Post

Just another gigantic subsidy to the auto industry

Tyler 🏳️‍🌈

@tcoop6231.bsky.social

America is littered with billboards for personal injury lawyers who claimed to get millions from accidents. But in most cases, somebody who runs over a pedestrian doesn’t have any assets to seize.

S.T. Bikes KC 🚶🚴 🚌 & 🚎

@stbikeskc.bsky.social

In my state if Missouri minimum is only $25k

12 Sept

I'm not sure how exactly the methodology differs but "The DOT’s valuation of a statistical life is 13.7 million"* and that order of magnitude seems intuitively more correct than only $1.6. *since I wrote this, it's been updated to 14.2 million politicsofcars.beehiiv.com/p/inadequate...

Aden Y

@adenyacobi.bsky.social

wsj.comWhy the Government Puts a Dollar Value on LifeThe Numbers: The EPA values a life at around $9.7 million. The DOT puts its figure at around $9.4 million. And the FDA values a life at about $9.3 million. Columnist Jo Craven McGinty explores the rea...

I think the NHTSA value of life measure used here only looks at direct economic contribution (at least that’s how it’s described in OP’s article) while the DOT valuation measures how people view the worth of their own life via the decisions they make www.wsj.com/articles/why...

mmautner

@maxmautner.com

That’s right. I err on the side of lower numbers as I have learned to reflexively shield myself from the harshest critics.

That's a fair rhetorical strategy. I will add, and I'm being blunt but not hyperbolic, that if your harshest critics prefer this lower value methodology they are eugenicists. They are saying the harm of a driver killing a person depends on how productive the victim was. Eg, no income, no harm.

12 Sept

Also, stopping uninsured drivers would be easy if policymakers wanted to. Low mandatory coverage and disregard for uninsured drivers is just another subsidy for driving, specifically a larger subsidy for the most dangerous drivers most likely to kill people.