4 ms·

Everyone accepts a certain risk simply by driving, and we all have relative risk tolerance. Point in case: I knew of a 20-year-old driver who owned a nice, safe

Everyone accepts a certain risk simply by driving, and we all have relative risk tolerance. Point in case: I knew of a 20-year-old driver who owned a nice, safe vehicle but was too afraid to drive on an interstate highway because they were afraid. That's not a "hunk of metal" issue but a risk-comfort "issue," which really is relative. Regardless, your point highlights the eternal fight between liberty and "safety and security." A society which tolerates little risk seeks to minimize liberty and maximize safety and security. A society which tolerates much risk seeks to maximize liberty and minimize safety and security. To use cars as the prime example: why am I required to purchase a vehicle equipped with airbags [1]? They're expensive, bulky, decrease fuel economy, and may cause harm to a passenger if it improperly inflates. By owning a vehicle, I assume sole responsibility for the correct and proper operation of it as well as the physical well-being of any passengers. Frankly, I should be able to purchase a vehicle equipped without airbags to decrease the overall purchase price, thereby allowing me to use that money on other things. The same argument doesn't apply to certain things like ABS, which I argue should be regulated because poor braking affects people both inside and outside the car. Airbags, on the other hand, only apply to people inside the car. By carrying any passenger in the vehicle, the owner assumes legal responsibility for their safe carriage. [1] https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/federal-legislation-makes-airbags-mandatory https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/federal-legislat...

fwip 3y ago
> why am I required to purchase a vehicle equipped with airbags? The same reason that you can't sell food that's sweetened with lead. You can add lead to your own food if you want, just like you can drive a car without airbags.
- waterheater 3y ago
  Yes, keep lead out of food. The comparison is not accurate because the risk-reward profiles of lead-in-food and airbags-in-cars are misaligned. Food is consumed under all circumstances, whereas airbags are only employed during an emergency situation. You're also right that I can drive a car without airbags, but the point is that you can't buy a new car without airbags.
kelnos 3y ago
I think it makes more sense if you frame it that the manufacturer is required to sell cars with airbags. We don't, as a society, want people to have to make a choice between safety and cost in that particular situation, so we mandate that the manufacturer can't even sell without them. Beyond that, if we assume airbags, on average, decrease injuries and deaths, then society also has an interest in helping to ensure that. Heavily injured and dead people put more of a strain on our health care system, and the costs for that are not solely borne by the person who gets injured or dies. Certainly there's room for disagreement on whether or not all that is worth the added per-individual cost, the regulatory cost, etc. But let's remember that there are many things that, on first glance, seem to only affect an individual, but actually ripple out and affect others as well.

fwip 3y ago

> why am I required to purchase a vehicle equipped with airbags? The same reason that you can't sell food that's sweetened with lead. You can add lead to your own food if you want, just like you can drive a car without airbags.

waterheater 3y ago
Yes, keep lead out of food. The comparison is not accurate because the risk-reward profiles of lead-in-food and airbags-in-cars are misaligned. Food is consumed under all circumstances, whereas airbags are only employed during an emergency situation. You're also right that I can drive a car without airbags, but the point is that you can't buy a new car without airbags.

kelnos 3y ago

I think it makes more sense if you frame it that the manufacturer is required to sell cars with airbags. We don't, as a society, want people to have to make a choice between safety and cost in that particular situation, so we mandate that the manufacturer can't even sell without them. Beyond that, if we assume airbags, on average, decrease injuries and deaths, then society also has an interest in helping to ensure that. Heavily injured and dead people put more of a strain on our health care system, and the costs for that are not solely borne by the person who gets injured or dies. Certainly there's room for disagreement on whether or not all that is worth the added per-individual cost, the regulatory cost, etc. But let's remember that there are many things that, on first glance, seem to only affect an individual, but actually ripple out and affect others as well.