Disutility costs

Blomquist (1986) claims that risk compensation is a natural part of human behaviour where individuals pursue multiple goals with limited resources, and shows that this can be described with a simple utility model of driver behaviour. In this positive economic model, driver safety effort is determined by a balance between reduced risk and increased disutility cost. Changes that affect the balance induce drivers to change their own safety efforts. Under plausible conditions, a change in exogenous safety, which is beyond driver control, causes a compensatory change in driver effort in the opposite direction (Blomquist, 1986). 

Are Nonpecuniary, Nongovernmental Costs Considered A common imperfection in regulatory decisions is the failure to include all real, sodal economic costs in benefit-cost analysis and in studies of motorist behavior. There is a penchant for Implicit user costs in the form of disseat belts for some motorists. To these costs time and incx)nvenience costs would be added in analysis of a policy which requires use of manual seat belts. Inclusion of nonpecuniary costs in analysis of passive seat belts would explain why some... 

In most transport modeling, travel is treated as a cost and disutility in people s lives. Travel time is assumed to be unproductive and wasted. It is treated as distinct from the meaningful and productive activities people perform at the various locations distributed in space and that give rise to travel. The only value of time spent traveling is derived from what is undertaken at the destination (Holley, Jain, Lyons, 2008). Accordingly, it is no surprise that major investments in the tfansportation sector are often justified by the travel time they can save (Jain Lyons, 2008). 

It is commonly argued that these legal arrangements will ensure that safety is provided at the appropriate levels even if customers are imperfectly informed. This is because the costs of harm suffered by customers are transferred to the railroad. The railroad will be knowledgeable about the amount of preventive effort it is taking, and the effects on the probability and severities of accidents. Because the railroad bears both the costs of preventing accidents and the financial consequences when accidents occur, the amount of preventive effort will be optimal. However, this happy outcome is dependent on an assumption that the customer s disutility associated with the possibility of an accident is identical to the expected harm suffered in an accident. 

Equation 1 shows that expected utility equals the probability of an accident times the payoff if an accident occurs, plus the probability of no accident times the payoff if no accident occurs. More simply expected utility is income less disutility less the expected accident loss. In balancing the benefits and costs of safety effort the motorist increases effort through use of safety belts and moderate speeds or similar activity until dU/de = 0 or as shown in Equation 2 ... 

---