Cost of a road fatality - £1M?
Discussion
I recently heard an interviewee talking about how 1/3 of road fatalities are caused by speeding and that each one costs over £1m to the tax payer. A common figure spouted I know.
To me that figure is pure fiction, does anyone know of any evidence to what the true figure is likely to be?
To me that figure is pure fiction, does anyone know of any evidence to what the true figure is likely to be?
You're not alone...
The total cost to the economy of a single road traffic fatality is (allegedly) of the order of £1 million, but the ABD and others have asked
-why the economists responsible for this 'calculation' fail to reveal in detail the basis for some of the estimated components which form a large part of the final sum for each type of accident
-why double accounting is excused in this context since the notional cost of emergency services involvement is already paid for...
-...and/or why, in years when road safety levels are claimed to have improved in spite of government traffic mismanagement, funds have not been witheld from accident and emergency services within the NHS on the basis of reduced demand
-why there is ALWAYS a contributory element from lost productivity regardless of employment status or employability and prospects, and never a reduction due to loss of umemployability
-whether there is a large estimated notional component claiming to represent the cost of distress to relatives and friends, and how this is arrived at
-why the existing contribution to the economy of road transport, particularly car use, fails to be included at the outset as a benefit in this type of cost-benefit calculation which usually only features exaggerated disbenefits while deliberately ignoring the positive aspects
There was a PR along these lines. To date no response.
The total cost to the economy of a single road traffic fatality is (allegedly) of the order of £1 million, but the ABD and others have asked
-why the economists responsible for this 'calculation' fail to reveal in detail the basis for some of the estimated components which form a large part of the final sum for each type of accident
-why double accounting is excused in this context since the notional cost of emergency services involvement is already paid for...
-...and/or why, in years when road safety levels are claimed to have improved in spite of government traffic mismanagement, funds have not been witheld from accident and emergency services within the NHS on the basis of reduced demand
-why there is ALWAYS a contributory element from lost productivity regardless of employment status or employability and prospects, and never a reduction due to loss of umemployability
-whether there is a large estimated notional component claiming to represent the cost of distress to relatives and friends, and how this is arrived at
-why the existing contribution to the economy of road transport, particularly car use, fails to be included at the outset as a benefit in this type of cost-benefit calculation which usually only features exaggerated disbenefits while deliberately ignoring the positive aspects
There was a PR along these lines. To date no response.
Just dug this out of the turbo towers filing system:
Professor of Transport Safety at University College London Dr Andrew Evans said:Which, with all due respect to the good professor, shows that I misfiled the report as it was under "accidents, costing" when it should have been under "b0ll0x, total".
A road fatality is costed out somewhere in the region of £1m. The potential death of a rail passenger, however, is priced at £3m. The high profile given to rail accidents is one large reason for the increased value.
The economist responsible for the calculation said "A value for the co-efficiency is then inserted into an equation to calculate whether the cost of implementing a new proactive lethality detriment system is worth more or less than the number of voters it could possibly save from knowing the truth, more or less, as the reduced death toll under labour is something we intend to build on with Gordon's help"
Here's the latest version of the document that makes the claim:
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_610642.hcsp
Read it and weep. It's part of Prescott's anti-car spin machine. No more and no less.
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_610642.hcsp
Read it and weep. It's part of Prescott's anti-car spin machine. No more and no less.
Without meaning to appear too uncaring to those on these forums who may have lost a loved one in such circumstances, surely this figure would be substantially different if the car user were killed instantly rather than was rescued and died in the hospital after lengthy surgery and care. How is this calculated, is it even considered. More importantly why are they trying to place a price on human life at all. After all I'm sure if we sacked Prescott, got rid of his Jags, houses and expense account we'd save the tax payer more than a million.
tvrslag said:Of course but then having that tragedy abused by government slags to further their bigotry isn't very nice either. Regardless of the cause of an accidental death, if at the time anyone in politics starts mouthing off in the media exploiting the situation, it wouldn't help would it?
Without meaning to appear too uncaring to those on these forums who may have lost a loved one in such circumstances...
There's a similar calculation for the 'total environmental cost' of road transport that includes a large fanciful estimate of the price an average person puts on improving the environment. What it actually represents is a big number thought up by the greens over a cup of lentil soup that they thought of to try and offset the vast benefits to society of something they don't like. We see the same mindset at work in the fatac sums.
TurboB I agree wholeheartedly with your comments, non of it is nice.
But they say it like somebody actually has to hand over 1m everytime somebody dies in a car accident. As said earlier all the services to support RTA are already in place and funded. If car accidents reduced, it would simply reduce the pressures on the services concerned and may reduce funding.
I think this type of cost reporting is just poor. It won't change a thing.
But they say it like somebody actually has to hand over 1m everytime somebody dies in a car accident. As said earlier all the services to support RTA are already in place and funded. If car accidents reduced, it would simply reduce the pressures on the services concerned and may reduce funding.
I think this type of cost reporting is just poor. It won't change a thing.
safespeed said:
Here's the latest version of the document that makes the claim:
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_610642.hcsp
Read it and weep. It's part of Prescott's anti-car spin machine. No more and no less.
Thanks, Paul, for providing the link.
The essence of the document is:
5. The values for the prevention of fatal, serious and slight casualties include the following elements of cost:
- loss of output due to injury. This is calculated as the present value of the expected loss of earnings plus any non-wage payments (national insurance contributions, etc.) paid by the employer.
- ambulance costs and the costs of hospital treatment.
- human costs, based on WTP values, which represent pain, grief and suffering to the casualty, relatives and friends, and, for fatal casualties, the intrinsic loss of enjoyment of life over and above the consumption of goods and services.
What sophistic bullshit. It borders on the outrageous.
- "human costs" - Can we truly put a monetary value on pain, suffering and grief? Of course we cannot.
Are pain, grief and suffering more valuable in wealthy countries, or for wealthy people?
Every one of our loved ones will die: will the financial "value" of the pain, grief and suffering of their survivors vary depending on the cause of death?
- "ambulance costs...hospital treatment" - These are genuine costs, true enough.
Have the Government and its parasitic consultants published the costs to society of DIY fatalities? How about the costs to society of rescuing errant sailors, windsurfers, riders, climbers and hikers? When we're being beaten over the head about the infinite benefits to society of cycling, why no reference to its costs?
Every human activity, including sitting on the sofa, has health risks and the costs inherent to them. If we were to have a league table of ambulance and hospital costs of all activities then perhaps this statistic would be worthwhile, In isolation and limited to RTAs, however, it is practically meaningless.
- "loss of output due to injury (or death)...the present value of the expected loss of earnings plus non-wage..." - You've got to love the chutzpah of anyone who would call this a "cost to society". How absurd.
First, we must remember that of the three costs adduced, this one will be by far the largest. If the average RTA fatality is 30 years old, he/she would have had 30 years remaining of expected working life. If the average wage (for someone between the ages of 30 and 60) is, say, £22k, plus non-wage costs of, say, another £5k, that would be £810k in lost something.
This category is pretty much the entire alleged cost.
How is this a cost? It is a loss of output of the person who has died before the end of his or her working life. Fair enough.
If the UK were in a condition of full employment, then that output would truly be "lost", in the sense that it could not be replaced. Yet most all the time, including at present, the UK does not enjoy full employment. There is always someone ready to step into a job, whether that job becomes available owing to premature death, retirement, emigration, child-rearing or numerous other reasons.
If there is always someone who replaces the output of the job-leaver, there is no lost output (ignoring frictional costs, which are real but inessential in relational to 30 years' output).
Even if the UK were continuously to enjoy full employment, however, we cannot say only that we've lost the late A's career output, which has an expected value of £810k. Crucially, we have also lost all the late A's expected future consumption, and that consumption would last for even longer than A's expected remaining working life.
That consumption is not limited to A's direct use of food, shelter, etc. It also applies to A's taxes and the non-wage costs that are foregone. For whose benefit are the taxes and non-wage payments? None other than A!
An easy way to think of this is to imagine that at one time the entire population of a place were to emigrate. All their output would be lost. Would the remaining, unpopulated land go into debt because of the massive loss of output? Of course not, because as of the moment of departure it would no longer have any expenses.
if I die in the next 20 yrs, my wife/family will get close to 500k from insurance payouts!
Perhaps the govt next step is to make people take out life policies for 1.5mil on their own life then the govt can cash in on that too - hell, they will even make a nice profit.
Perhaps they will insist on a yearly health mot, and co2 tax on the air we breath out shortly before announcing the compulsory life insurance scheem.
Bib - excuse me sir, before you die, can you show me you policy documents or else we will fine you and charge you estate death duties at 99%
>> Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 22 March 12:40
Perhaps the govt next step is to make people take out life policies for 1.5mil on their own life then the govt can cash in on that too - hell, they will even make a nice profit.
Perhaps they will insist on a yearly health mot, and co2 tax on the air we breath out shortly before announcing the compulsory life insurance scheem.
Bib - excuse me sir, before you die, can you show me you policy documents or else we will fine you and charge you estate death duties at 99%
>> Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 22 March 12:40
It's reasonable to try to estimate the impact of the loss of a person on the economy as a whole relative to per capita GDP if you're looking at long term cost/benefit for a policy, but to bandy that number about as if it was a cost in the everyday sense is extremely misleading.
I wonder if they would care to use the same methods to value the full economic cost of motorway delays caused by road repair work?
I wonder if they would care to use the same methods to value the full economic cost of motorway delays caused by road repair work?
flemke said:
- "human costs" - Can we truly put a monetary value on pain, suffering and grief? Of course we cannot.
Are pain, grief and suffering more valuable in wealthy countries, or for wealthy people?
Every one of our loved ones will die: will the financial "value" of the pain, grief and suffering of their survivors vary depending on the cause of death?
The SCP's have some fantastic statements on their websites and press release which show they don't even understand the background to the figures themselves - I will copy a few of the best here:
www.scottishsafetycameras.com/Who-Benefits.aspx
scottishsafetycameras said:
It is impossible to quantify the human cost of road casualties in terms of grief and anguish caused to those who have been involved in crashes or to those who have lost family and friends.
...
The Department of Transport estimates the economic cost of a death on Great Britain's roads is £1.3 million and the cost for a serious injury is £147,450*.
www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2006/01/25/newsstory7961346t0.asp
Andy Jones - Fife Safety Camera Partnership said:
“Government figures suggest each fatal accident costs £1.2 million and that’s without the human factor with suffering, loss and grief.”
Gareth
ATG said:
I wonder if they would care to use the same methods to value the full economic cost of motorway delays caused by road repair work?
Indeed .. or the full cost of extending the duration of each journey by artificially low speed limits and deliberately induced congestion, or the full cost of depriving otherwise law-abiding citizens of their licence to drive, job, income, house, family, etc.
GreenV8S said:
I wonder if they would care to use the same methods to value the full economic cost of motorway delays caused by road repair work?
Indeed .. or the full cost of extending the duration of each journey by artificially low speed limits and deliberately induced congestion, or the full cost of depriving otherwise law-abiding citizens of their licence to drive, job, income, house, family, etc.
Those things don't count, DON'T COUNT, DON'T COUNT!
Why can you not get it into your head: Government is always right, citizens are always wrong.
>> Edited by flemke on Wednesday 22 March 14:12
Surely the actual cost is a lot more if the preson is seriously injured. Taking into account the requirement for lengthy and expensive hospital treatment, along with the possibility of permenant after care. Couple this to the fact that chances are you might not be able work again but will still require funds / money / benefits on which to live for the remainder of your life, and you friends and family will still suffer anguish depression etc.
Its just complete rubbish and in the crudest and most insensitive way tries to account for human life.
Its just complete rubbish and in the crudest and most insensitive way tries to account for human life.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff