While watching recent footage of a single vehicle accident in Brisbane recently, I counted 15 emergency staff attending the site.

Now at say $40 per hour, which is what they would cost the taxpayer considering loadings, super, compo etc etc, that’s a whopping $600 per hour being generated for the economy for one single vehicle accident.

Add to this the costs of the tow truck drivers, the clean up staff, the emergency staff at the hospital, the doctors, the specialists if required, rehabilitation workers if required, physio, psychologists, the list goes on.

Then we look at the legal side of accidents. The lawyers, clerks, barristers, judges, court staff etc etc.

Now it would be fair to say that that one single accident may well cost the tax payer/insurance companies upwards of $50,000 and, generate all these jobs, jobs we can ill afford to loose.

So, can we afford to rid our roads of accidents and, if we do, where will the replacement jobs come from for those who rely on these accidents for their incomes.

sadly the simple reply is in agreement with you posit

5 years ago it was realised that its possable to kill the bad bacteria that decay our teeth..but a cure?..that means dentists dont get their pay..for filling our mouths and gums..with mercury/and the other metal/FLUERIDES...a petro chemical waste by product...with oinly one use..to put in our food/water/teeth..and cause bone cancer

ditto the cure for ulcers..in the stomache...was proved to be via killing off the bacteria with a simple antibiotic....now one third of cancers are said to be caused by virus..lol

even the simple round worm...cures...or aliviates..the affects of that gluton issue...as revealed on the news last night...simple round worms installed into 75 people..to test the theory...these apparently got so much normality[reduced pain]..that they ALL decided to keep the worms

it sort of reveales the big drives..in the past to eliminate worms..so people get sick..[perhaps?]...i know from the studies in germany...set the foundation of making people sick..

..like removing iodine from our food..results in quasimoto disease

that you reveal..is compounded by the issue of over medication...thus the question expands...can we afford...a healthy society....docters fees..cost way more..than those blessed emergency worker's...

as per the recent egsample of 15.000 to inject cement into the spines cracked by de-calsification/weakening the bone...or thousands for a disposable syringe for a heart op...

simply speaking no sickness/no accident..no busines

Well then maybe the SES can started getting paid :) many hours of free time spent in emergency siutations.

One concern is that we cause accidents by too much protection. People do not learn common sense.

In a pool compex with water slides the kids are supervised by a bunch of Nazi making sure they do not run, skip or go down a slide together. If caught they go to sin bin. If they do it again they are evicted.

Kids want to endanger their lives, natural for them. So they tell Mum and Dad they are off to the pool complex but instead head to the rivers where they have had no training in dealing with dangers. It is correct to assume danger is a natural fact of life.

In the case of motor vehicle accidents though, too many drivers terrorists on wheels and should be stopped.

Two points

one is eliminating accidents is an exercise in diminishing returns…

to make the easiest inroads into the incidence of accidents are cheap and effective.. barriers, signs etc.

these simple measures produce dramatic savings for little cost but

the more an accident rate is expected to diminish the incremental preventive actions will become more expensive to deploy, example mechanical guards and licencing regulations

imho there is a level of accident which will never be avoided and it should be an economic calculation which will determines when that is reached, not some political or polemic activist demand.

Second point… vested interest building on rehctub post
I agree.. the number of experts and specialists who “attend” an accident will be in direct proportion to the availability of taxes to fund that attendance and most of these attendees are paid for from public taxes.

If politicians were held more directly accountable for the taxes they spend, then we would see a marked reduction in the specialist attendance units and a simplification of services, including the administration of those services without a serious increase in accident rates (diminishing returns in reverse).

An example… do we really need a CFA and an SES?

Could one body coordinate and administer the activities of these two state government monoliths more effectively than the existing separate organisations?

Do we really need local, state and federal government or could we be just as well serviced with local and federal government only.

The reason we have so many bureaucrats is because they have a vested interest, not in adding value through innovation and effort but by gaining a snout-hold on the public purse.

How much does idiot drivers cost me in health fees, and insurance.
Knock these constant offenders off the road for good.
Any one who gets a continuous stream of fines are just as bad, they are the ones that scream revenue raising.
If thats what it is there should be loads more of it.

Col
I have long thought that we are over governed and I to think a local and fed government would be enough.

Desmond
Many people assume that all offenders are licenced drivers, while in fact, they are not.

There was a serious accident up north recently where the driver was 4 times the legal limit and was unlicenced. How do you stop this?

One of the biggest problems we have here is that to many minority groups have to much say/pull.

I say all vehicles should be inspected every 2 years and put off the road if found to be un-roadworthy. The sib libs say, 'that's unfair to the battlers' as the cheap heap of crap they drive is all they can afford.

But he real issue still remains, can we aford to not have accidents?

Take the war OS. If our service men and women were not deployed there would they all have jobs?

Would there relatives back home have the additional income that is provided when there loved ones are on active duty?

As OUG says, there are many inventions/idears that can save money, but our ecconomy simply can't afford to impliment them for fear of lost jobs and or revenue.

Off track a bit, the gov is reforming the tax system and, one change looks like the tax agent may become exstinct to the majority of PAYG employees. Is this a good thing?
I think yes because many of them are blood sucking leaches, but in reality, can our ecconomy afford this?

Now that we have the 'code-black' policy to knock would-be overnight public hospital patients out with tranquilisers for a week or so in ICU against their will, there's no need for accidents outside the hospital. Just drug the patient senseless and they'll stay in bed indefinitely if there's a patient shortage.

Moreover, if funding is on the agenda, they'll just send a couple of cops over with an ambulance and drag the required patient down to the hospital at gunpoint, and then try to charge the abductee $600 for the 3km ambulance ride, so don't doubt the resourcefulness of the public health sector to still put bums on seats when everybody is driving carefully and making do quite okay without them.
Zey haf vays off makink you pay.

I looked at the thread a few times and walked away.
Not because of any post, the subject is very raw to me.
73 dead body's, that is how many my work life on roads saw me involved in.
Needless deaths as many as 4 in one event 4 times in fact.
12 in one week, our highway once killed in very big numbers.
Every one at such scenes understands it is a waste, need never have happened.
One of the best cops you could know had a break down after his tally got to 18, he never worked again.
Every one at that site, every dollar spent, could be better employed some other place.
The death toll is about 20% of totals no industries, none, can not be redirected to other tasks.
Would any of us? just one say we should not look for a cure for cancer because it would cost jobs?

I recall a conversation in 1997 between a few of us 1st year psycho students outside the common room between lectures, and someone suggested a now-forgotten but somewhat idealistic cure to the mental disorders of the world, and to that, another student added the perfect conversation stopper when she said, "but then us psychologists would have no jobs." or something to that meaning.

It might mirror in some ways to Kohlberg's famous moral dilemma, "Heinz steals the drugs." where the monetary value of life is part of the jigsaw.

That might beg the question of whose money and whose life?
Ours or theirs?

Belly, I hate accidents just as much as anyone, perhaps with the exception of the odd towy.

But seriously, where would these people be employed if not for the amount of accidents caused on our roads.

It's just like traffic offenders, sure, remove them, but then who pays the bills for the road works?

My question remains, can we afford not to have them?