If I bring up the topic of making decisions on safety measures based on a Vision Zero policy vs a traditional cost/benefit analysis, I imagine that I might see the rolling of eyes or frowns or skeptical looks. After all, how could I expect the question of profit to be tossed aside when requiring a corporation to make a costly change in order to bring about “public health and safety”?
It’s the law after all. http://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/Utilities/EO_Redirect.jsp
” . . . in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, agencies should select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity), unless a statute requires another regulatory approach. ”
What I would like to point out is that, by allowing the cost/benefit analysis requirements of the federal rulemaking process to stand as is, what we are saying is:
If the cost to society of a proven means to prevent the loss of human life is higher than the monetary Value of a Statistical Life ($9.4 million as of 6/17/2015), then we cannot justify requiring its implementation by law.
Can the loss of human life be thus weighed against economic loss? Is it really comparable? Human life is reduced to a dollar amount which can be compared to/weighed against corporate profit–dollar for dollar? Equivalent. Apples to apples.
AnnaLeah & Mary losing their lives to preserve trucking industry corporate profit? I don’t think so!
Maybe we need to call for a statute which “requires another regulatory approach. ” Just sayin’ . . .