I never posted this as the value of a life didn't feel proportional to the value of a lifetime, though i never really objectively understood why. Feels like a similar paradox to the repugnant conclusion.
Probably because no single person loses their entire remaining lifetime due to slower traffic, vs the person who dies in traffic that does.
Sitting in traffic is not the equivalent of being dead, so it's not as bad. The other side of the argument is that the people sitting in traffic are missing out on their peak years, while the reduced lifespan from a traffic death removes the last years, which at best are less enjoyable.
I can't tell if that's a joke or not.
If you want to approach it from a happiness utilitarian perspective, a year at 60 or 70 is usually worth more than a year at the lifetime average happiness.
Various sources show something like this: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/201207_...
I would argue that it is considerably worse, since people sitting in traffic generally have to be conscious during the experience, which is not the case for being dead.
It's just the calculus suffers from the same existential problem as abortion morality - how do you weight a lived life vs non-existence?
They won't help you with non-existence though.
* not clear 2 * 50% QALY == 1 * 100% QALY
* maybe factor in "non-existence" with expected life expectancy?
* need negative QALY to factor in pain, dissatisfaction
I think this one?
There was also some evidence that drivers give cyclists more room if they see they aren't wearing a helmet.
Personally I'm going to buy some pink lycra as I've noticed my wife gets far less aggravation from drivers than I do when we are out cycling.
(but we did it as a joke)
Llywodraeth Cymru (Welsh Government) claims that a public health study suggests its new 20mph limits will see, annually, a 40 per cent reduction in collisions, between six and ten lives saved, and anything from 1,200 to 2,000 people avoiding injury as a result.
Scale that up across the country and you are looking at way more than "4 or 5 lives".
But even that does not take into account secondary effects to reducing the speed limit like fewer people traveling, less air population, people having more time to meditate, etc... All in all, it's very hard to estimate the impact of such policy.
> fewer people traveling
I don't think anyone says to themselves "it's a 20mph zone on the route so I'm not going, if it was 30 I would go." Lower speed limit != fewer travelers.
> less air population
Assuming you meant pollution, the same amount of cars going slower would cause more pollution in a given area, not less.
> people having more time to meditate
I'm sorry what? Most people don't meditate, and how is sitting in the car longer going to give you more time to meditate?
Longer travel times result in fewer people wanting to travel. Was not expecting this to be controversial.
> The same amount of cars going slower would cause more pollution in a given area
Drag is proportional to the square of the velocity
> Most people don't meditate, and how is sitting in the car longer going to give you more time to meditate?
Meditate is perhaps the wrong word.
In general the slower you drive the lower your mpg (and hence pollution).