So, are manufacturers "recommended amounts" ideal?

Can we rely on detergent manufacturers to tell us how much is the ideal amount to use?

A less ethical manufacturer might recommend excessive laundry powder, because their customers would use more that way. So their sales would be bigger.

Detergents also contribute to our failure to keep waters in good quality. So, apart from the wasted resources and consumer money, pollution could also be greater.

Which (www.which.co.uk, formerly the consumer association) "tested a Best Buy [washing] powder [laundry detergent] using 20% less than the recommended amount".

Would it not be more sensible, Which, to objectively test if manufacturers recommendations are truthful as to the ideal amount of washing powder? And publish these as a free public good on the internet, and praise virtuous companies.

Or is this another example of, what economists call, elite capture?

Fit Collision Avoidance Technology - A Randomised Controlled Trial of Free Tech for High Risk Drivers

According to @BoschGlobal, @Mobileye and www.NHTSA.gov "Collision Avoidance Technologies" can prevent 70-80 per cent of all road accidents.

And, the UK auto-insurers institute (Thatcham) reported as long ago as February 2008 with the headline: "The car we could not crash".

However, today, those technologies are on less than 1% of vehicles. And, although perhaps 25% of models have these features available, they are only fitted on 10% of cars sold in Britain (Daily Telegraph Aug-2014). Despite being very cost-effective.

This is appalling, given that over 23,000 Britons are maimed or killed on our roads every year. And, according to the ABI, British drivers make over 2.5 million accident insurance claims every year. Worldwide, over 1.2 million people are killed, and 78 million maimed in road accidents, every year (Fed. Intl. Autom. | @FIAfdn).

Some 20-26% of those accidents are caused by young drivers (ages 17-24) - which means that they have a risk of crashing that is around 2 times greater than that of older drivers. And, of 15-19 year olds, the young males have a death rate from road accidents that is 3 times that of young female drivers (RAC-Fdn).

Hence, the most cost effective deployment of safety technology, for older cars, would be among that high risk group - young males and especially those who are most likely to be reckless.

Thus we should review and measure the effectiveness, and consequent cost savings, from intervening - to make safer with retrofit technology - in this high risk group.

Which could be done, using data from the police, social services, schools and driver testing, to identify a high risk individuals. Who would be randomised to be offered i) a free intervention (that is beneficial) or ii) left untreated (so as to be able to measure the relative benefits and costs).

For one technology, that is suitable for retrofitting, the current price is GBP £650 per vehicle. While this may seem quite a lot, you should bear in mind that, with a fifth of drivers crashing in their first year and a mean accident cost of perhaps GBP £2000, the technology could almost pay for itself in the first year (Daily Telegraph 2002; Daily Mirror 2012). Some hundreds of treated would be required.

CLAL (il) found that, with this tech, 17-21 year old drivers experience 45% fewer accidents (which, I think, translates into a 66% reduction in at-fault-crash-risk). And Euro-NCAP report a greater-than-54% reduction in at-fault-crash-risk from adoption of Autonomous Emergency Braking.

Do you know of a body who might like to fund the research? (Please email me mark.a.reader58@gmail.com)

The UK research funders, that I know of, make this inappropriate - while they call for specific research that they somehow know(?) will be more helpful.

What should we be 'doing' - to improve things?

What can, and should, an active member of society 'do' - to improve things?

It seems to me there are tech innovations in transport that could make a huge difference (1 million lives and 10 million maimed a year) - and keep all those techies happy churning out widgets. And in human diets (1 million lives per year, for one cost-free change alone).  Improving efficiencies and eliminating waste (and externalities) are also highly desirable.

Otherwise changes in societies values - and 'rowing in the same direction' - would have immense impacts.  

But the world is infested with loons - and/or 'very evil agents' (?) - who provide much entertainment and an immense distraction.  

And, we have an allocation system that makes no measure of virtue - except frugality and productivity - and so is obsessed with, and addicted to, 'growth'.

Changes to make ideal the work/leisure life of the British in 2014

- n~2,200

- Nationally Representative Sample, by Stratified Weights

- Surveyed online in Britain in March 2014 (by a reputable survey firm)

- Preliminary analysis of open responses by Mark Reader

Conclusions: To make their work/leisure life ideal, full-time employed respondents are most likely to mention 'less-work', 'more-leisure' or 'shorter-commuting'.  Part-time employed are more likely to say they are 'happy/satisfied' or 'nothing/don't know' - however they appear also more likely to mention a 'better job'.  And might have more time for surveys as they mention more items in their responses.

What is wrong with Middlesbrough, UK?

What is wrong with Middlesbrough (or Sunderland) in the UK? House prices there are £20,000 vs London £350k! Only a couple of hundred miles apart.

Smart Meters(?) and the DECC roll-out

"[Smart meters will provide consumers with] near real time information on their energy consumption to help them control their energy use, and avoid wasting energy and money. [How?]. Smart meters will also provide consumers with more accurate information and bring an end to estimated billing, helping them to budget better." (According to DECC - the UK "Department for Energy and Climate Change").

While it is remotely possible, assuming that people pay attention to their meters, that these will reduce base-load electricity use, my meter of this sort has had zero effect on my peak consumption. And it cannot possibly do anything to match demand to efficient supply.

Hence, compared to what could be achieved, it seems possible to me that DECCs current rollout (by 2014) is just a pointless gimmick?

I have not been able to find anything much about this, other than some non-committal comment from "Which?".

Is there any reliable discussion of what this 0.7 per cent of GDP will achieve?

Crooked Corporations and Forgetful Customers

In a market where consumers have cognitive limitations (for example, where they forget bad experiences, or frequently resort to cognitively cheap heuristics) - and where quality is costly - firms that cheat on price signals will win out.

Even if the firms are just retailers, instead of manufacturers.

Who polices the quality controllers, in a market where customers are forgetful, and not very clever?

An even bigger role for the incentive to 'be good' and not to 'reward bad behaviour'. What makes people 'good'?