The act directs the secretary of transportation to take measures to ensure the protection of children around parked cars. In 2012 it will effectively require all car manufacturers to include rear-mounted video cameras to prevent drivers from backing over children.
While I do agree with DiA that pieces of legislation named after victims of crime or accidents are frequently bad and ill-considered, and I certainly agree that the costs of regulations might not always be as well thought out as they should, I have to raise an issue with the way he presents these costs:
Let's do the math. If we stick to the low end of the estimate and say the rule will cost carmakers $2 billion a year, and assume that it will fulfill its potential and save 100 lives a year (having never used a rear-mounted camera, I can't comment on its effectiveness), then the cost of saving each life comes out to $20m a year. Is it worth it?
Put this way, I would say no. Sorry kids, but that's an awful lot of money to spend to keep a very small number of you from jumping in front of backing up cars.
However, if you're going to use this sort of math, you need to further consider the number of cars sold each year. In 2009, even with an abrupt drop in the number of cars sold, the United States still saw 10,000,000 cars moving off dealership lots. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that means that while collectively, each child saved costs $20m a year, the costs attached to an individual sale are a mere $2.
Again, $20m is an awful, awful lot to spend to save a single life. However, I think you need to wonder how many individuals buying a car wouldn't be willing to fork over a couple of bucks to protect a child?
To be honest, I'm still trying to work this through in my head. Thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment