Citation

Veisten K, Stefan C, Winkelbauer M. Transp. Policy 2013; 30: 269-274.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.tranpol.2013.09.015

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Elvik (2006) discussed the appropriateness of including the benefits that offenders get when violating traffic laws. While concluding that these benefits could not be given standing, Elvik resorted to argumentation from normative theories outside the schools of economic theory. In this article, we present arguments for omitting violators' benefits, or lost benefits, based on normative stands within economics school of thought. By means of two examples, we illustrate the distinction between a project of increased/improved enforcement of existing speed limits, where violators' time losses should not be included - compatible with Elvik's point of view - and a project of reduced speed limits, where the time loss should be included. This clarification of standing in cost-benefit analysis of road safety measures is based on the economics school of thought, where cost-benefit analysis is regarded as a decision tool operating within social constraints and where speed limits are considered as absolute institutions.