3 ms·

"the safety benefits are not worth the costs" is a determination government agencies already make with many things[1]. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQb

• jessriedel 3y ago
  I'm very familiar with the idea discussed in that video, including the fact that it's in use by agencies like the NHTSA and the FAA. The problem is not that no one knows about these things, the problem is that (1) they can only be applied thoughtfully insofar as it's not part of public discussion (most people don't pay attention to NHTSA decisions) and (2) it's generally only applied when safety-at-any-cost is completely untenable. By (2), I mean the fact that in certain regulatory sectors you really can spend (or force others to spend) arbitrary amounts of money. Since there will be backlash against, that, regulators are forced to come up with a principle. But in many cases, the feasible restrictions can feasibly be dialed up to the max (e.g., complete banning of some product) and no one had to do a CBA.