His analysis strikes me as too simplistic. I purchase good tires to maintain control of my vehicle under a wider range of conditions and speeds. This avoids accidents, only in a small percentage of which my life might be at risk. As the other commenter pointed out many of the examples are mandated by government action rather than individual choice. For his analysis to be accurate, I believe he would have to evaluate only those safety items that are chosen freely.

As Schneier often points out, we are more likely to attempt to treat a perceived, but unlikely risk, than a real risk because humans by default perform risk calculations poorly.

Not convinced of what – that these are actually implied valuations, or that the value *should* be implied.

There is plenty of irrationality out there, and plenty of research that highlights why these numbers are likely biased, but I think it is important to recognize these implications when making a decision.

Thanks for the comment,

Pete