dr_who@umcp-cs.UUCP (07/24/83)
True, I ignored benefits of airbags in non-fatal collisions. And non-fatal collisions, while less serious, are more common. Still, I seem to recall that total deaths are more disvaluable than total nonfatal injuries, from the last time I looked at a cost-benefit analysis involving auto safety. If anyone knows any numbers, please provide them. I also ignored the costs of wearing seat belts to that fraction of people who will not bother to unbuckle their "automatic" seat belts, and the cost (time, inconvenience) of buckling and unbuckling to those 85% who do not now wear seat belts. These people have decided that the "trouble" of wearing a seat belt is not worth the added safety. Admittedly, that decision is usually due to stupidity, but we shouldn't ignore that preference completely. I don't know what the period of amortization has to do with costs. Is it that the automakers are pretending that they have to "tool up" for airbags every year, or is it that they just didn't use an extended payment period? In the latter case, the only difference would seem to be the tax advantages to the company of a longer write-off period (if there are any). But note that such tax advantages just transfer costs from automakers to taxpayers. Anyway, consider the trend. In 1977, NHTSA listed the airbag cost at $112 per car. In 1979, NHTSA said $333. The GM and Ford estimates I gave last time were made in 1980. The estimates seem to go up and up. At the most, each automaker might be required to put airbags in some small fraction of its fleet. Then we could learn what the costs and benefits really are. By no means should we rush into this without reliable information obtained from real experience. And alternatives to airbags should be investigated. I still doubt that airbags are the most cost-effective way to improve auto safety. --Paul Torek, U of MD College Park