Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Can one estimate the value of life or is it better to be dead than stuck in traffic?

Contents:

Author Info

  • Hauer, E.
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    In an analysis of whether to replace STOP signs by YIELD signs, the value of life lost was pegged at $1,500,000 and the value of time at $6.71/hour. These numbers imply that when the sum of traffic delays accumulated by many drivers is equal in duration to the average lifetime lost in a fatal crash (37.3 years), the cost of such delay is higher than the cost of an average lost life. Most find this to be disturbing. If so, why is it that estimates of the value of time and life allegedly based on people's preferences are at odds with what most prefer? A search for the root of this problem leads to Schelling's distinction between the value of death to those who die and the value of the probability of dying to those who live. He thinks that while it is not possible to put a value on one's own death, it is possible to put a value on changes in the probability of one's own death. I think that this distinction does not solve the problem. If it is impossible to have preferences for consequences that would have to be experienced posthumously, it cannot help to make the event of death still more remote by a dimly perceived probability. People may be willing to express preferences and econometricians may be eager to interpret them. But, inasmuch as these preference are vacuous, they have no interpretation and attempts to do so may lead to the noted inconsistency. Consistent use of a wildly incorrect value of life in cost-benefit analyses involving risk leads to consistently incorrect conclusions. Instead of using a questionable value of life in dispassionate-looking computations, it may be better to give legitimacy to public decisions more directly by a mechanism akin to a ballot or a jury.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VG7-468C5VW-3/2/27d33d01b51587ca026958f2ade1a01b
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.

    Volume (Year): 28 (1994)
    Issue (Month): 2 (March)
    Pages: 109-118

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:28:y:1994:i:2:p:109-118

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description

    Order Information:
    Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional
    Web: https://shop.elsevier.com/order?id=547&ref=547_01_ooc_1&version=01

    Related research

    Keywords:

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Elvik, Rune, 2013. "Paradoxes of rationality in road safety policy," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 62-70.
    2. Holz-Rau, Christian & Scheiner, Joachim, 2011. "Safety and travel time in cost-benefit analysis: A sensitivity analysis for North Rhine-Westphalia," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 336-346, March.
    3. Arianne de Blaeij & Raymond J.G.M. Florax & Piet Rietveld & Erik T. Verhoef, 2000. "The Value of Statistical Life in Road Safety: A Meta-Analysis," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 00-089/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    4. Mouter, Niek & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2013. "Ranking the substantive problems in the Dutch Cost–Benefit Analysis practice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 241-255.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:28:y:1994:i:2:p:109-118. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.