I'm not convinced the added safety is worth it.
If you had the choice between getting to your destination in 20 minutes, with a 11.4 in 100,000 chance of dying, or arriving in 25 minutes with a 3 in 100,000 chance, which would you choose?
If you had the choice between getting to your destination in 20 minutes, with a 11.4 in 100,000 chance of dying, or arriving in 25 minutes with a 3 in 100,000 chance, which would you choose?
Option #1 takes 40 * 365.25 * 24 * 11.4/100000 = 40 hours off your life.
Option #2 takes 40 * 365.25 * 24 * 3 /100000 = 10.5 hours off your life.
Statistically speaking then, option #1 takes off about 30 hours of your life compared to option #2.
In fact, with those numbers you shouldn't take option #1 unless you only expected to live for another 1-2 months.
On the other hand, logging workers have a highest occupational rate of death, at 127.8 per 100,000 full-time workers per year. Assuming 2000 hours per year gives a much fatality rate per hour than what you've posited, so I don't understand your point.
I sure hope you do not drive if that is your attitude to safety.
A couple of reframes for example:
Would you rather drive a road where you gain 5 minutes and increase your chance of death by 4?
Would you rather drive a road where you lose 25% of your travel time to obstacles and change your chance of dying from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 30,000?
I believe the US government does have guidelines for how much a human life is 'worth' (~10M I had thought...) [0]. It's one of the 'objective' calculations taken into account when analyzing these types of projects.
My comment was actually incorrect, since it's 11.4 in 100,000 per year. I think I'd want my spouse to spend 1/5th less time driving for the increase in risk.
One issue is that going fast often doesn't kill the driver due to modern car safety, but some unsuspecting other road user.
In other words the drivers aren't carrying the risk so they are not the right people to ask whether this is a good trade-off.