50% error margin?

Indeed. 50% woolliness variance factor – like a jumper that’s thick across the chest but all worn at the elbows 🙂

WTP also seems to be a flaky approach, with at least two types, and not universally accepeted

Agreed and arguably the cost of a life has no bearing on the argument if we are looking at this from a purely economic point of view (unless it involves counselling, treatment for depression for relatives etc which I don’t think it does).

Okay. So if we agree to ditch that “Human Costs” figure entirely then, and if we go from the figures in Table 3 in the TAG document (which seem to be more precise) we’re left with a figure of £615,102 average cost per RTA fatality.

Does that seem better?

Don’t forget to the theoretical future benefits that a motorist would bring to the economy. That needs to be offset against your £600k. Oh and you could apply your 50% error downwards = £300k…..

Blimey £1.7m to £600k in one sentence. Greece next.

Yes, better, but i would then question the value associated with loss of Output

the difference between the present value of lifetime output and consumption

Because just becasue one individual doesn’t produce the output, does not mean that it does not get produced

Blimey £1.7m to £600k in one sentence.

I’m not a zealot – Charlie put a reasonable case why me might not want to consider Human Costs in this calculation. I listened.

Because just becasue one individual doesn’t produce the output, does not mean that it does not get produced

True, but it is related to consumption as well – the full definition in the TAG document says that it 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. This includes the present value of consumption of goods and services that is lost as a result of injury accidents.”

You can argue that someone else will do the job – though as much of our economy is built on an expanding population I’m not sure that it is quite that clear cut – but it is definitely one less person consuming at the level the poor sod was before he was juice on the tarmac.

You can argue that someone else will do the job – though as much of our economy is built on an expanding population I’m not sure that it is quite that clear cut – but it is definitely one less person consuming at the level the poor sod was before he was juice on the tarmac.

Sure, he won’t consume as much dead as he might alive, but to the tune of half a million? I’m also not clear, but it seems as thought they added his income to his consumption, feels like double counting.

Sure, he won’t consume as much dead as he might alive, but to the tune of half a million?

Bear in mind that some of the casualties will be children so you’re looking at lifetime earnings and consumption from them.
Though even if someone is killed at 50 they may have had 15 years left at 33k pa.

If anything I’d say that figure seems low given the average UK salary is around 23k, but I guess a number of those killed won’t have been in employment.

I’m also not clear, but it seems as thought they added his income to his consumption

Yeah it’s not clear is it. I think they are saying in that definition that by considering his overall wage they’re already including the money he had to consume with (not sure how they count this for folk on benefits though? The have consumption power but no wage).

Yeah strange one that. Realistically, trying to say the 500k he hasn’t spent is a direct cost is quite a shout. It assumes that the stuff he was going to buy gets made anyway, which on small scale is true, but on overall markets, is not sustainable.

Must…not…get dragged back into the argument by retarded inflammatry/trolling comments.
I will FTFY tho

There are benefits to society of having a modern road based transport system

Amen to that, modern does not neccessarily = road.
Oh and i dont think anyone said close the roads and ban cars, just stop the all the death and especially stop the ambivalance* towards the deaths.

*plenty of which shown on here.

stop the ambivalance* towards the deaths.

Sure stopping the ambivalances will just increases the number of deaths! Are you suggesting folks just cycle themselves to the hospital

ok lets go with “…stop the WGAS attitude to the death”
damn dragged in again.

I’m oot, really really this time

I’m oot, really really this time

Sure, but hey, be sure to comeback when you have a coherent and defensible argument

ok you got me.

I wasn’t aware that “thousands of KSIs per year is a bad thing and this needs to be remedied” was an incoherent or indefensible argument.

*watches with interest*

Just when we were making progress and getting the made up number down, someone pitches up and tries to move the goal posts….

I don’t think anyone is saying the KSIs are a good thing, I’m questiong how the cost of a K is calculated. I think others are saying that they are an unfortunate side effect of having an efficient national transport system. We can’t stop all KSIs, especially not by throwing money at them. There has to be a balance. Saying that the money would be better spent elsewhere is not a WGAS attitude, just a rational decision about allocation of resources

How about a 20 mph speed limit in towns then?
All the benefits and fewer [ i so want to say less to annoy you] deaths
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/ResearchSummaryNo2_20mphZones.pdf

i assume we can all agree there are some costs and we would like to reduce the deaths even if we debate the exact costs.

Yes we can ag…we can agrrrrrrrrr. We can aa aa aaaaaagre eee. There are costs. 20mph limits in residential areas look like good value. Getting rid of cars, not so good