The “Top Gear” guy had a nice rant in the Times Online about laws to mitigate risks.  Can we think of a way to connect the risk with the costs?  Suppose that we could eliminate a risk entirely if everyone just paid a small price.  Think polio, for example.  Well, then what about this risk, or that risk.  Surely the same solution applies, right?  As Jeremy points out, we all take our shoes off at the airport now, so the terrorists decided to use their underwear.  What will we have to do now, if risk elimination is the goal.

Or are there risks that we just have to live with?  Where do we draw the line?  Can we use probabilities and decision analysis to help make policies a little more bearable?