A peek into the inscrutable methods of our government

[azekeil]

A number of people have reported the shocking and arbitrary price set by the government on the cost of a life on Britain's roads. What got me more was not just the way in which it was measured (by a random survey of people listed on the electoral role into the amount of money they would pay to avoid risks in everyday life), but that the whole system was based in fear. I knew governments used fear to control the populace, but I didn't realise they used it to calculate how much to spend on safety.

That seems highly arbitrary - even more so than deciding where to spend money based on the cost of the (fatal) accidents in the various black spots. I'm not certain how I'd propose to spend the money, but I can't help feeling there is something ethically wrong with the way it's currently done.

Comments

[beyond-bananas.livejournal.com]

What is wrong is several things:
The figure is based on what the public think a life is worth. As opposed to an analysis of the all the costs involved,

and

The value differs in different areas on account of the public perception of the risks/ consequences (e.g. avoiding headlines) not on any economic basis or risk analysis.

The idea of spending money where is is most effective based on a value of a life (even an arbitary one) is sound, and is the basis of any risk management. You target the funds where it will be most effective. However determing how much to spend on safety based on an arbitary value is very suspect and in my opion if what is wrong here.

[kelemvor.livejournal.com]

But but but...

What swayed the decision was that the cost of accidents along the troublesome stretch — including that of Daniel’s death — had exceeded the cost of the improvements.

Surely the point of the exercise is to work out where to prevent such accidents - to shut the stable door before the horse ends up as n Big Macs?

Yes, I think it's very unethical. I can't think of a better way right now, though, which is bugging me.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

After a little thought, for transport, what about simply splitting money up according not to fear or risk, but to volume of passengers? That would be a start at least.