5 ms·

I grew up in the commercial fishing industry and then worked in the tug boat industry. Many USCG regulations that were vehemently opposed by the old men save li

I grew up in the commercial fishing industry and then worked in the tug boat industry. Many USCG regulations that were vehemently opposed by the old men save lives every day. This is a classic Chesterton's Fence. Those who don't understand the origin of the regulations will continue to have strong, uninformed opinions about them. Many crew working on boats have safety gear only because USCG requires it. The owners of those boats would not expend the money without the regulation.

theultdev 2y ago
What regulations of this committee do you think saved lives that other agencies did not? The USCG, NMFS, NIOSH, and OSHA regulations are still there. When you were growing up, was it earlier than 2018? This committee didn't exist before then. But yeah, maybe we should add 20 more agencies just to be safe...
- avs733 2y ago
  This committee doesn’t make regulations they make expert suggestions. This is way off the original topic of course…but you can do a quick search of the federal register they you can see the agenda of meetings and such. A recent one reviewed structural failures that led to boats sinking. Fields learn as new things happen. There’s a reason aerospace industries talk about rules having body counts. Freezing regulations rarely makes work easier or faster, it just makes knowledge sharing worse. There this large assumption across HN that if one doesn’t understand something l, that must meant it doesn’t make sense. It’s a bad way to operate in the world…independently of ideology…lack of understanding is not unique insight.
  - theultdev 2y ago
    I think we'll get by without their "expert suggestions" as we did in 2017 before they existed. It boils down to whether or not this committee was beneficial or not. I have not seen any data backing up that it helped at all since it's inception in 2018.
    - aprilthird2021 2y ago
      Do you honestly, seriously believe shutting down this group of people was a data-driven decision?
- mcculley 2y ago
  >What regulations of this committee do you think saved lives that other agencies did not? I did not argue for this specific committee. I replied to your incorrect, uninformed assertions. > I think fisherman know how to be safe You have obviously not worked with commercial fishermen. Maybe you have never worked with any complicated industrial process. Safety regulations do not propagate by osmosis. It requires an agency verifying them. > without bureaucrats in DC that have never been in a fishing boat butting in. In my experience, the USCG inspectors who execute inspections and inform regulations served on boats. You are making an armchair assumption about how the process works. > You just need coast guard for emergencies. This is also ridiculously incorrect. USCG safety inspections have prevented many emergencies. > They got along just fine before 2018 when this committee was created. 2018 is when we started implementing 46 CFR Subchapter M, which adds many overdue safety improvements and still does not bring us up to the standards of more developed flags. > But yeah, maybe we should add 20 more agencies just to be safe... This is strawman nonsense. I get frustrated with regulation as much as anyone. I had to allocate capital to upgrades to be compliant with regulation. I have opinions about which regulations were important and necessary and which were not. Those who want to burn it all down have no real world experience in this domain.
ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
People who cite Chesterton's Fence love to pick an arbitrary point in time when their pet fence existed as the starting point. If we take the birth of the federal government or the USCG as our start point, it is these type of committees that actually moved Chesterton's Fence
- CuriousCosmic 2y ago
  That's not how Chesterton's Fence works? The point isn't that the fence was always there. It's that people who try to dismantle the fence never bothered to learn why the fence was put up in the first place. The fence could have been put up yesterday but if you never even bother to learn why the fence was put up before trying to remove it, that's still Chesterton's Fence.
- ianmcgowan 2y ago
  Chesterton's point wasn't that the fence should never move (which is what you seem to be implying), but that it should only be moved (or technically removed) when you understand why it was initially put in place. I'm sympathetic to the idea that there is bloat and over-regulation, but most of the laws and regulations on the books are in response to a bad thing happening. It's kind of like a legacy code base - just deleting the repo and starting over from scratch is usually not the best idea, it takes some careful refactoring and judicious tests to move in the right direction. It's sort of an interesting idea - what are "tests" in the context of the legal/regulatory framework? The constitution? The judiciary?
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    My point is that a fence existed (Fence #1). Someone moved Fence #1 (by making these DHS committees), which we will call Fence #2. We are now removing Fence #2 back to Fence #1, which is more Chesterton-y by virtue of being there first.
    - CuriousCosmic 2y ago
      The fence is a restriction. i.e. a regulation or series of rules. These committees make those rules. It's not just a state of being. Getting rid of a fence doesn't mean there's magically an older fence you've moved to. It's only when you replace a set of rules with a different set of rules to serve the same purpose that you've moved the fence. Removing the fence is exactly that, getting rid of the fence. There is no before fence. You've just removed the fence.
psychlops 2y ago
> The owners of those boats would not expend the money without the regulation. Some owners would not, most would. Humans are generally social, intelligent and caring animals. The regulations are helpful guidelines to save lives, not to be seen as mandatory rules that would be flaunted at every chance.
- whatevaa 2y ago
  You are too naive. Owners who do not incur extra expenses are more competetive in capitalistic market. At some, point, you become disadvantaged if you do take extra precautions. Regulations level the playing field.
- mcculley 2y ago
  I encourage you to go for a few voyages offshore on commercial vessels. Experience might influence your opinion. Your claims are inconsistent with my experience.
  - psychlops 2y ago
    I'd like to retract my statement as I misinterpreted your comment as characterizing them as malicious. I would not go on a commercial vessel as I do not consider the operators as very good at understanding risk.
    - mcculley 2y ago
      I see your perspective. I should also have not made such a general statement. I certainly did not mean to imply malice, more negligence or concern for cost over safety. Just to be clear, I was not talking about operators who are physically on the boats when I wrote about owners. There are three classes of people involved: owners, captains, and deckhands/engineers. Often the owners are never on the boat and are not subject to the same risks. I know far too many people who are missing a finger or worse. It is a terrible industry in some ways.

theultdev 2y ago

What regulations of this committee do you think saved lives that other agencies did not? The USCG, NMFS, NIOSH, and OSHA regulations are still there. When you were growing up, was it earlier than 2018? This committee didn't exist before then. But yeah, maybe we should add 20 more agencies just to be safe...

avs733 2y ago
This committee doesn’t make regulations they make expert suggestions. This is way off the original topic of course…but you can do a quick search of the federal register they you can see the agenda of meetings and such. A recent one reviewed structural failures that led to boats sinking. Fields learn as new things happen. There’s a reason aerospace industries talk about rules having body counts. Freezing regulations rarely makes work easier or faster, it just makes knowledge sharing worse. There this large assumption across HN that if one doesn’t understand something l, that must meant it doesn’t make sense. It’s a bad way to operate in the world…independently of ideology…lack of understanding is not unique insight.
- theultdev 2y ago
  I think we'll get by without their "expert suggestions" as we did in 2017 before they existed. It boils down to whether or not this committee was beneficial or not. I have not seen any data backing up that it helped at all since it's inception in 2018.
  - aprilthird2021 2y ago
    Do you honestly, seriously believe shutting down this group of people was a data-driven decision?
mcculley 2y ago
>What regulations of this committee do you think saved lives that other agencies did not? I did not argue for this specific committee. I replied to your incorrect, uninformed assertions. > I think fisherman know how to be safe You have obviously not worked with commercial fishermen. Maybe you have never worked with any complicated industrial process. Safety regulations do not propagate by osmosis. It requires an agency verifying them. > without bureaucrats in DC that have never been in a fishing boat butting in. In my experience, the USCG inspectors who execute inspections and inform regulations served on boats. You are making an armchair assumption about how the process works. > You just need coast guard for emergencies. This is also ridiculously incorrect. USCG safety inspections have prevented many emergencies. > They got along just fine before 2018 when this committee was created. 2018 is when we started implementing 46 CFR Subchapter M, which adds many overdue safety improvements and still does not bring us up to the standards of more developed flags. > But yeah, maybe we should add 20 more agencies just to be safe... This is strawman nonsense. I get frustrated with regulation as much as anyone. I had to allocate capital to upgrades to be compliant with regulation. I have opinions about which regulations were important and necessary and which were not. Those who want to burn it all down have no real world experience in this domain.

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago

People who cite Chesterton's Fence love to pick an arbitrary point in time when their pet fence existed as the starting point. If we take the birth of the federal government or the USCG as our start point, it is these type of committees that actually moved Chesterton's Fence

CuriousCosmic 2y ago
That's not how Chesterton's Fence works? The point isn't that the fence was always there. It's that people who try to dismantle the fence never bothered to learn why the fence was put up in the first place. The fence could have been put up yesterday but if you never even bother to learn why the fence was put up before trying to remove it, that's still Chesterton's Fence.
ianmcgowan 2y ago
Chesterton's point wasn't that the fence should never move (which is what you seem to be implying), but that it should only be moved (or technically removed) when you understand why it was initially put in place. I'm sympathetic to the idea that there is bloat and over-regulation, but most of the laws and regulations on the books are in response to a bad thing happening. It's kind of like a legacy code base - just deleting the repo and starting over from scratch is usually not the best idea, it takes some careful refactoring and judicious tests to move in the right direction. It's sort of an interesting idea - what are "tests" in the context of the legal/regulatory framework? The constitution? The judiciary?
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  My point is that a fence existed (Fence #1). Someone moved Fence #1 (by making these DHS committees), which we will call Fence #2. We are now removing Fence #2 back to Fence #1, which is more Chesterton-y by virtue of being there first.
  - CuriousCosmic 2y ago
    The fence is a restriction. i.e. a regulation or series of rules. These committees make those rules. It's not just a state of being. Getting rid of a fence doesn't mean there's magically an older fence you've moved to. It's only when you replace a set of rules with a different set of rules to serve the same purpose that you've moved the fence. Removing the fence is exactly that, getting rid of the fence. There is no before fence. You've just removed the fence.

psychlops 2y ago

> The owners of those boats would not expend the money without the regulation. Some owners would not, most would. Humans are generally social, intelligent and caring animals. The regulations are helpful guidelines to save lives, not to be seen as mandatory rules that would be flaunted at every chance.

whatevaa 2y ago
You are too naive. Owners who do not incur extra expenses are more competetive in capitalistic market. At some, point, you become disadvantaged if you do take extra precautions. Regulations level the playing field.
mcculley 2y ago
I encourage you to go for a few voyages offshore on commercial vessels. Experience might influence your opinion. Your claims are inconsistent with my experience.
- psychlops 2y ago
  I'd like to retract my statement as I misinterpreted your comment as characterizing them as malicious. I would not go on a commercial vessel as I do not consider the operators as very good at understanding risk.
  - mcculley 2y ago
    I see your perspective. I should also have not made such a general statement. I certainly did not mean to imply malice, more negligence or concern for cost over safety. Just to be clear, I was not talking about operators who are physically on the boats when I wrote about owners. There are three classes of people involved: owners, captains, and deckhands/engineers. Often the owners are never on the boat and are not subject to the same risks. I know far too many people who are missing a finger or worse. It is a terrible industry in some ways.