Question for SafeSpeed......
Discussion
mybrainhurts said:
If each fatality costs + £1,2 million total...
It doesn't.
That figure includes fixed costs that must be paid, whether or not the death occurs.
Doctors' salaries is one example.
Yes - we get paid - as do all hospital staff as a fixed cost - and our life support equipment does include a depreciation cost as well. Given progress and use - a pretty speedy depreciation charge.
Timewise - we have to record and write up reports on the patients as well - even if we lose the patient.
Then there is the cost of the autopsy...and more paperwork...
But then again - could argue the same for all sports/domestic accidents - and of course my own field of "lurgies" ...
Mad Moggie said:
If each fatality costs + £1,2 million total...
It doesn't.
That figure includes fixed costs that must be paid, whether or not the death occurs.
Doctors' salaries is one example.
Yes - we get paid - as do all hospital staff as a fixed cost - and our life support equipment does include a depreciation cost as well. Given progress and use - a pretty speedy depreciation charge.
Timewise - we have to record and write up reports on the patients as well - even if we lose the patient.
Then there is the cost of the autopsy...and more paperwork...
But then again - could argue the same for all sports/domestic accidents - and of course my own field of "lurgies" ...
Not sure if you've missed my point.
You get paid for treating a casualty.
You get paid if there is no casualty, and you're twiddling your thumbs.
So your salary should not be included in the financial "cost" of a death.
But that's what they've done in reaching that £1.2million figure.
mybrainhurts said:
If each fatality costs + £1,2 million total...
It doesn't.
That figure includes fixed costs that must be paid, whether or not the death occurs.
Doctors' salaries is one example.
Oh it's FAR worse than that. It comes from "Highways Economic Note One":
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_610642.hcsp
For a fatal accident we have:
'Lost output': £475,922 (what the dead person would have earned)
'Medical and Ambulance': £817
'Human Costs': £907,698 (nominal value for grief)
'Value to society' (i.e. the total): £1,384,463
This is make-believe intended to support anti-car policies.
safespeed said:So £817 then...
If each fatality costs + £1,2 million total...
It doesn't.
That figure includes fixed costs that must be paid, whether or not the death occurs.
Doctors' salaries is one example.
Oh it's FAR worse than that. It comes from "Highways Economic Note One":
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_610642.hcsp
For a fatal accident we have:
'Lost output': £475,922 (what the dead person would have earned)
'Medical and Ambulance': £817
'Human Costs': £907,698 (nominal value for grief)
'Value to society' (i.e. the total): £1,384,463
This is make-believe intended to support anti-car policies.
Is it just me, or is there something vaguely obscene about trying to put a "cost" on someone's death? (And possibly on trying to put a "price" on a living persons "worth"
(As a senior academic well known in his (useful to society) field, I'd probably get described as a "valuable member of society" as a live person, and a "tragic loss" if squished - but they are both a fat lot of use/consolation to my family!)
(As a senior academic well known in his (useful to society) field, I'd probably get described as a "valuable member of society" as a live person, and a "tragic loss" if squished - but they are both a fat lot of use/consolation to my family!)
Prof Beard said:
Is it just me, or is there something vaguely obscene about trying to put a "cost" on someone's death? (And possibly on trying to put a "price" on a living persons "worth"
(As a senior academic well known in his (useful to society) field, I'd probably get described as a "valuable member of society" as a live person, and a "tragic loss" if squished - but they are both a fat lot of use/consolation to my family!)
No ist not "just you". Both my cousins were sad losses to us - und they had potential to really do much worth with lives - of benefit to society. People say that drugs/medicine I brought to licence would not be here...if... I had....er
...ach...
But that ist also not true - one of my colleagues would have achieved similar or same work...with similar result.
But ja... not one day pass when we do not think of our lost pals - und we also count those who die from illness as well. Und also the ones who pass naturally from old age as we did love them very much.
But you cannot place money cost on this feeling - ist like trying to assess my housewifey work which ist a part of life as we have to eat und we have to keep thing clean und tidy und orderly...especially with all these kittens running all over place...
In uncertain world of redundancies, career changes, new skill developments und aptitudes und earning - ist impossible to determine how much cash person might have earned betwen untimely death und retirement - or even if he would have achieved potential or even developed beyond his then current skill.
Mad Doc treat lurgies und he und his patients do lose the fight with the lurgies ...it cost to try to fight it und he not get paid on success rate -- but on his presence und persistently relentless fight to prevent the contagion und stem the development of the diseases. Ist a fixed cost
- und let us not forget that in case of RTC - NHS does claim back cost of treatments from motor insurance companies - und if you like we all pay via these premium. (Und I do speak from the experience of this claim back occurring to me all those year ago.)
Prof Beard said:
Is it just me, or is there something vaguely obscene about trying to put a "cost" on someone's death? (And possibly on trying to put a "price" on a living persons "worth"
The justification has always been as a resource allocation test. For example if we intend to spend cash on a safety scheme, we need to know we're spending it wisely.
But I've just solved it. We just need to define a standard in terms of 'cost per life saved' that can be applied across the board. Then we can compare safety schemes on a standardised relative basis without ever going to the obscene place.
An alternative that may be important would be cost per life-years saved. Sometimes it might be important to characterise the difference between prolonging life for 20 minutes and 50 years.
Fancy writing a paper?
safespeed said:
Is it just me, or is there something vaguely obscene about trying to put a "cost" on someone's death? (And possibly on trying to put a "price" on a living persons "worth"
The justification has always been as a resource allocation test. For example if we intend to spend cash on a safety scheme, we need to know we're spending it wisely.
But I've just solved it. We just need to define a standard in terms of 'cost per life saved' that can be applied across the board. Then we can compare safety schemes on a standardised relative basis without ever going to the obscene place.
An alternative that may be important would be cost per life-years saved. Sometimes it might be important to characterise the difference between prolonging life for 20 minutes and 50 years.
Fancy writing a paper?
Possibly, but I'm working on something else at the moment
safespeed said:
One of the bigger sticks with which we batter the SCPs is saying that it's all about revenue generation.
It isn't about revenue in any simple sense. As you say the cash that ends up in the treasury is chicken feed.
HOWEVER, the original motivation seems to have been revenue. It all started because camera manufacturers made heavyweight presentations to politicians and senior civil servants suggesting that they would be failing to fulfil their duties if they didn't buy speed cameras.
And most of these damnable camera partnerships are run as nasty little empires mostly by nasty little empire builders. More cameras means more fines means more importance and a bigger little empire to control. That's the way for a local authority style manager. And that's why DfT have ben forced into changing the funding arrangements. The partnerships have been running out of control. By taking back the purse strings the DfT is taking back control.
These days there are a lot of sincere people involved who really do believe that they are on a life saving mission. And don't forget DfT has a long term history of handing out trustworthy road safety information. These missionary types can fall back on that - "if the DfT says so, it must be right". It's only in the last decade or so that the DfT information has been dodgy and it's taking time for the world to withdraw its trust.
The senior politicians are also mostly sincere. They really do believe it. What we really need are more politicians with degreees in science, egnineering, statistics or maths - or even advanced driving qualifications. These degrees in history, languages or literature just don't cut it when it comes to dealing with systems.
Sorry, but this does'nt hold water. We need a good, solid, strong argument to fight back with- against Monboit, politicians and do-gooders. Saying that local authoritie partnerships are "nasty little empire builders" is just silly. Where is the proof? It sounds like you're name calling.
I support all you are doing, but a piece like this will just be taken in the press as "oh look: he's lost it. Lets do an article showing a partnership cheif exec as a family woman with disabled childresn doing charity work" or somesuch.
Can we have a better argument, please?
What concerns me is that, as we all know, statistics can always be represented in a way to suit the person making the point.
For example, what difinitive evidence is there that any reduction in accidents is due specifically to speed cameras?
Someone mentioned TopGear and mr Ladyman. Well there is my very point. They say to put up a speed camera there has to be a certain number of speed related 'crime' incidents at that site. And i remember Jeremy Clarkson reminding Mr Ladyman that one of the cases for the justification on the M4 was someone jumping off a Bridge!!
I think what really riles me and many other motorists is that we drive the roads every day and we have our eyes open and experience 1st hand what the causes of accidents are and its not because someone is doing 85mph instead of 70mph on a clear open stretch of motorway in good weather conditions in a well maintained modern car.
The real world holds the truth but its the statistics that make the rules!
For example, what difinitive evidence is there that any reduction in accidents is due specifically to speed cameras?
Someone mentioned TopGear and mr Ladyman. Well there is my very point. They say to put up a speed camera there has to be a certain number of speed related 'crime' incidents at that site. And i remember Jeremy Clarkson reminding Mr Ladyman that one of the cases for the justification on the M4 was someone jumping off a Bridge!!
I think what really riles me and many other motorists is that we drive the roads every day and we have our eyes open and experience 1st hand what the causes of accidents are and its not because someone is doing 85mph instead of 70mph on a clear open stretch of motorway in good weather conditions in a well maintained modern car.
The real world holds the truth but its the statistics that make the rules!
williamp said:
One of the bigger sticks with which we batter the SCPs is saying that it's all about revenue generation.
It isn't about revenue in any simple sense. As you say the cash that ends up in the treasury is chicken feed.
HOWEVER, the original motivation seems to have been revenue. It all started because camera manufacturers made heavyweight presentations to politicians and senior civil servants suggesting that they would be failing to fulfil their duties if they didn't buy speed cameras.
And most of these damnable camera partnerships are run as nasty little empires mostly by nasty little empire builders. More cameras means more fines means more importance and a bigger little empire to control. That's the way for a local authority style manager. And that's why DfT have ben forced into changing the funding arrangements. The partnerships have been running out of control. By taking back the purse strings the DfT is taking back control.
These days there are a lot of sincere people involved who really do believe that they are on a life saving mission. And don't forget DfT has a long term history of handing out trustworthy road safety information. These missionary types can fall back on that - "if the DfT says so, it must be right". It's only in the last decade or so that the DfT information has been dodgy and it's taking time for the world to withdraw its trust.
The senior politicians are also mostly sincere. They really do believe it. What we really need are more politicians with degreees in science, egnineering, statistics or maths - or even advanced driving qualifications. These degrees in history, languages or literature just don't cut it when it comes to dealing with systems.
Sorry, but this does'nt hold water. We need a good, solid, strong argument to fight back with- against Monboit, politicians and do-gooders. Saying that local authoritie partnerships are "nasty little empire builders" is just silly. Where is the proof? It sounds like you're name calling.
I support all you are doing, but a piece like this will just be taken in the press as "oh look: he's lost it. Lets do an article showing a partnership cheif exec as a family woman with disabled childresn doing charity work" or somesuch.
Can we have a better argument, please?
The fundamental problem with arguments centred around cash is that many of those involved are not really motivated by the cash. The better arguments are about 'speed and safety'. You'll find them crystalised at www.safespeed.org.uk/againstcameras.html . If you're uncomfortable with the cash arguments then just steer clear and say: "What about the road safety results?"
However I have met some nasty little empire builders and I didn't choose my words lightly.
Fire99 said:
I think what really riles me and many other motorists is that we drive the roads every day
unlike mp's who if remotely inteligent get a driver to speed them along in a pool car (not company car so they dont pay tax), or the back bench dimwits who just get 1st class rail travel. for free.
safespeed said:
Oh it's FAR worse than that. It comes from "Highways Economic Note One":
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_610642.hcsp
Is it only me, or has anyone else notice that DFT looks remarkably like an abbreviation of "daft" - hence we have a document entitled "Daft Road Safety"!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff