4 ms·

As a business owner, I understand the spirit of this, but as a parent/customer, does this mean I'd have to rely on my own research to find out that toys have ce

by atonse 4y ago

As a business owner, I understand the spirit of this, but as a parent/customer, does this mean I'd have to rely on my own research to find out that toys have certain safety standards? Then that's a no – I'd rather put the onus on the business because that's the cost of doing business. And just to clarify, even though I'm a business owner, I firmly believe that all the headaches absolutely should be the burden of the businesses and not the customers.

londons_explore 4y ago
If the system works as intended, you might even want to buy products that don't meet the guidelines. That means the business owner has got a design that they believe is substantially safer than the guidelines allow - hence why they made the business decision to not stick to the guidelines and use their own design instead. Obviously this falls down when the business owner believes they'll never have to pay out (eg. overseas amazon sellers, or businesses that plan to claim bankruptcy as soon as the first claim comes in). I think required liability insurance should cover those cases - where the 'excess' of the policy is the total value of the company. The insurance company will likely insist the guidelines are followed too, since they don't want to take on an unknown risk...
- brookst 4y ago
  Not sure I'm following that. So a business owner comes up with a brilliant idea that doesn't meet the guidelines but which they believe is substantially safer, the parent buys that design based on "it's super safe" promises, and it kills the child. Maybe the business owner just thought they were super smart, but they weren't. And the resolution is a liability policy for the total value of the company, presumably when things were going well and not post-death? I'm not worried about business owners who know they have a terrible product and are betting on not paying out. I'm worried about the ones who think they've got a great product but don't.
- anotherman554 4y ago
  "I think required liability insurance should cover those cases - where the 'excess' of the policy is the total value of the company." So if my choke hazard toy company is valued at zero dollars, I get a zero dollar insurance policy and the market makes everything work out when kids starting choking to death?
- gumby 4y ago
  Caveat emptor doesn't scale, which is why we have baseline safety standards and domain experts. Nobody is qualified to make those judgements on all their purchases, much less the time. That homemade yogurt you bought at the farmer's market? Wouldn't you like to know that its bacterial count was monitored. And drugs? The FDA regulates the printing on the bottle labels to try to reduce accidents. How many companies are going to think up things like that? I suggest checking out "Unsafe at Any Speed" and (nauseatingly and heart-breakingly) "The Jungle" if you want to know what it was like before safety regulations went into place (and those two books were responsible, for car safety and food safety respectively)
willcipriano 4y ago
As a parent you are responsible for the toys your children play with full stop. Relying on someone else to care as much as you do will not work out.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  I'm responsible for disassembling electrical parts to make sure they are grounded correctly? For auditing the supply chain of the paint they use to make sure it doesn't have lead? etc etc? This shit makes no sense lol. Yeah if you get a kid a vehicle don't be surprised when they wreck it, that's kind of on you. But "you are responsible for the toys your children play with full stop" can't possibly be unless you're going for the full libertarian dreamland.
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    That's an uncharitable take on what's actually at stake here. We're not discussing all safety standards. We're talking about recalls for not having warning stickers and paperwork in order (and possibly improperly tuned suspension and tire pressure, which I think is valid to complain about).
    - aidenn0 4y ago
      Deriding paperwork is a bit annoying because the CPSC determines the safety at least partly through the paperwork. I kind of agree that the warning stickers have gotten a bit out-of hand, but upon digging many of those sorts of things are actually instigated by in-house legal counsel rather than any external regulations.
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    You may be able to blame someone in a court of law, but you'll know deep down you were responsible so that will be of little comfort.
    - rnk 4y ago
      That's a silly attitude. There are consumer safety standards for good reasons. You shouldn't have to investigate say helmet manufacturers to make sure they aren't made with dangerous substances or will fail without protecting you.
newsclues 4y ago
Make safety regulations standards (hopefully multiple ones, so there is competition) OPT IN. This works for food safety or kids toys. If you make a thing or provide a service, you get the option of picking a certification. Let's say you sell food. You can pick a highly regulated and strict food certification, and that may be a selling feature for some customers, but it probably has a cost. Or you can pick zero regulation and no cost and rely on selling your product based on low price and product. The regulating bodies (if there is competition) have an incentive to maintain the standard, more than the current you must comply or else single standard system.
- Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
  Sounds like a great idea! I look forward to the return of people getting stabbed by Lawn Darts and kids choking on the toy inside their Kinder Egg.
  - jhbadger 4y ago
    Lawn Darts were legitimately dangerous, but I think the reason Kinder Eggs are illegal in the US is that US law says you can't sell "candy that has embedded in it a toy or trinket". The intent of the law was to stop things like in the 1950s where toys were literally embedded in the food, which obviously isn't the case with Kinder Eggs. And it obviously isn't really a safety issue as places like Europe that have far stricter safety laws than the US have no problem with Kinder Eggs.

by atonse 4y ago

londons_explore 4y ago

If the system works as intended, you might even want to buy products that don't meet the guidelines. That means the business owner has got a design that they believe is substantially safer than the guidelines allow - hence why they made the business decision to not stick to the guidelines and use their own design instead. Obviously this falls down when the business owner believes they'll never have to pay out (eg. overseas amazon sellers, or businesses that plan to claim bankruptcy as soon as the first claim comes in). I think required liability insurance should cover those cases - where the 'excess' of the policy is the total value of the company. The insurance company will likely insist the guidelines are followed too, since they don't want to take on an unknown risk...

brookst 4y ago
Not sure I'm following that. So a business owner comes up with a brilliant idea that doesn't meet the guidelines but which they believe is substantially safer, the parent buys that design based on "it's super safe" promises, and it kills the child. Maybe the business owner just thought they were super smart, but they weren't. And the resolution is a liability policy for the total value of the company, presumably when things were going well and not post-death? I'm not worried about business owners who know they have a terrible product and are betting on not paying out. I'm worried about the ones who think they've got a great product but don't.
anotherman554 4y ago
"I think required liability insurance should cover those cases - where the 'excess' of the policy is the total value of the company." So if my choke hazard toy company is valued at zero dollars, I get a zero dollar insurance policy and the market makes everything work out when kids starting choking to death?
gumby 4y ago
Caveat emptor doesn't scale, which is why we have baseline safety standards and domain experts. Nobody is qualified to make those judgements on all their purchases, much less the time. That homemade yogurt you bought at the farmer's market? Wouldn't you like to know that its bacterial count was monitored. And drugs? The FDA regulates the printing on the bottle labels to try to reduce accidents. How many companies are going to think up things like that? I suggest checking out "Unsafe at Any Speed" and (nauseatingly and heart-breakingly) "The Jungle" if you want to know what it was like before safety regulations went into place (and those two books were responsible, for car safety and food safety respectively)

willcipriano 4y ago

As a parent you are responsible for the toys your children play with full stop. Relying on someone else to care as much as you do will not work out.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
I'm responsible for disassembling electrical parts to make sure they are grounded correctly? For auditing the supply chain of the paint they use to make sure it doesn't have lead? etc etc? This shit makes no sense lol. Yeah if you get a kid a vehicle don't be surprised when they wreck it, that's kind of on you. But "you are responsible for the toys your children play with full stop" can't possibly be unless you're going for the full libertarian dreamland.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  That's an uncharitable take on what's actually at stake here. We're not discussing all safety standards. We're talking about recalls for not having warning stickers and paperwork in order (and possibly improperly tuned suspension and tire pressure, which I think is valid to complain about).
  - aidenn0 4y ago
    Deriding paperwork is a bit annoying because the CPSC determines the safety at least partly through the paperwork. I kind of agree that the warning stickers have gotten a bit out-of hand, but upon digging many of those sorts of things are actually instigated by in-house legal counsel rather than any external regulations.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  You may be able to blame someone in a court of law, but you'll know deep down you were responsible so that will be of little comfort.
  - rnk 4y ago
    That's a silly attitude. There are consumer safety standards for good reasons. You shouldn't have to investigate say helmet manufacturers to make sure they aren't made with dangerous substances or will fail without protecting you.

newsclues 4y ago

Make safety regulations standards (hopefully multiple ones, so there is competition) OPT IN. This works for food safety or kids toys. If you make a thing or provide a service, you get the option of picking a certification. Let's say you sell food. You can pick a highly regulated and strict food certification, and that may be a selling feature for some customers, but it probably has a cost. Or you can pick zero regulation and no cost and rely on selling your product based on low price and product. The regulating bodies (if there is competition) have an incentive to maintain the standard, more than the current you must comply or else single standard system.

Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
Sounds like a great idea! I look forward to the return of people getting stabbed by Lawn Darts and kids choking on the toy inside their Kinder Egg.
- jhbadger 4y ago
  Lawn Darts were legitimately dangerous, but I think the reason Kinder Eggs are illegal in the US is that US law says you can't sell "candy that has embedded in it a toy or trinket". The intent of the law was to stop things like in the 1950s where toys were literally embedded in the food, which obviously isn't the case with Kinder Eggs. And it obviously isn't really a safety issue as places like Europe that have far stricter safety laws than the US have no problem with Kinder Eggs.