Which statement describes a risk associated with using a benefit-cost ratio when comparing crash countermeasures?

• A. It may provide a false sense of objectivity for a project in which the benefits and/or costs are subjective or difficult to quantify
• B. It always yields objective results regardless of data quality
• C. It has no limitations
• D. It is never used in safety projects

Answer: (A)

Using a benefit-cost ratio to compare crash countermeasures can seem objective, but a risk arises when the benefits and costs are subjective or hard to quantify. In road safety, many impacts—such as lives saved, reduced injuries, or quality-of-life improvements—are difficult to put into precise monetary terms. When analysts assign monetary values to these uncertain outcomes, the ratio becomes highly sensitive to the assumptions and data quality behind those estimates. This can create a false sense of objectivity, masking significant uncertainties and potential biases. Additionally, a ratio alone doesn’t capture non-monetary effects, distributional impacts, or long-term maintenance and implementation risks, which can all influence real-world effectiveness.

Other statements aren’t correct because data quality does affect results, there are real limitations to this approach, and benefit-cost analysis is indeed used in safety projects when applied thoughtfully.