This is very disturbing.

-- Anonymous, July 16, 2001

Answers

I've not read that in detail Screach but heard the report on the radio that smoking deaths have saved a lot of money in pensions therefore smoking is a good thing. I think that was the gist of it.

It's a very clever idea. On the same basis the winter fuel payments could be withdrawn and there'd be a double bonus of saved fuel payments and saved pensions. But education is also a huge drain on an economy. Perhaps a policy of infanticide could save even more money.

Is it economists who "know the price of everything and the value of nothing"?

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2001

The first time I went to the States I was talking to someone about my hubbie`s motorcycle accident. I asked why crash helmets weren`t compulsory in America and was told that they did try to introduce a law along those lines. Apparently there was a hue and cry from the insurance companies because although the crash helmet saved lives, it also meant that riders were surviving with multiple, or worse still, long term injuries - and it was costing them a fortune!

I don`t know accurate this is, but why did it not suprise me?

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2001

....I thought that was profesional footballers, Jonno?

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2001

Regurgitating an earlier thread - and this is half tongue in cheek, so don't go down me throat - you could use a similar argument that capital punishment has economic benefits.

This is bottom of the barrel stuff on the part of Philip Morris. The monumental hypocrisy of all governments where smoking is concerned, I think, is what encourages this sort of approach to justifying the existance of the tobacco industry.

In fact, why not combine the two and force condemned criminals to smoke themselves to death ? :-U

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2001

There was a classic case like this in the US about 20 years ago involving the Ford Motor Co. They had a car called the Rabbit, that was similar to a Fiesta.
The Rabbit was involved in whole series of accidents involving rear-end collisions in which the petrol tank exploded, generally incinerating the inhabitants.

In a subsequent investigation it was revealed that Ford knew there was a definable risk, but had declined to invest in raising the tank above the rear axle - which would have dramatically reduced the risk - because the cost involved. This was actually a trivial amount, but was calculated as not being a worthwhile investment in their risk/benefit analysis.

In performing this calaculation they had inferred the cost/value attributable to a human life - and were quite rightly publicly condemned over it.

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2001

That almost the exact desciption they give it in Fight Club :))

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2001

The Rabbit was the Mk I VW Golf, I think...or maybe the Polo. The best thing you can do to improve car safety is to affix a six inch metal spike pertruding from the the centre of the steering wheel. See how many avoidable accidents happen then!

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2001

Nah, it was deffo a small Ford, much like the Fiesta. I'm sure it was called the Rabbit - the "Pony" perchance?

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2001

I believe that all motor cyclists should wear helmets. Having said that, the issue in the USA differs somewhat from that in the UK. In the UK, the State has the responsibility for the health of its citizens. The statistics show that there are less injuries if motor cyclists wear helmets -- ipso facto -it makes them compulsory. In the USA, as I wrote in another thread, the accent is on the rights of the individual. The Federal Government does not, by and large, have responsibility for health care. There is much less cause for it to legislate. Some states do insist on wearing them -- Florida only recently relaxed its ruling for local driving. With regard to insurance companies, who bear the cost of accident -- they can if they wish introduce a clause exempting them from liability or part of it if the injured party was not wearing a helmet.

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2001

There was a film made with exactly that story line, the crux being that it was cheaper to pay out on the odd insurance claim than to re- tool etc to modify the car.

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2001

Clarky...it was the Pinto that exploded. Became quite a joke over here and really hurt Ford. It also happened just as the rise of inexpenive, high-quality Japanese imports was occuring..which didn't help Ford at all.

Off the topic, but whenever I hear talk of the Pinto it reminds me of an ex-boyfriend. I had no idea what kind of car he had until he showed up at my parent's house for our first date....in a faded grass-green Pinto. I was absolutely mortified(a Pinto was bad enough...this was an ugly Pinto) and very happy to get home alive that night. I tended to do the driving as much as possible after that. Not that the relationship lasted very long. ;-)

Floridian is right about the individual rights issue with crash helmets here. It's also the argument people use against being forced to wear seat belts, and now against the inevitable laws banning the use of hand-held cell phones while driving. This is most definitely the country of 'Me'.

And nothing surprises me about the tobacco companies. Philip Morris is evil.

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2001

There is no doubt that the Managements of the tobacco companies were incredibly stupid. The Freedom of Information statute was bound, sooner or later, to reveal that they had concealed the cancer risk involved in smoking. Had they come clean at the time they knew it, they would not now be facing the tremendous liability to the federal government, state goveernment and private individuals. On the other hand, unless one has been living on a desert island (which has tobacco plants) for the last seventy years or more, the injurious effect of smoking was well known. Even James 1 (1603-27) railed against it. I am appalled by the large settlements -- so much of it will go to ambulance chasing lawyers or to individuals who were fully cognizant of the risks they were taking.

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2001