alt Hacker News> Every safety regulation ought to pass a cold-blooded cost/benefit analysis. Few of them do.
I think that's the already the ultimate test for any regulation to pass, as it's up against a huge industry trying to prevent costs of compliance.
Of course, the calculation is not to put a price on a human and then compare this against the cost provided by e.g. a car-company.
When you've lost someone in a car-accident it's not much condolence to know that e.g. an airbag could have saved him/her but "back in 2026 it was deregulated because the car-companies have proven that there's no economic benefit to include them"
I know the economy is always important, but human society also shouldn't be taken for granted.
>I think that's the already the ultimate test for any regulation to pass, as it's up against a huge industry trying to prevent costs of compliance.
I think it mostly cancels out since the pro regulation side is inevitably bolstered by those who'll sell more shit if alternative goods get worse for the money and those who make a buck on the compliance process.
>When you've lost someone in a car-accident it's not much condolence to know that e.g. an airbag could have saved him/her but "back in 2026 it was deregulated because the car-companies have proven that there's no economic benefit to include them"
What if it turns out that at the societal level that letting airbags, abs, traction control, etc, etc, etc, be optional is actually better because it puts more people into cheaper newer cars that benefit from other safety engineering even if they don't have airbags and all the expensive electronic stuff?
This sort of stuff wherein one tries to anchor the discussion around whole lives (or some other easy to measure thing that makes for good appeals to emotion) and hand wave away anything else is a huge part of the problem.