(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