« The Age of Turbulence | Main | My Favorite Things Vermont »
Sentences of provocation
Our results suggest that if all states had primary enforcement seatbelt laws then regular youth seatbelt use would be nearly universal and youth fatalities would fall by about 120 per year.
Here is the paper. My question: how many expected saved lives are required for this law to be a good idea? Any comment on this post should suggest a specific numerical answer to that question.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on September 17, 2007 at 01:51 PM in Data Source | Permalink
Comments
I think the more important number is the reduction in serious injuries. How many people would be saved from a life in a wheelchair by using seatbelts?
So, the answer is 0.
Posted by: Morten at Sep 17, 2007 2:02:38 PM
The estimates I've heard indicate that we could save something like 30K lives per year in the US just by getting hospital professionals to wash their hands more frequently and take other hygienic measures. Presumably, we should be willing to spend no more than .4% of what that effort would take, multiplied by some sort of age and quality-of-life factors.
Posted by: Dave at Sep 17, 2007 2:03:45 PM
That's easy; 234.
Posted by: josh at Sep 17, 2007 2:12:28 PM
Comment one is too extreme. 1 is the answer.
Posted by: talboito at Sep 17, 2007 2:15:47 PM
Among other things, it depends in large part upon the necessary expenditure of law enforcement resources. How many people have to be pulled over and fined (costly transfer) for each life-unit or health-unit saved? Can primary seatbelt enforcement be easily integrated into a cop's regular duties, or are some going to be specifically looking for it, hence distracted from other things?
Part of me wishes it would be easier to issue fines for traffic behaviors which score high on commonality * danger, like high-speed tailgating, or barely-enough-time passing on two-lanes. Instead, practically harmless cases of speeding (in the fast lane, no traffic) are a huge waste of resources, common simply because proof is easy to come by.
Posted by: J. Goard at Sep 17, 2007 2:16:35 PM
Depends on the cost of enforcement. The minimum number of lives saved to make it a good idea would be cost_of_program/implicit_value_of_human_life.
IIRC from my Administrative Law class, the median tradeoff point in cost/benefit calculations about other environmental and safety laws assigns an implicit value of $6M per life. That is, if you're going to spend $720M to enact seatbelt laws, you'd be better off spending that money somewhere else, and saving more lives.
Perhaps controversially, I assign people's freedom drive a car unemcumbered by a seatbelt zero value.
Posted by: at Sep 17, 2007 2:17:32 PM
For libertarian nuts, like myself, the answer is basically infinite. No matter how many people make bad choices that end in their own death, you can't force people to make good choices. The 'right' thing to do is to strongly recommend that people use their seatbelt.
The realistic answer (i.e. for economists) is to find how much the government spends on each death (and injury) that could have been avoided with a seatbelt, then figure out how effective a seatbelt law would be (what percentage would begin using a seatbelt because of the law) and enact the law when the cost of the enforcement equals the savings from fewer deaths and injuries.
Posted by: Jolly Bloger at Sep 17, 2007 2:18:04 PM
Landsburg in his new book (conveniently advertised to the right) sites research that states for matters policy lives are historically worth $5-$10 million each. So a better question is what would the cost of implementing/enforcing such a policy be. Once we know the total cost we can figure out how many lives must be saved before it is worthwhile to implement.
Posted by: Jeffrey Kirchner at Sep 17, 2007 2:21:55 PM
Jolly Blogger's first paragraph is the libertarian response I suppose, while his second paragraph is the utilitarian response. I'm much more inclined to agree with the former.
Who was it that said if we want to increase safety on the roads put a dagger in the middle of the steering wheel aimed right at the driver?
Posted by: joe at Sep 17, 2007 2:25:51 PM
I do think it's important to know what the enforcement costs are (as several folks have mentioned already), but I expect there are also other externalities on the plus side that we may not be taking into account. According to the research, seatbelt wearing increased most for those who were the most likely to be involved in dangerous accidents. Did it also decrease their likelihood of getting in an accident in the first place? Or, maybe it has the opposite effect. Anyway, it would be good to know. I suspect 120 (the paper's projection of how many lives would be saved it these laws were implemented nationwide) is enough.
Posted by: paul at Sep 17, 2007 2:27:27 PM
For libertarian nuts, like myself, the answer is basically infinite. No matter how many people make bad choices that end in their own death, you can't force people to make good choices.
I used to believe this, but it turns out that driving without a seatbelt significantly increases the chances not only of you getting injured in an accident, but of other people in or out of your car dying. A driver with seatbelt can evidently exert enough control in an accident to increase the probability of his passengers and any bystanders living through it, if only by not becoming a large blunt object flying through the air at them. The effect is also present for unbelted passengers, to a smaller degree. No, I don't have a cite.
That moves seatbelt use out of the realm of personal responsibility, and into the realm of negligent endangerment, as far as libertarian analyses go. That makes unbelted driving not merely stupid, but morally wrong and legally sanctionable.
Posted by: Dave at Sep 17, 2007 2:33:35 PM
I'm also inclined to set the number at zero, since I suspect (paranoid quasi-libertarian that I am) that the real purpose of primary enforcement is to allow police greater latitude to pull "suspicious" drivers over for no reason other than that they appear suspicious, and then casually glance around the car to see if, say, drugs are peeking out from undere the driver's seat.
That having been said, I'm happy to allow it to be enforced on a primary basis if I can have fully-tinted windows.
Posted by: Rich at Sep 17, 2007 2:50:10 PM
Joe: AFAIK, it was Gordon Tullock who suggested spiked steering wheels as a way to create safer driving.
Posted by: angus at Sep 17, 2007 2:53:58 PM
I'm going to have to agree with Jolly Blogger's initial statement. There are many things that people do to put themselves at risk every day...sky diving, driving, smoking, etc. We allow all of these things because of certain constitutional freedoms that most people in this country still think are important. While I think everyone should use a seat belt...I can't help but think that New Hampshire has it right in determining that people are taking their own risks and that that is their own peroggative. Spend the money you want to spend on enforcement and use it for an educational campaign so people will eventually do the right thing...
Posted by: Brent at Sep 17, 2007 3:01:41 PM
120 is good enough
Posted by: baille at Sep 17, 2007 3:16:32 PM
120 is good enough
Posted by: baille at Sep 17, 2007 3:17:34 PM
Umm...every law saves zero lives, so I'm inclined to agree with talboito that that is a poor way to judge whether a law is warranted.
I'm of the belief that the minimum of civic-mindedness that should be expected of people is that they perform effortless or nearly-effortless acts that improve general well-being. For example, there is almost no cost in throwing trash in the garbage versus littering, so a minimum expectation is that people should not litter. That said, many people are not civic-minded (hence the existence of litter), which is why there are laws to encourage even these simple acts. I'll throw my vote in for a law requiring seatbelt in order to save one life (although, bloggers and others have suggested to me that seatbelt wearers drive more recklessly, so obviously if such a law were to cause more accidents than it would prevent, then it should not be instituted).
Posted by: Mike at Sep 17, 2007 3:23:32 PM
Does it affect your calculus that this is specific to (high school-aged) children rather than adults? We tend to be freer about restricting what children can do. It could be left to parental discretion, but there is some body count at which it becomes reckless child endangerment.
Posted by: Zubon at Sep 17, 2007 3:35:31 PM
I'm not libertarian and not so good at numbers. I would suggest, therefore, that those who choose not to seatbelt their children be required to make them available for organ donation. It's just a way, you know, to give back to the community.
Posted by: LowLife at Sep 17, 2007 3:55:13 PM
I see no difference between this and a leash law. In a vacuum, the law by itself is inoffensive. But the relationship it creates between citizen and state is no different than that between master and dog.
Posted by: 8 at Sep 17, 2007 3:56:10 PM
How many lives would be saved if we forced all drivers to wear helmets? The answer to the seatbelt question is probably about the same as the answer to the helmet question.
My answer is "infinity" to both questions. Those who have significantly different answers to the two questions have some explaining to do.
Posted by: Phil at Sep 17, 2007 4:11:33 PM
I once had a suggestion that rather than making seat belts mandatory
we make it standard policy or law that any individual in an accident and not not wearing seat belts would automatically be presumed guilty of contributory negligence. Under this condition they could collect insurance to recover damages but would not be eligible for pain and damage type
payments.
Posted by: spencer at Sep 17, 2007 4:26:32 PM
120 is nothing. We could save tens of thousands of lives by reducing the national speed limit to 45. And enforcing it at the fuel injectors. And requiring everyone to wear helmets. We could save hundreds of thousands of lives by making tobacco illegal. Not to mention alcohol. And high-cholesterol foods.
Posted by: efp at Sep 17, 2007 4:30:54 PM
There is no such thing as "saving lifes." You can only prolong them.
Posted by: Dave at Sep 17, 2007 4:50:40 PM
Oops. I meant "saving lives."
Posted by: Dave at Sep 17, 2007 4:51:39 PM
