is backed over dies. I imagine most deaths occur if the tires run over you, and the car is much wider than the tires are, and I would guess there are far more injuries than deaths. So add the cost of injuries and lifetimes of care to that, and also property damage, and the costs/benefit ratio will be lower. Plus, it has some value as a convenience in parking, it isn't all 'cost' for safety.

Just thinking of property damage, a simple 'fender-bender' from backing into a car that wasn't seen can easily run $1000 per vehicle. If that happens in the life of one out of twenty cars (for illustration, I don't know the number), the $100 is paid back.

Likely there is better use of the money, we'd need to see some alternatives for comparison. I think there is an emotional side of this too. Often, the kid that is run over is a relative or neighbor, and the guilt factor must be terrible. Some other deaths do not have such a direct cause - they are just as sad, but it is different I think.

BTW, the deaths versus injuries issue is one I bring up regarding auto versus airline stats. Most airline crashes result in deaths, not injuries. So comparing airline deaths to auto deaths is misleading, as autos have far more injuries than deaths. Airlines are even safer than they appear on a death per mile or trip comparison.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 10:55 AM   #124
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Free To Canoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cooksburg,PA
Posts: 1,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby View Post
I think the backup camera is a fine option for those who see some value in it. I don't think it should be mandatory for everyone.
I'm with Gumby.
Having a back up camera gives car designers an excuse for not designing a car that has good visibility.
__________________
Free to canoe
Free To Canoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 10:59 AM   #125
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Katsmeow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,399
If you look at the link I gave they do an analysis of costs v. Benefits which I found interesting. For example, property damage to cars is also reduced through this because people hit fewer things.

Anyway if you go to that link they do analyze the costs in great detail.
__________________
Katsmeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 10:59 AM   #126
Moderator Emeritus
aja8888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: The Woodlands, TX
Posts: 7,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Free To Canoe View Post
I'm with Gumby.
Having a back up camera gives car designers an excuse for not designing a car that has good visibility.
You mean like this?

limited2.jpg
__________________
aja8888 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 11:24 AM   #127
Full time employment: Posting here.
misanman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 536
DS and DIL both work as engineers in the auto industry. They say that poor rearward visibility is largely due to various government safety regulations that dictate the parameters of car design. So it seems to me that the safety regulations have resulting in a unsafe condition, thus we need another safety regulation.
__________________
"The best thing about the future is that it happens one day at a time." -- A. Lincoln
misanman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 11:39 AM   #128
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
braumeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Northern Kentucky
Posts: 8,617
Absolutely!
Like the hearing protection required because of the extra-loud backup alarms.
__________________
braumeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 05:21 PM   #129
Administrator
Gumby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katsmeow View Post
If you look at the link I gave they do an analysis of costs v. Benefits which I found interesting. For example, property damage to cars is also reduced through this because people hit fewer things.

Anyway if you go to that link they do analyze the costs in great detail.
Didn't have time to look this morning, because I had to go to w*rk. I'll take a look now. Edit to add: Now I have reviewed the proposed rule, I see that the NHTSA generally agrees with me on the cost per life saved -- between $15.9 million and $26.3 million. Taking all costs and benefits into account, they believe that the rule will have a negative return -- between negative $202 million and negative $281 million per year. That means they have accounted for the injuries, the deaths and the property damage and the rule still has no net financial benefit.

Let's take the low number of -$202 million. They say it will avoid 58 - 69 deaths and avoid 1125 to 1332 injuries. Lets take the top of that range. So we, as a society, will be paying $202 million to avoid death or injury (no matter how slight) to a total of 1400 people --equaling roughly $144,000 to avoid even one slight injury. I'd be willing to bet that I can prevent more than one death or injury for $144k. For example -- the website surrogatemothers.com quotes a fee to the surrogate of $0 - $20,000 for obtaining the services of a surrogate mother. If I took the $144,000 and went around to abortion clinics, I might be able to pay 7 or more women to carry their babies to term and give them up for adoption rather than go through with a termination. Indeed, if we just look at deaths and the $15.9 million to prevent even one, I might get 795 women to take me up on my offer. That would save far more lives than NHTSA's rear view camera rule.

I agree wholeheartedly that, as a parent, your children are priceless. My point is that in a world of limited resources, we need to put those resources to the place where they will do the most good. Backup cameras are not that place.
__________________
Living an analog life in the Digital Age.
Gumby is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 06:11 PM   #130
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,284
Deleted... already talked about by others...
__________________
Texas Proud is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 06:13 PM   #131
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by athena53 View Post
I'm a retired actuary so this type of analysis warms my heart. There's not enough of it. I've always said that if we want safer cars we could all drive around in tanks, but (thank God) the market won't support that because they'd be too expensive, wouldn't go fast enough and would probably get 2 mpg. At some point you need to make an intelligent decision about what you're spending to prevent something and whether the money would be better spent elsewhere.
Actually it could be done for a LOT less... make the seats stronger so they do not break in a crash... have everybody wear 5 point seat belts like they do in racing cars.... and heck, have a roll cage installed... look at the guys in NASCAR who walk away from a 150 MPH collision....
__________________
Texas Proud is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2014, 03:35 AM   #132
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,914
Indeed. What the new regulation is doing already reflects directing resources to the place where they will do the most good.
__________________
bUU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2014, 12:37 PM   #133
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Free To Canoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cooksburg,PA
Posts: 1,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by aja8888 View Post
You mean like this?

Attachment 19524

Exactly! What a beauty!
__________________
Free to canoe
Free To Canoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2014, 02:50 PM   #134
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by easysurfer View Post
I had a similar thing happen with my old Garmin bean bag friction mount.

I did fix that problem with some extra anti-slip grip tape.

Amazon.com: Incom RE3952 Black Gator Grip Anti Slip Safety Grit Tape, 4-Inch by 15-Foot: Home Improvement
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelover View Post
I smeared silicone caulk all over the bottom of mine once it got slippery and that worked for a long time. As I live on a dirt road, eventually the dust worked its way into the silicone and it, too, became slippery.
Worth considering. Do either of these scratch or mark up the dash?
__________________
MichaelB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2014, 02:55 PM   #135
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
easysurfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
Worth considering. Do either of these scratch or mark up the dash?
In my case, no the dash was fine when I removed the tape to sell the car. (When applied, the grit side was up and that made contact with the slippery bean bag mount surface). Of course, the car was already about 15 years old so I didn't care had the dash got scratched up. But no scratches, at least on an old Plymonth Neon dash.
__________________
Have you ever seen a headstone with these words
"If only I had spent more time at work" ... from "Busy Man" sung by Billy Ray Cyrus
easysurfer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2014, 03:02 PM   #136
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
travelover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
Worth considering. Do either of these scratch or mark up the dash?
The dust imbedded into the tacky rubber was super fine - like talcum powder - and thus did not scratch.
__________________
Yes, I have achieved work / life balance.
travelover is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2014, 12:49 PM   #137
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Indeed. What the new regulation is doing already reflects directing resources to the place where they will do the most good.
What is your basis for that?

Gumby did the math a few posts back, and it does seem that there could more effective options available - giving us more benefit for fewer $ (though I will not comment on his proposal for fear his example will drive this thread off the rails, which I see as odd behavior for a mod/admin).

I haven't taken the time yet to verify his math - I found that pdf to be rather convoluted with changing terms throughout, so it would be easy to get tripped up, but I'll assume he got it right for now.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2014, 02:28 PM   #138
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,914
Gumby did the math based on a backhanded and cynical attempt to trivialize the decision to terminate a pregnancy by claiming he'd bribe women to carry babies to term. If you considered that a serious reply and proposal, then we really have no common ground on which to converse about the topic.

Regardless, different assumptions (assigning a higher value of life than NHTSA did, and taking Gumby's partisan irrelevancies out of the calculations) yields the opposite result. Reasonable people disagree. It is critically important to understand that in order to understand what other people say to you. Clearly, that which you prefer didn't prevail in this case. That's life.
__________________
bUU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2014, 05:30 PM   #139
Administrator
Gumby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Gumby did the math based on a backhanded and cynical attempt to trivialize the decision to terminate a pregnancy by claiming he'd bribe women to carry babies to term. If you considered that a serious reply and proposal, then we really have no common ground on which to converse about the topic.

Regardless, different assumptions (assigning a higher value of life than NHTSA did, and taking Gumby's partisan irrelevancies out of the calculations) yields the opposite result. Reasonable people disagree. It is critically important to understand that in order to understand what other people say to you. Clearly, that which you prefer didn't prevail in this case. That's life.
An argument examines facts and analyzes them to arrive at a proffered conclusion -- in this case that the proposed backup camera rule is uneconomic and should not be implemented. An argument may use hypotheticals and counterfactuals to illustrate the reasoning. My post was an argument. Yours is unsupported opinion -- essentially, "do this because I think it is important".

I chose the hypothetical I did to illustrate, as starkly as possible, what may occur when the choice is made to invest society's limited resources in one way and not another. The fact that promoters of the backup camera point particularly to saving children as a prime benefit of the proposed new rule prompted my use of that particular hypothetical. It is not a statement reflecting my views about abortion or what factors may or may not go into a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy. It is not a proposal that we bribe women to carry to term. It is merely an illustration. It seems you are unable to comprehend that and would prefer to ascribe malicious motives to me. I call foul.
__________________
Living an analog life in the Digital Age.
Gumby is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2014, 07:33 PM   #140
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Gumby did the math based on a backhanded and cynical attempt to trivialize the decision to terminate a pregnancy by claiming he'd bribe women to carry babies to term. If you considered that a serious reply and proposal, then we really have no common ground on which to converse about the topic.

Regardless, different assumptions (assigning a higher value of life than NHTSA did, and taking Gumby's partisan irrelevancies out of the calculations) yields the opposite result. Reasonable people disagree. It is critically important to understand that in order to understand what other people say to you. Clearly, that which you prefer didn't prevail in this case. That's life.
Well, I do agree with you that his comparison was quite off the wall - I'm not (and will not) talk about that.

But assuming his math regarding $/benefit (reduced death, injuries, and property damage) on the cameras is correct, then it does strike me as a high ratio, and I imagine (though have not given any examples) that there could likely be more effective uses for that money.

The only thing we seem to be disagreeing on is whether backup cameras are a clear-cut best use of our funds to reduce death, injuries, and property damage. I think the question is open.

In the overall scheme of dumb things the govt mandates, I doubt this would make the top 100. It may be far from optimal, but it isn't outright stupid or bad, IMO.

-ERD50
__________________

__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PSA: on PSA (applicable for men) Midpack Health and Early Retirement 57 03-08-2014 09:45 AM
Does the dividend payout affect NAV? trustee FIRE and Money 10 12-10-2013 09:00 PM
Why does vanguard high yield bond NAV decline floatingdoc FIRE and Money 30 01-19-2011 04:58 PM
Toyota - who's buying? CCdaCE Stock Picking and Market Strategy 38 03-05-2010 01:34 PM
Vanguard NAV values for external companies Alan FIRE and Money 2 11-13-2009 09:15 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:05 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.