Earlier quoted context omitted.
The model you present here is semi-quantitative, in that it has an example value of $1000 for insurance premiums, another of $X for liability, but "small chance" is not introduced as a variable, and neither are "lot larger" and the change in premiums as a function of change in safety spending. I suspect that if this model were completed in accordance with your premise of equality, it would imply there is no rational…
> The model you present here is semi-quantitative, in that it has an example value of $1000 for insurance premiums, another of $X for liability, but "small chance" is not introduced as a variable, and neither are "lot larger" and the change in premiums as a function of change in safety spending. All of the numbers are obviously made up examples because in practice they depend on what the risky behavior is and the val…
Precisely - there is a rational case for insurance despite your analysis.
The fact that cars have, on average, become heavier lately is at most a cherry-picked second-order effect that is far from sufficient to refute either what I wrote in my previous post, or in my original post in this thread. Despite your analysis, it is plausible, and IMHO extremely likely, that the same forces that have led to the improved situation since Winterbottom v. Wright will continue to improve the situation for pedestrians and other motorists, as they have in the past.