Forum menu
DrCM I think he is suggesting you will get better information directly from the source than from his plagarised account. Suggesting he does not understand is a tad unkind.
Saying the WMD was wrong so this must be wrong is quite a large leap.
DrCM I think he is suggesting you will get better information directly from the source than from his plagarised account. Suggesting he does not understand is a tad unkind
It is a long article, which he clearly read, so I just wanted the edited highlights.
Why is that? Are you unclear about them?
Well according to [url= http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/unit3.4.1.php ]TAG unit 3.4: The Safety Objective[/url] the full methodology is apparently well covered in [i]Hopkin, J.M. and Simpson, H.[/i] (1995) [b]"Valuation of Road Accidents"[/b], TRL Research Report 163, Transport Research Laboratory, Wokingham. - but unfortunately I've left my copy at home and [url= http://www.amazon.com/Valuation-Road-Accidents-TRL-Report/dp/B000GRI4V4 ]Amazon are out of stock[/url].
Ahhh, the 'TJ lets half the number we made up' approach Niiiice
Yep, it demonstrates nicely how much variance/vagueness we can allow in that figure and still be over that £1m per death.
here you've conflated death and injury
No I haven't. That definition is for the "Loss of Output" figure, as used throughout the tables for death AND injury.
Does no one but me actually read any of these things?
Does no one but me actually read any of these things?
Which is why i asked you to explain it
Yep, it demonstrates nicely how much variance/vagueness we can allow in that figure and still be over that £1m per death
50% error margin?
Well according to TAG unit 3.4: The Safety Objective the full methodology is apparently well covered in Hopkin, J.M. and Simpson, H. (1995) "Valuation of Road Accidents", TRL Research Report 163, Transport Research Laboratory, Wokingham. - but unfortunately I've left my copy at home and Amazon are out of stock
they may well be, but do you know what they mean?
WTP also seems to be a flaky approach, with at least two types, and not universally accepeted
i think we all accept any estimate as a bit flaky what you need to do is come up with a better one based on sound[er] premises.
Let us know when it get published Graham can doa peer review. I will check for spelling errors 😉
i think we all accept any estimate as a bit flaky what you need to do is come up with a better one based on sound[er] premises.
But you also have to consider whether or not the bases of those calculations are reasonable or plausible.
Junkyard - Member
i think we all accept any estimate as a bit flaky what you need to do is come up with a better one based on sound[er] premises.
Let us know when it get published Graham can doa peer review. I will check for spelling errors
Errr no, I'm not suggesting the numbers are valid. I'm suggesting a high margin for error + massive fudge factor + incomplete data modelling = really, really dubious conclusions.
You prove em if you cite em. The WMD leap is one of confidence in Govt propaganda not a link between the two subjects. Don't be obtuse, it's unbecoming.
Furthermore we have to be careful to differentiate between valuation of death and costs of death. Valuations can be ascribed to theoretical constructs, but costs need to be real.
Bloody 'ell Charlie, it's alright turning now with all yer logic and that....
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 [url= http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/unit3.4.1.php ]figures in Table 3 in the TAG document[/url] (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 [i]"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 [u]includes the present value of consumption of goods and services[/u] that is lost as a result of injury accidents."[/i]
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 [i]think[/i] 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
Amen to that, modern does not neccessarily = road.There are benefits to society of having a modern [s]road based[/s] transport system
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
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