3 ms·

Do we really need to increase the cost of generators by adding safety features against gross negligence? Adding that feature in will makes people think that it

Do we really need to increase the cost of generators by adding safety features against gross negligence? Adding that feature in will makes people think that it’s safe to run generators indoors because the sensor will cut off when it’s not. Except inevitably the sensor will fail or the co will end up moving to a basement and killing someone

Our_Benefactors 3y ago
Adding seatbelts will make people think it’s safe to crash!
- jjeaff 3y ago
  The old economist joke is that if you really want to prevent crashes, don't put airbags and seat belts, put a spear on the steering wheel pointing right into the driver's face.
- pdonis 3y ago
  Yes, adding safety features to cars does make people more likely to engage in risky behavior, and as a result the accident rate goes up. Look up "moral hazard".
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
fnordpiglet 3y ago
I’m not sure I understand - you’re saying if the failsafe fails someone might die (presumably not common event), yet without the failsafe many people are assured to die (apparently a common enough event), so therefore we shouldn’t have the failsafe? I’ll wager people run the generator without any thought as to whether there’s a cut off or not and that’s why they die. It seems like a real on the margin case that someone thinks “I can run this indoors safely because the safety mechanism will cut off once it’s unsafe” and simultaneously the failsafe malfunctions. Comparatively to “I’m not very smart and the power is off so I’m going to run a gasoline engine inside my house” seems to be pretty common today. Without any data on how much such a failsafe costs it’s hard to evaluate if the cost of the safety feature is that burdensome, but for each of those “not smart going to run a generator” that doesn’t kill their entire family, there will be at least someone who got a good bargain on the feature by not killing everyone in their house.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > you’re saying if the failsafe fails someone might die (presumably not common event), yet without the failsafe many people are assured to die (apparently a common enough event), so therefore we shouldn’t have the failsafe? No, he's saying that the failsafe adds no value for the vast majority of generator users, because they take responsibility for their own actions and their consequences and learn how to properly use their portable generators. So requiring the failsafe by regulation is punishing all of the responsible adults because of a few irresponsible people. That doesn't make sense. The people who should suffer the consequences of being irresponsible are the people who are irresponsible, not everybody else. > apparently a common enough event 1300 deaths and 77,000 injuries--over 17 years. That's not common at all; it's miniscule. From what I can gather, about 10% of households have portable generators. That's 30 million of them in the US alone. In the same period of time, roughly 510,000 people in the US died in traffic accidents (roughly 30,000 a year times 17 years). And that's even after decades of government regulations imposing safety features on vehicles. So not only is regulation like this unfair and nonsensical, it doesn't even work. People who insist on being irresponsible will find a way to do it no matter what regulations you impose. The rest of us should not have to suffer the burden of ever-increasing regulations that don't even work. > for each of those “not smart going to run a generator” that doesn’t kill their entire family, there will be at least someone who got a good bargain on the feature by not killing everyone in their house This kind of reasoning does not justify a government regulation. It only counts the benefit to the miniscule number of people who can't be responsible on their own. It doesn't count the cost, both in the ever-increasing burden of regulations we all have to deal with, and the ever-increasing power we are forced to give the government on such grounds, which then gets misused in more and more ways.
- throw9away6 3y ago
  It increases risky behavior because it’s now assumed to be less dangers that I’m not convinced a generator mounted cut off will fully mitigate. Also it increases costs and presumably false shutoffs due to stagnant outside air conditions or similar when the sensor cuts off. I could easily see a person now choosing to run an indoor generator and relying on the cutoff to trigger when the levels are too high. In a hurricane situation I could even see taking that risk myself under desperate circumstances.

Our_Benefactors 3y ago

Adding seatbelts will make people think it’s safe to crash!

jjeaff 3y ago
The old economist joke is that if you really want to prevent crashes, don't put airbags and seat belts, put a spear on the steering wheel pointing right into the driver's face.
pdonis 3y ago
Yes, adding safety features to cars does make people more likely to engage in risky behavior, and as a result the accident rate goes up. Look up "moral hazard".
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

fnordpiglet 3y ago

I’m not sure I understand - you’re saying if the failsafe fails someone might die (presumably not common event), yet without the failsafe many people are assured to die (apparently a common enough event), so therefore we shouldn’t have the failsafe? I’ll wager people run the generator without any thought as to whether there’s a cut off or not and that’s why they die. It seems like a real on the margin case that someone thinks “I can run this indoors safely because the safety mechanism will cut off once it’s unsafe” and simultaneously the failsafe malfunctions. Comparatively to “I’m not very smart and the power is off so I’m going to run a gasoline engine inside my house” seems to be pretty common today. Without any data on how much such a failsafe costs it’s hard to evaluate if the cost of the safety feature is that burdensome, but for each of those “not smart going to run a generator” that doesn’t kill their entire family, there will be at least someone who got a good bargain on the feature by not killing everyone in their house.

pdonis 3y ago
> you’re saying if the failsafe fails someone might die (presumably not common event), yet without the failsafe many people are assured to die (apparently a common enough event), so therefore we shouldn’t have the failsafe? No, he's saying that the failsafe adds no value for the vast majority of generator users, because they take responsibility for their own actions and their consequences and learn how to properly use their portable generators. So requiring the failsafe by regulation is punishing all of the responsible adults because of a few irresponsible people. That doesn't make sense. The people who should suffer the consequences of being irresponsible are the people who are irresponsible, not everybody else. > apparently a common enough event 1300 deaths and 77,000 injuries--over 17 years. That's not common at all; it's miniscule. From what I can gather, about 10% of households have portable generators. That's 30 million of them in the US alone. In the same period of time, roughly 510,000 people in the US died in traffic accidents (roughly 30,000 a year times 17 years). And that's even after decades of government regulations imposing safety features on vehicles. So not only is regulation like this unfair and nonsensical, it doesn't even work. People who insist on being irresponsible will find a way to do it no matter what regulations you impose. The rest of us should not have to suffer the burden of ever-increasing regulations that don't even work. > for each of those “not smart going to run a generator” that doesn’t kill their entire family, there will be at least someone who got a good bargain on the feature by not killing everyone in their house This kind of reasoning does not justify a government regulation. It only counts the benefit to the miniscule number of people who can't be responsible on their own. It doesn't count the cost, both in the ever-increasing burden of regulations we all have to deal with, and the ever-increasing power we are forced to give the government on such grounds, which then gets misused in more and more ways.
throw9away6 3y ago
It increases risky behavior because it’s now assumed to be less dangers that I’m not convinced a generator mounted cut off will fully mitigate. Also it increases costs and presumably false shutoffs due to stagnant outside air conditions or similar when the sensor cuts off. I could easily see a person now choosing to run an indoor generator and relying on the cutoff to trigger when the levels are too high. In a hurricane situation I could even see taking that risk myself under desperate circumstances.