Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (76260)	7/12/2011 10:25:55 AM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217927

Mq.. at sixty mph... 88 ft per second !!! .. on a crowded highway half a second is death... not talking about road trains in the vastness of Oz... I think you are using your big paddle again... most folks can barely walk and chew gum.. they think they can until it's too late... My favourite absurdity is the 80 kph speed limit on motorways, or 100 kph where there is not a bend for kilometres and 160 kph would be a reasonable speed, I agree on the speed.. said it already.. we have great highways in Ontario but a dumb racing law with SEVERE penalties for 50 kph over the limit.. which is too loosely interpreted.. 150kph plus in good weather is perfectly reasonable on many stretches.. but some folks think it is reasonable in heavy traffic when most are doing say 110 and bunched up.. and weave in and out like Nascar until they kill someone.. if they could manage to only kill themselves or better simply render themselves quadriplegics I would cheer... but it is usually the fool that walks away unscathed.. You never address the victim angle.. I don't appreciate being a victim so someone else can discover their inner asshole :O( TBS

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (76260)	7/15/2011 11:25:27 AM
From: Joseph Silent	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217927

(OT) Loss of life and productivity loss. MQ, you are good at this kind of analysis. I'm curious to know if anyone has looked at things this way. The following article news.yahoo.com has something to do with bad driving in China. What caught my eye is the statistic: In China, where someone is killed in traffic every five minutes. I don't know how things like productivity loss are arrived at. Poking around, I found that as of 1989 (quoting from an article by Rice et al), as far as the U.S goes, injury deaths represent 36 life years lost per death and a productivity loss of $334,851 per death. Presumably, this involves all injuries and not just travel-accidents. Perhaps, as of 2011 we can multiply this number by 3, and so its roughly $1Mil productivity loss per injury-related death. No way for me to know what this cost is globally, but let's say it's $100K. Now, in China alone, the article suggests there are 288 deaths per day, on average. Multiply this by some factor, say 2, to get a global number ..... so perhaps 500 travel-related deaths per day all over the world. [This number seems way too high to me, but then a single bus can show 50 deaths.] We talk about productivity in terms of oil ..... because oil is energy. So per gallon of oil, there are known measures of productivity. I can't help wondering if there are measures of how much productivity is lost (through travel-related accidents) per gallon of oil ..... when you consider all such modes of travel and related accidents, including air, train, ship, auto etc. Every time I think of such things, I arrive at the usual point where we are faced with a lack of data. And, of course, it seems someone is always ready to step in with a theory to fill that gap :). It seems crazy that, in this day and age, we are not able to generate reasonably accurate data. The data will not prove theorems, but may suggest what can be studied more and/or proved.