From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: "Helpful" government
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:30:21 GMT

lp> Loren I. Petrich
gs> Gary Strand

  [Regulation: little kids on planes have to be in special seats that take
   up one airline seat each]

lp> If the plane starts hitting some turbulence or has a rough landing, the
lp> poor tyke can get quite a bounce. Now is _that_ very safe?

gs> As I recall, the number of kids' deaths that could have been avoided if 
gs> the kid was in a child seat on the plane was <10 over a decade. Obviously,
gs> the FAA failed to do a life/life analysis of their new rule.

lp> Does that mean that they are _supposed_ to be careless about safety in the
lp> supposed interest of economics? 

  No. Note that I didn't say "life/dollar analysis", I said a "life/life an-
  alysis". Big difference. 

lp> How many families would be driven into cars, anyway?

  Certainly enough to cause more than the deaths of 10 children over the span
  of a decade. Remember, we're talking about a very small number of deaths
  of children. It doesn't take much to create a situation where the result-
  ant number of deaths is greater.

lp> [I]t's VERY easy for a kid on a parent's lap to get a bad bump on the 
lp> head.

  Enough to warrant spending the money for an additional seat? I doubt it.

lp> That's the same reason for putting little kids into special seats in cars,
lp> also.

  There's a difference in that a good many auto accidents are survivable, so
  it's practical and wise to put the kid in a special seat. Aircraft accidents
  are only occasionally survivable, so it really doesn't matter if the kid
  is in a seat or not.

lp> And how much extra cost is it for a vacationing family to put a little kid
lp> in his/her own seat? For a family of 4 with one kid very small, it would
lp> be 1/3 extra; for a family of 3, about 50% extra. Some airlines may offer
lp> discounts for such travelers; ask about family fares.

  True, but that doesn't discount the fact that airline tickets can be very
  expensive. It's entirely possible for an additional ticket for a child to
  cost several hundred dollars, a non-trivial expense.

gs> When [Amtrak] starts running in the black on a continuous basis, I'd say
gs> sell it and start saving us taxpayers money. Heck, sell it now, and save
gs> us money now. Why should *I* subsidize it, when a private company can run
gs> it just as well, or better, than the Feds?

lp> And also do that with roads and airports. If travel subsidies are to be
lp> a big no-no, they must be a big no-no for _everything_.

  Yep. That's the libertarian position.

lp> I suspect that, when all the numbers are counted up, trains and buses will
lp> beat out cars except for thinly populated areas and airplanes except for
lp> _very_ thinly populated areas like Alaska and very long distances.

  Of course, how does one put a dollar value on certain aspects of auto tra-
  vel, for example, going *exactly* from point A to *exactly* point B, or
  the ability to leave at *any time*, even 2:34.23am, and so on? I haven't
  owned a car for about 4 years, and I know all the shortcomings of altern-
  ative forms of transportation.


--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF