Post

Mandatory insurance minimums were quickly invented in the 1920s—papering over a massive hole in driving costs: unpaid debts to victims of crashes maxmautner.com/2026/09/11/l...

maxmautner.comKilling someone with a car costs $1.6 million. California requires drivers to carry $30,000NHTSA puts the average economic cost of a traffic fatality at $1.6 million. California requires a driver to carry $30,000 in bodily injury coverage, and everyone who was not in the crash pays the rest...

Politics of Cars

@thismachinekillsfascists.bike

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

13 Sept

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...

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...

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.

13/9/26, 2:39 am0 reposts3 likes

Politics of Cars

@thismachinekillsfascists.bike

13 Sept

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.