A thought on BRS

> I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
> things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.
>
> Comments?

Sam Pelzman, a fellow economist here at the University of Chicago,
once argued on similar grounds against seat belts in cars. He pointed
out, quite correctly, that long sharp steel spikes on the dashboard
would be far more effective at lowering the accident rate.

John Cochrane

john.cochrane@gsb.uchicago.edu (John Cochrane) wrote in message news:<b3fb7b1b.0404261005.60e09914@ com>...
> > I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
> > things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.
> >
> > Comments?
>
> Sam Pelzman, a fellow economist here at the University of Chicago,
> once argued on similar grounds against seat belts in cars. He pointed
> out, quite correctly, that long sharp steel spikes on the dashboard
> would be far more effective at lowering the accident rate.
>
> John Cochrane

So I assume that Sam (and, by concurrence, you) had said spikes
installed on his car.

Tom Seim

john.cochrane@gsb.uchicago.edu (John Cochrane) wrote in message news:<b3fb7b1b.0404261005.60e09914@ com>...
> > I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
> > things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.
> >
> > Comments?
>
> Sam Pelzman, a fellow economist here at the University of Chicago,
> once argued on similar grounds against seat belts in cars. He pointed
> out, quite correctly, that long sharp steel spikes on the dashboard
> would be far more effective at lowering the accident rate.
>
> John Cochrane

So I assume that Sam (and, by concurrence, you) had said spikes
installed on his car.

Tom Seim

Tom Seim wrote:
> john.cochrane@gsb.uchicago.edu (John Cochrane) wrote...
>
>>>I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
>>>things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.
>>>
>>>Comments?
>>
>>Sam Pelzman, a fellow economist here at the University of Chicago,
>>once argued on similar grounds against seat belts in cars. He pointed
>>out, quite correctly, that long sharp steel spikes on the dashboard
>>would be far more effective at lowering the accident rate.
>>
>>John Cochrane
>
>
> So I assume that Sam (and, by concurrence, you) had said spikes
> installed on his car.

If you think about it for a second, you'll realize it only works if
*everyone* has the spikes installed 8^)

Marc

Tom Seim wrote:
> john.cochrane@gsb.uchicago.edu (John Cochrane) wrote...
>
>>>I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
>>>things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.
>>>
>>>Comments?
>>
>>Sam Pelzman, a fellow economist here at the University of Chicago,
>>once argued on similar grounds against seat belts in cars. He pointed
>>out, quite correctly, that long sharp steel spikes on the dashboard
>>would be far more effective at lowering the accident rate.
>>
>>John Cochrane
>
>
> So I assume that Sam (and, by concurrence, you) had said spikes
> installed on his car.

If you think about it for a second, you'll realize it only works if
*everyone* has the spikes installed 8^)

Marc

Tom Seim wrote:
> john.cochrane@gsb.uchicago.edu (John Cochrane) wrote...
>
>>>I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
>>>things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.
>>>
>>>Comments?
>>
>>Sam Pelzman, a fellow economist here at the University of Chicago,
>>once argued on similar grounds against seat belts in cars. He pointed
>>out, quite correctly, that long sharp steel spikes on the dashboard
>>would be far more effective at lowering the accident rate.
>>
>>John Cochrane
>
>
> So I assume that Sam (and, by concurrence, you) had said spikes
> installed on his car.

If you think about it for a second, you'll realize it only works if
*everyone* has the spikes installed 8^)

Marc

Tom Seim wrote:
> john.cochrane@gsb.uchicago.edu (John Cochrane) wrote...
>
>>>I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
>>>things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.
>>>
>>>Comments?
>>
>>Sam Pelzman, a fellow economist here at the University of Chicago,
>>once argued on similar grounds against seat belts in cars. He pointed
>>out, quite correctly, that long sharp steel spikes on the dashboard
>>would be far more effective at lowering the accident rate.
>>
>>John Cochrane
>
>
> So I assume that Sam (and, by concurrence, you) had said spikes
> installed on his car.

If you think about it for a second, you'll realize it only works if
*everyone* has the spikes installed 8^)

Marc

john.cochrane@gsb.uchicago.edu (John Cochrane) wrote
> > I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
> > things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.
>
> Sam Pelzman, a fellow economist here at the University of Chicago,
> once argued on similar grounds against seat belts in cars. He pointed
> out, quite correctly, that long sharp steel spikes on the dashboard
> would be far more effective at lowering the accident rate.

And so it would. Accident rates have been on the rise for years.
However, fatality and serious injury rates have been falling. Seat
belts, airbags, crumple zones, and other safety devices that operate
outside the driver's control make driving safer for the occupants -
not the vehicle.

It takes a much worse accident than it used to in order to cause
fatalities or serious injuries, but a lot less to total out a vehicle
- which was more expensive to begin with because of all the safety
features.

I'm not saying this is a good tradeoff or a poor one, but it's
disingenuous to pretend it's not there. It's equally disingenuous to
pretend that we couldn't prevent 95% of highway fatalities quite
easily. All it would take is a 35 mph speed limit for divided
highways and a 17 mph speed limit for other roads - and draconian
enforcement. It wouldn't prevent the accidents, but it would
eliminate most of the fatalities. Of course we don't do this because
we want to get where we are going quickly.

Michael

john.cochrane@gsb.uchicago.edu (John Cochrane) wrote
> > I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
> > things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.
>
> Sam Pelzman, a fellow economist here at the University of Chicago,
> once argued on similar grounds against seat belts in cars. He pointed
> out, quite correctly, that long sharp steel spikes on the dashboard
> would be far more effective at lowering the accident rate.

And so it would. Accident rates have been on the rise for years.
However, fatality and serious injury rates have been falling. Seat
belts, airbags, crumple zones, and other safety devices that operate
outside the driver's control make driving safer for the occupants -
not the vehicle.

It takes a much worse accident than it used to in order to cause
fatalities or serious injuries, but a lot less to total out a vehicle
- which was more expensive to begin with because of all the safety
features.

I'm not saying this is a good tradeoff or a poor one, but it's
disingenuous to pretend it's not there. It's equally disingenuous to
pretend that we couldn't prevent 95% of highway fatalities quite
easily. All it would take is a 35 mph speed limit for divided
highways and a 17 mph speed limit for other roads - and draconian
enforcement. It wouldn't prevent the accidents, but it would
eliminate most of the fatalities. Of course we don't do this because
we want to get where we are going quickly.

Michael

> I'm not saying this is a good tradeoff or a poor one, but it's
> disingenuous to pretend it's not there. It's equally disingenuous to
> pretend that we couldn't prevent 95% of highway fatalities quite
> easily. All it would take is a 35 mph speed limit for divided
> highways and a 17 mph speed limit for other roads - and draconian
> enforcement. It wouldn't prevent the accidents, but it would
> eliminate most of the fatalities. Of course we don't do this because
> we want to get where we are going quickly.
>
> Michael

This has been the argument against raising the speed limits on our
highways, ever since they were lowered by that benevolent dictator
Jimmy Carter. The only problem, the argument is wrong! We learned that
after raising the limits and watched the fatality rates continue to
drop.

Common wisdom is, sometimes, uncommon nonsense.

I think the problem is tunnel vision safety analysis by "experts" that
vastly overrate their abilities. Part of the problem with the speed
limits is that drivers weren't obeying the limits to begin with.
Raising the limits merely reflected the reality of the situation.
Draconian enforcement simply won't work, at least not (fortunately) in
the U.S., because law enforcement works only by voluntary compliance.
There simply are not enough cops and jails out there to impose a law
that the vast majority of the population won't accept. This clearly
happened with the poorly thought out national speed limit. But there
still is a group that, even with all of the evidence to the contrary,
thinks that it will work.

Instead, we should put the effort into things that do work. The most
dramatic example of this is mandatory seat belt usage. In Washington
state this became a primary law (you can be stopped for it), which
resulted in compliance rates in the 85-90% range (instead of 15-20%
before there was any law). No changes were required to cars since the
belts were already there. Most people have accepted the law, but there
is still a vociferous minority that reject it. Everybody benefits,
besides being safer, with lower insurance rates.

Tom Seim