GM Inside News Forum - View Single Post

goblue · 03-03-2005, 09:32 AM

Exactly, this is really poor logic. I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find...
-An accident that could have been avoided by $10 more of suspension components
-$10 more spent on brakes may have allowed a few more to be avoided
-$10 may buy another 20 hp to allow something to be avoided
-Or how about $10 of better tires
-Or $10 bucks worth of steel for the side impact beams
We could do this all day and easily add 5K to that explorer, and it would still flip over when the driver cranks the wheel to the left doing 80mph.

The problem is that the accidents are rare where these items would help - therefore if the auto industry is anything like the aviation industry - they calculate the number of lives saved and divide it into the cost of implementing it on the vehicle that year as well as add'l gas an maintenece costs. You find the incremental cost of saving a life and if its over a threshold, you don't do it. This is why you don't have shoulder belts on commercial aircraft. The incremental cost per life was around 20 million. The healthcare industry does the exact same thing - thats why colonoscopies at 50 and mammograms are recommended, while annual CT scans looking for cancer aren't.

03-03-2005, 09:32 AM	#6 (permalink)
goblue 6.2 Liter LS3 V8 Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 3,527	Re: Explorer Suit Costs Ford Exactly, this is really poor logic. I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find... -An accident that could have been avoided by $10 more of suspension components -$10 more spent on brakes may have allowed a few more to be avoided -$10 may buy another 20 hp to allow something to be avoided -Or how about $10 of better tires -Or $10 bucks worth of steel for the side impact beams We could do this all day and easily add 5K to that explorer, and it would still flip over when the driver cranks the wheel to the left doing 80mph. The problem is that the accidents are rare where these items would help - therefore if the auto industry is anything like the aviation industry - they calculate the number of lives saved and divide it into the cost of implementing it on the vehicle that year as well as add'l gas an maintenece costs. You find the incremental cost of saving a life and if its over a threshold, you don't do it. This is why you don't have shoulder belts on commercial aircraft. The incremental cost per life was around 20 million. The healthcare industry does the exact same thing - thats why colonoscopies at 50 and mammograms are recommended, while annual CT scans looking for cancer aren't.