2 ms·

Regulations that restrict people who have not caused actual harm do not, in general, reduce the amount of harm that happens. But they do work great as revenue s

by pdonis 3y ago

Regulations that restrict people who have not caused actual harm do not, in general, reduce the amount of harm that happens. But they do work great as revenue sources for local governments (speeding laws are the most common example but not the only one), not to mention as excuses for manufacturers to charge higher prices and squeeze out more profit from consumers. They also reduce general respect for laws and regulations among the public: people start to view driving, for example, as a game to avoid being caught doing things that are technically illegal but which the vast majority of people do anyway (such as exceeding posted speed limits). Fostering that kind of mentality among the public arguably increases the amount of harm that happens. Furthermore, government institutions, particularly in the post-COVID era, simply lack credibility when they make claims about some government mandate reducing harm. In this case, as I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, NHTSA's claims about harm reduction assume that these systems will always operate perfectly and will never cause any harm, only prevent it. Such an assumption is not credible. In short, I do not share your faith in the ability of government regulators to actually reduce harm, on net. More generally, I do not share your faith in the ability of governments to actually act in the interest of all the people, instead of benefiting the governments themselves and particular special interests.

taeric 3y ago
I disagree. Especially for institutions that have as much easy to look at data as this. Total wrecks is easy to track. And if it is going down, regulation to help is working. Paranoia on overreach is fine. Good, even. That is best approached by auditing and running the stats. Constantly. But to claim that this is a meaningful restriction feels wrong on many levels. That said, if you are going to assert some of these claims, on what evidence? I'm restricted such that I have to wear seatbelts. I can't buy a new car without rear view camera. I can't buy a new car without antilock brakes. Headlights. Brake lights. I could go for a long time on this list. Are you claiming none of those make driving safer?
- pdonis 3y ago
  > to claim that this is a meaningful restriction feels wrong on many levels. You must be joking. Requiring me to have a technology in my car that can apply the brakes without any input from me and without warning? That is most definitely a meaningful restriction. You're forcing me to trust the government's estimate of the relative risk vs. benefit. To be blunt, the government sucks compared to me at estimating my relative risk and benefit. Plus, government institutions have repeatedly shown that they will lie to me about such things to serve political ends. So no, not buying it. > I'm restricted such that I have to wear seatbelts. I can't buy a new car without rear view camera. I can't buy a new car without antilock brakes. Headlights. Brake lights. I could go for a long time on this list. Are you claiming none of those make driving safer? The question is not whether these things make driving safer as compared to not having them. The question is whether the government regulations we have, which include requiring these things but also include lots of other regulations that have far worse justifications (if they even have justifications at all and aren't just blatant attempts to extort the public, such as speed traps), are a better system, on net, than a system in which such things were a matter of voluntary choice, but we forced people to bear the consequences of their bad choices. Oh, you weren't wearing a seat belt and you got in an accident? Sorry, your insurance company will not cover the medical costs due to injuries you suffered that the seat belt would have prevented (or you have a much higher deductible in such a case). Oh, you hit something while backing up and you didn't put a rear view camera in your car? Same sort of answer from your insurance company. Oh, you hit something because you didn't have anti-lock brakes and so you couldn't steer to avoid the collision? Same answer. In other words, if it is in fact true that these various technologies reduce the risk of accidents, then people who know they will have to take the consequences if they cause an accident will use these technologies to reduce that risk. But in our present regime, our society appears to be violently allergic to such things. The very existence of no fault auto insurance, for example, indicates that we don't like the idea of having to take the consequences of bad choices--but the result is that everyone pays more for auto insurance (IIRC, average rates in no fault states are about twice what they are in states that don't have no fault). We would all be better off if we abandoned the idea that government regulation can magically protect people from bad consequences. We would also all be better off if we abandoned the idea that we can somehow magically have a government that only makes good regulations, and accepted the inconvenient truth that government regulations come as a package, which even if it contains some good regulations contains many more bad ones, and all things considered is a net cost to us all, not a net gain. We need to stop depending on the nanny state to protect us and be responsible adults who are capable of judging risks and acting accordingly.

by pdonis 3y ago

taeric 3y ago

I disagree. Especially for institutions that have as much easy to look at data as this. Total wrecks is easy to track. And if it is going down, regulation to help is working. Paranoia on overreach is fine. Good, even. That is best approached by auditing and running the stats. Constantly. But to claim that this is a meaningful restriction feels wrong on many levels. That said, if you are going to assert some of these claims, on what evidence? I'm restricted such that I have to wear seatbelts. I can't buy a new car without rear view camera. I can't buy a new car without antilock brakes. Headlights. Brake lights. I could go for a long time on this list. Are you claiming none of those make driving safer?

pdonis 3y ago
> to claim that this is a meaningful restriction feels wrong on many levels. You must be joking. Requiring me to have a technology in my car that can apply the brakes without any input from me and without warning? That is most definitely a meaningful restriction. You're forcing me to trust the government's estimate of the relative risk vs. benefit. To be blunt, the government sucks compared to me at estimating my relative risk and benefit. Plus, government institutions have repeatedly shown that they will lie to me about such things to serve political ends. So no, not buying it. > I'm restricted such that I have to wear seatbelts. I can't buy a new car without rear view camera. I can't buy a new car without antilock brakes. Headlights. Brake lights. I could go for a long time on this list. Are you claiming none of those make driving safer? The question is not whether these things make driving safer as compared to not having them. The question is whether the government regulations we have, which include requiring these things but also include lots of other regulations that have far worse justifications (if they even have justifications at all and aren't just blatant attempts to extort the public, such as speed traps), are a better system, on net, than a system in which such things were a matter of voluntary choice, but we forced people to bear the consequences of their bad choices. Oh, you weren't wearing a seat belt and you got in an accident? Sorry, your insurance company will not cover the medical costs due to injuries you suffered that the seat belt would have prevented (or you have a much higher deductible in such a case). Oh, you hit something while backing up and you didn't put a rear view camera in your car? Same sort of answer from your insurance company. Oh, you hit something because you didn't have anti-lock brakes and so you couldn't steer to avoid the collision? Same answer. In other words, if it is in fact true that these various technologies reduce the risk of accidents, then people who know they will have to take the consequences if they cause an accident will use these technologies to reduce that risk. But in our present regime, our society appears to be violently allergic to such things. The very existence of no fault auto insurance, for example, indicates that we don't like the idea of having to take the consequences of bad choices--but the result is that everyone pays more for auto insurance (IIRC, average rates in no fault states are about twice what they are in states that don't have no fault). We would all be better off if we abandoned the idea that government regulation can magically protect people from bad consequences. We would also all be better off if we abandoned the idea that we can somehow magically have a government that only makes good regulations, and accepted the inconvenient truth that government regulations come as a package, which even if it contains some good regulations contains many more bad ones, and all things considered is a net cost to us all, not a net gain. We need to stop depending on the nanny state to protect us and be responsible adults who are capable of judging risks and acting accordingly.