Beyond that, if we’re willing to tolerate the tens of thousands of deaths which result from the use of automobiles at all, why not extend a death allowance to cell phone use in cars? The logic is identical, the moral problem is simply intuited differently. On the other hand, perhaps we’re simply more familiar with, and therefore more tolerant of, more traditional methods of car related death. How many people die every year because someone was changing the radio station instead of watching the road? Nobody’s screaming about that.

I’m more interested in exploring Prof. Pasquale’s point over the cost benefit analysis employed, and differentiating between higher payouts for the death of workers in dangerous jobs, versus death by negligence. Is the conclusion that one method of death should be more expensive than another? Or another facet, voluntariness – that we want a premium when someone else chooses how we die?