Check out this very cost-effective safety innovation. The way I read it this one-time expenditure of $630,000 has already saved many lives.

Economists are often accused of being cold, heartless beasts for complaining that some safety devices are too costly. But these critics really miss the point. Let's suppose we have $1 million to spend and two safety devices we can buy. Option A will save 1 person per year and Option B will save 20 per year. Which should we choose? Obviously B.

The economist's point is that spending money on low-yield options like A means that we forgo spending on high-yield options like B. People are less safe not more safe as a result. Non-economists will ask why we can't do both A and B, but the economic reality is that scarcity precludes us from doing everything we want. In a world of scarcity, it is important that we choose options like B before options like A.

The sad fact is that all too often our political process forces us to spend resources on options like A instead of B.