What is one risk associated with the use of a benefit-cost ratio for safety countermeasures?

The use of a benefit-cost ratio as a tool for evaluating safety countermeasures has several inherent risks that can impact decision-making. One significant risk is that this ratio may not capture all the qualitative benefits associated with a safety project. For example, a project might have substantial societal benefits, such as reducing injuries and fatalities, improving community safety perceptions, or enhancing social equity, which are difficult to quantify but critically important. Consequently, relying solely on a benefit-cost ratio could lead to an understatement of the project's true value, particularly if those significant benefits are not fully accounted for in the analysis.

Another consideration is that the ratio could inadvertently overstate the value of projects that may only offer marginal benefits. If the costs associated with implementing a safety countermeasure are low, even minor benefits can yield a disproportionately high benefit-cost ratio. This might mislead decision-makers into favoring projects that do not result in considerable improvements in safety.

Additionally, there's the potential for a false sense of objectivity. Decision-makers might think that relying on a numerical ratio makes the decision-making process unbiased and purely analytical. However, the underlying assumptions and data inputs used to calculate the ratio can be influenced by subjective judgments, leading to outcomes that may not fully represent reality.

Thus, recognizing