In the 100 years from 1870 to 1970, almost every increase in wealth has been accompanied by a corresponding increase in safety from accident and disease. The reason is suggested by data on the United Kingdom, which demonstrate that the poorer the person, the worse his chances of survival. The lower the income, the higher the death rate at every age. Apparently richer is not merely better, but safer, too.
Yet today, government undertakes to identify excessive risks adversely affecting specific groups of people and to reduce them by direct action. In the process, it buys risk reduction for the individual group at the expense of society as a whole. The direct result of these undertakings is to make the nation not only poorer, but less safe.
Instead of focusing all our attention on risk, we should try to understand how and why we have become safer than our predecessors. What would a three per cent increase in the economic growth rate do for life expectancy and accident prevention, compared with the costly specific safety measures government is now undertaking?