Around 40,000 American die each year on our roads, this has been pretty consistent for decades.
As we add more safety features, the marginal cost per life saved is going up. We got a big bang for the seat belt. But backup cameras cost around $5.7 million dollars in cost for every one life saved.
I commend NHTSA for their hard work, but I can't help but feel government safety mandates in cars are now scraping the bottom of the barrel in cost-effective life saving measures.
If I had to offer an alternative, SAMHSA, the government org focused on substance abuse seems to be under-funded and highlights numerous ways additional dollars can save lives.
So rather than scrape the bottom of barrel on making cars safer, perhaps we can instead spend that money on substance abuse interventions with youth and college age students that lead to alcoholism, binge drinking, and drunk driving. Maybe we would get more bang for our buck.
Unless this part of the bill isn't actually about saving lives, but then I'd have to ask why a Representative from Michigan would have an incentive to make cars more expensive other can wanting to save lives.
Backup cameras probably saved the economy from an insane amount of damages. I've never had an accident at speed, but I do have one insurance claim from reversing into a vehicle (sadly totaled another car because I had a Blazer with brutal rear visibility).
My point was about government mandated safety features.
Backup cameras have value for the consumer in preventing accidents and damage, the government didn't need to mandate their inclusions on cars as consumers voluntarily were willing to add this feature for years.
However, when the government forced all consumers on all to have to add this feature that is where the line was crossed.
I drive a fuel efficient Chevy Spark, it cost me maybe $11000 brand new. I drive an average of 5000 miles a year. When I have to replace the car, it will cost a lot more because now it will have cameras and drunk driving gadgets, etc. I dont even have an automatic transmission or power locks - these features are a waste of money for me, but the government is forcing me to purchase safety features and the economic value to society is spurious. I'd rather there be a sticker where my rear view camera is saying 'in lieu of camera we made a $2000 gift to clean water in Africa, it saved more lives, trust us'
> in lieu of a camera we made a $2000 gift to clean water in Africa, it saved more lives, trust us
Wait, so do you mean you don’t care about the extra cost at all, and you don’t care if Chevrolet charged you a lot more than the cost of a backup cam in order to donate? It’s just the government safety rule you object to?
Or are you saying you think backup cameras cost $2000?
And why didn’t you acknowledge the valid point that the economic value to society of backup cameras is in reduction in accidents, and not limited to loss of life situations?
Are you being honest with a dollars per life calculation? It seems misleading. What about the property damage value, how much is that? What about injuries?
According to the stats I found with a quick search that were used to justify the backup cam rules, there were 15,000 injuries per year in addition to the ~200 deaths. And one third of all backup related deaths are children under 5. What is the economic value of a child, and are you sure it’s less than 5.7 million?
I checked out the part out that mentions backup cameras, and it’s got misinformation contradicted by the report I already posted above. For example, the people talking claim nobody tried to analyze the benefit to people other than children, which isn’t true, and they claim the benefits of backup cams “didn’t work out”, while the report above shows the calculation isn’t expected to pay off until 2028 and isn’t expected to reach maximum benefit until around 2050, but will on the whole be a positive to the economy. “Not that many lives saved” just seems like such an awful position to take, when we’re taking about per-vehicle costs that are less than a week’s gasoline.
Interesting, thanks. I think the transcript was specifically calling out the low value of human lives that were used in the past. This report seems a lot more rigorous than the other investigations and articles I've seen.
This is also from 2014, which means the net cost/vehicle has probably come down a fair bit (camera modules are <$5 and most cars including entry-level are shipping with screens already).
Sometimes you need government mandates otherwise the industry standardizes a model that actually costs the consumer more. Bumper height and construction for example should be standardized because the incentive is for ineffective bumpers.
Forward visibility and pedestrian impact standards need to be set to prevent monster grills. A lot of this will actually lower total cost of ownership at little or no cost.
I found a stat that suggested ~100 [1] (another stat says 500 and 15,000 injuries (!) [2] and there's a 3rd between them [3]), so say 600 million. Given the insurance cost of replacing vehicles, that would only be 30k accidents prevented to pay for itself.
FWIW, I've heard anecdotally that the insurance companies pushed for backup cameras more than anyone else, but given the benefits to lower insurance (arguable, but in theory), less deaths and less injuries, it seems like a win. The technology will also get cheaper over the years.
I’ll take the backup camera even if it costs more than my expected savings on car damages because of the value of not having your day ruined by needing to talk to insurers. I got yelled at once by locals when I slightly nudged a car behind because they assumed I wouldn’t tell the owner of the other car! That sort of shit as well!
America has an abysmal annual death rate for automobiles (per one million citizens) compared to the Nordic countries (104 vs 27 in 2013). US is one of the worst in the developed world.
Clearly, something is being done correctly everywhere else.
> Around 40,000 American die each year on our roads, this has been pretty consistent for decades.
Isn’t this a misleading framing? It suggests that safety isn’t improving, but the population has increased, as have speed limits and road miles traveled. The per-capita death rates have been falling consistently for decades. See the first graph at the top of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_U...
>If I had to offer an alternative, SAMHSA, the government org focused on substance abuse seems to be under-funded and highlights numerous ways additional dollars can save lives.
>So rather than scrape the bottom of barrel on making cars safer, perhaps we can instead spend that money on substance abuse interventions with youth and college age students that lead to alcoholism, binge drinking, and drunk driving. Maybe we would get more bang for our buck.
Keep in mind though, it isn't tax money that's going to fund this, it's consumers, who will pay in the form of increased car prices. This means disenfranchising poorer people from being able to afford to own cars and/or reducing other features, such as increased passenger safety and fuel efficiency.
> We got a big bang for the seat belt. But backup cameras cost around $5.7 million dollars in cost for every one life saved.
Where does that figure come from?
Car sellers don't sell OEM cameras at cost. They have a ridiculous markup (between 5x & 10x and yes that includes certification & testing). Your $500 dollar reverse cam is cost at ~$50.
By mandating them, the 'luxury!' margin will magically disappear.
As we add more safety features, the marginal cost per life saved is going up. We got a big bang for the seat belt. But backup cameras cost around $5.7 million dollars in cost for every one life saved.
I commend NHTSA for their hard work, but I can't help but feel government safety mandates in cars are now scraping the bottom of the barrel in cost-effective life saving measures.
If I had to offer an alternative, SAMHSA, the government org focused on substance abuse seems to be under-funded and highlights numerous ways additional dollars can save lives.
So rather than scrape the bottom of barrel on making cars safer, perhaps we can instead spend that money on substance abuse interventions with youth and college age students that lead to alcoholism, binge drinking, and drunk driving. Maybe we would get more bang for our buck.
Unless this part of the bill isn't actually about saving lives, but then I'd have to ask why a Representative from Michigan would have an incentive to make cars more expensive other can wanting to save lives.