An open challenge to anyone who supports government regulations.

[SniperFire]

Can you prove that without federal standards cars would be more dangerous? Keep in mind that everything that the government has mandated for crash test survivability was developed by auto makers long before the government regulated it.

Just because some guy invented it does not mean it was implemented. Seat belts were invented at the end of the 19th century, and yet more than six decades later, some manufacturers were not installing them.

So? Over 100 years later some people don't use them. Explain that given your assertion that regulations actually save lives.

I'll help. Because most people obey the regulation, and accordingly, many lives are saved in the process. You enjoy talking about the exceptions but not the rule.

 

[g5000]

The Autobahn comes to mind, and that is not the only one.

The Autobahn has quite a few traffic laws.

You are required to have first aid training to get a driver's license in Germany.

It is illegal to tailgate on the Autobahn. Winter tires are compulsory on the Autobahn in the winter.

All these laws are obviously intended to save lives. If there were no laws about winter tires, for example, you can be sure some people would not use them, and therefore fatalities would be higher.

Does any of that change the fact that portions of the Autobahn do not have a speed limit?

Didn't think so.

Does not change the fact there are regulations on the Autobahn. Life-saving regulations.

 

[g5000]

After a series of catastrophic grain explosions in the late 1970s left 59 workers dead in just
one month, the hazards of grain facilities drew the attention of federal regulators. OSHA
began developing its Grain Handling Facilities Standard, which it finalized in 1987. The
regulation limited the amount of dust allowed on surfaces within grain facilities and
required testing of silos for combustible gases. It also prohibited employees from entering
storage bins without a proper harness and a spotter present.

Industry groups and the Reagan administration’s Office of Management and Budget voiced
opposition to the Grain Handling Facilities Standard during the rulemaking process. A
spokesman for the National Grain and Feed Association derided the proposed limits to
grain dust levels, saying, “Research shows no one level of dust is more hazardous than
another.”28 One official from the Office of Management and Budget referred to OSHA’s
assessment of grain facility hazards as “substantially overstated.”29

In the end, the OSHA standard made grain handling facilities much safer places to work.
The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA), which initially opposed the standard,
now finds it to be remarkably effective at improving workplace safety, citing a 95 percent
drop in explosion-related fatalities for certain facilities.30 In comments submitted to OSHA
in 1998, NGFA stated that in the years following the standard, “there has been an
unprecedented decline in explosions, injuries and fatalities at grain handling facilities.”31
OSHA’s analysis shows that the standard prevented an average of five suffocation deaths
per year.32 Data presented by industry showed that the standard annually prevents eight
injuries and four deaths resulting from explosions in grain elevators.33
27

So not only do regulations save lives, the very industries which are regulated initially OPPOSED making any changes to the way they did business, and now they SUPPORT the regulations.

Looks like your fantasy that businessess would improve the workplace without regulations has been shot to death.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Windbag, you have backed yourself into an absolutist argument which is indefensible.

Some of your argument has merit, but for you to pretend that laws against driving while intoxicated, for example, do not save lives is quite foolish.

The problem here is one of semantics. I am making the case that regulations, in and of themselves, do not save lives. China has pages upon pages of regulations regarding pollution and worker safety, people routinely ignore them. Even the EPA knows that regulations don't save lives, which is why they prefer to scare people into compliance by taking random companies and using them as examples, remember the crucify them video that was posted here?

What makes a difference is a reasonable desire to make a solid profit by providing a product that people want. The government needs to concentrate on deliberate attempts to ignore safety.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am really fracking tired of explaining the facts of life to everyone who thinks regulations are good and lack of regulation kills people. I hereby issue a challenge.

Give me a single real world example of a regulation that has actually prevents deaths. I know there are a lot of idiots that are going to point at all sorts of things, like requiring seat belts in cars, and say that proves their point, but that is not going to cut it here. You need to prove that, without said regulation, people would die because no one would have...

1. Made seat belts in the first place,
2. Actually sell them if someone had made them,
3. Use them if both 1 and 2 were true.
4. That the end result is that no one dies.

Regulations are not designed to protect people from dangerous products, they are designed to limit liability in case someone actually gets hurt. Companies go to court all the time and argue that they are not liable because they met all applicable government regulations, and the government supports them in this. We live in crony capitalist world where the government makes choices about who lives and who dies based on what some number cruncher somewhere claims is for the common good.

There are many state regulations in my Job that save people. The fact I have to have training and a license proves that. I could do some damage if I wasn't trained.

Doesn't prove a thing to me, I have no idea what your job is, or what makes you so dangerous that the state needs to control what you do.

 

[SniperFire]

Windbag, you have backed yourself into an absolutist argument which is indefensible.

Some of your argument has merit, but for you to pretend that laws against driving while intoxicated, for example, do not save lives is quite foolish.

The problem here is one of semantics. I am making the case that regulations, in and of themselves, do not save lives. China has pages upon pages of regulations regarding pollution and worker safety, people routinely ignore them. Even the EPA knows that regulations don't save lives, which is why they prefer to scare people into compliance by taking random companies and using them as examples, remember the crucify them video that was posted here?

What makes a difference is a reasonable desire to make a solid profit by providing a product that people want. The government needs to concentrate on deliberate attempts to ignore safety.

Again, you continue to ignore the examples where there is no 'product' or wronged consumer to litigate a company into compliance via fear of losing profit.

Drunk driving is a perfect example, you offer the ridiculous failed logic of 'some' people will ignore the laws, therefore, not a single life is saved due to regulation.

I am being nicer than usual here.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Funny thing, there are people that drive drunk even with suspended licenses, therefore the law doesn't actually save lives. .

Totally devoid of logic. Just because SOME people may drive with suspended licenses and get killed, does not mean all people with suspended licenses get killed driving drunk who elsewise would be on the road, anyways.

Hate to point out the obvious corollary here but, just because some people who get a suspended license end up not driving drunk does not prove they would not have stopped driving drunk without the suspended license. When the federal government pressured states to drop the legal BAC from .10 to .08 alcohol related fatalities actually increased. Explain that if I am the one that is out of touch with reality and regulations actually save lives.

Forum: Lower DUI Threshold More Dangerous? | Radley Balko | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

I won't hold my breath.

 

[jasonnfree]

Are building codes and licensing of professions on the hit list?

I am really fracking tired of explaining the facts of life to everyone who thinks regulations are good and lack of regulation kills people. I hereby issue a challenge.

Give me a single real world example of a regulation that has actually prevents deaths. I know there are a lot of idiots that are going to point at all sorts of things, like requiring seat belts in cars, and say that proves their point, but that is not going to cut it here. You need to prove that, without said regulation, people would die because no one would have...

1. Made seat belts in the first place,
2. Actually sell them if someone had made them,
3. Use them if both 1 and 2 were true.
4. That the end result is that no one dies.

Regulations are not designed to protect people from dangerous products, they are designed to limit liability in case someone actually gets hurt. Companies go to court all the time and argue that they are not liable because they met all applicable government regulations, and the government supports them in this. We live in crony capitalist world where the government makes choices about who lives and who dies based on what some number cruncher somewhere claims is for the common good.

There are many state regulations in my Job that save people. The fact I have to have training and a license proves that. I could do some damage if I wasn't trained.

Doesn't prove a thing to me, I have no idea what your job is, or what makes you so dangerous that the state needs to control what you do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just because some guy invented it does not mean it was implemented. Seat belts were invented at the end of the 19th century, and yet more than six decades later, some manufacturers were not installing them.

So? Over 100 years later some people don't use them. Explain that given your assertion that regulations actually save lives.

I'll help. Because most people obey the regulation, and accordingly, many lives are saved in the process. You enjoy talking about the exceptions but not the rule.

That is one way of looking at it. Another is that more people become aware of the dangers, which causes people to avoid risky behavior, and then the government writes a regulation to cover what people are already doing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Autobahn has quite a few traffic laws.

You are required to have first aid training to get a driver's license in Germany.

It is illegal to tailgate on the Autobahn. Winter tires are compulsory on the Autobahn in the winter.

All these laws are obviously intended to save lives. If there were no laws about winter tires, for example, you can be sure some people would not use them, and therefore fatalities would be higher.

Does any of that change the fact that portions of the Autobahn do not have a speed limit?

Didn't think so.

Does not change the fact there are regulations on the Autobahn. Life-saving regulations.

Regulations don't save lives. If they did, decreasing the legal limit for drunk driving would have decreased the number of traffic fatalities.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Windbag, you have backed yourself into an absolutist argument which is indefensible.

Some of your argument has merit, but for you to pretend that laws against driving while intoxicated, for example, do not save lives is quite foolish.

The problem here is one of semantics. I am making the case that regulations, in and of themselves, do not save lives. China has pages upon pages of regulations regarding pollution and worker safety, people routinely ignore them. Even the EPA knows that regulations don't save lives, which is why they prefer to scare people into compliance by taking random companies and using them as examples, remember the crucify them video that was posted here?

What makes a difference is a reasonable desire to make a solid profit by providing a product that people want. The government needs to concentrate on deliberate attempts to ignore safety.

Again, you continue to ignore the examples where there is no 'product' or wronged consumer to litigate a company into compliance via fear of losing profit.

Drunk driving is a perfect example, you offer the ridiculous failed logic of 'some' people will ignore the laws, therefore, not a single life is saved due to regulation.

I am being nicer than usual here.

I am not ignoring anything, you are the one that is insisting that the government is the solution. I am asking you to prove it. All you have done is make statements that are unsupported by facts.

 

[SniperFire]

Funny thing, there are people that drive drunk even with suspended licenses, therefore the law doesn't actually save lives. .

Totally devoid of logic. Just because SOME people may drive with suspended licenses and get killed, does not mean all people with suspended licenses get killed driving drunk who elsewise would be on the road, anyways.

Hate to point out the obvious corollary here but, just because some people who get a suspended license end up not driving drunk does not prove they would not have stopped driving drunk without the suspended license.

Statistically, it is well proven. You are just being an ass now.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

oh i dont know, having a regulation saying we cant have Lead on our kids toys or tooth paste is a good idea.

Or you know making sure our food doesnt have poisons on it and kills you. Like most recently with spinach.

You look like a fool

Just because they are good ideas does not mean they save lives.

Funny that you mentioned lead in toys, since the only company that was found to have lead in their toys is the only company exempted from the new independent laboratory requirements to test their toys for lead. Care to tall me what makes that a good idea, other than the blatant crony capitalism?

i knew you would have an excuse. Which just shows you have no point. There is no answer you will accept period.

Because I know that Mattel is exempted from the CPSIA it somehow proves I am wrong? If the regulation is designed to save lives, and Mattel was the company that was actually selling the lead toys, how is it going to save lives to exempt Mattel from the law?`Explain that and we might be able to talk.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are building codes and licensing of professions on the hit list?

There are many state regulations in my Job that save people. The fact I have to have training and a license proves that. I could do some damage if I wasn't trained.

Doesn't prove a thing to me, I have no idea what your job is, or what makes you so dangerous that the state needs to control what you do.

Licensing of manicurists? Why do manicurist need 700 hours of training?

 

[SniperFire]

The problem here is one of semantics. I am making the case that regulations, in and of themselves, do not save lives. China has pages upon pages of regulations regarding pollution and worker safety, people routinely ignore them. Even the EPA knows that regulations don't save lives, which is why they prefer to scare people into compliance by taking random companies and using them as examples, remember the crucify them video that was posted here?

What makes a difference is a reasonable desire to make a solid profit by providing a product that people want. The government needs to concentrate on deliberate attempts to ignore safety.

Again, you continue to ignore the examples where there is no 'product' or wronged consumer to litigate a company into compliance via fear of losing profit.

Drunk driving is a perfect example, you offer the ridiculous failed logic of 'some' people will ignore the laws, therefore, not a single life is saved due to regulation.

I am being nicer than usual here.

I am not ignoring anything.

You ignore everything.

Let's look at, oh, say motorcycle helmet laws:

Each state’s data showed approximately the same trend:

• When universal helmet laws are enacted, helmet use increases, and fatalities
and serious injuries decrease.

• When these laws are repealed, helmet use decreases, and injuries and
associated costs increase, far exceeding the number of new motorcycles
registered.

• Motorcyclist fatalities increase when a helmet law is repealed.

These results are consistent in every state where studies on the effectiveness of
motorcycle helmet laws have been conducted. Additionally, data show that age-specific
laws do not protect that group of riders that are historically victims in a fatal crash: those
over the age of 21 years.'

http://www.savemolives.com/programs/documents/UCLAHelmetLawStudy.pdf

Now this is where you say that just because the data proves that motorcycle helmet laws save lives, it does not prove motorcycle helmet laws save lives.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Totally devoid of logic. Just because SOME people may drive with suspended licenses and get killed, does not mean all people with suspended licenses get killed driving drunk who elsewise would be on the road, anyways.

Hate to point out the obvious corollary here but, just because some people who get a suspended license end up not driving drunk does not prove they would not have stopped driving drunk without the suspended license.

Statistically, it is well proven. You are just being an ass now.

Why did you edit out the part of my post about alcohol fatalities increasing when the DUI limit went down if statistics prove your point?

 

[g5000]

Coal mines are among the most dangerous workplaces in the United States. Workers, facing
the ever-present risks of mine explosion and collapse, must perform their jobs in confined
spaces near heavy machinery. Since 1900, over 100,000 miners have been killed on the
job.34 Mining has become dramatically safer, however. The first major decrease in fatality
rates began in the late 1940s, as mines began relying less on explosives and more on
machinery.35 But after the early 1950s, progress on mine safety stagnated; the fatality rate
remained largely unchanged between 1950 and 1969.36 It was not until the 1969 passage
of the Federal Mine Health and Safety Act that government regulatory efforts spurred
another major decrease in coal mining fatality rates, and the results were dramatic.

Regulation of the mining industry increased gradually throughout the 20th century. The
federal government first addressed mine safety in 1910 when Congress created the U.S.
Bureau of Mines (USBM). USBM was primarily engaged in conducting research and
investigating catastrophic mine accidents. The agency had no regulatory authority
throughout most of its existence. Even after Congress granted it authority to inspect certain
mines in 1952, USBM lacked the power to compel mining operations to make needed
changes. In 1969, Congress passed the Federal Mine Health and Safety Act, the first
comprehensive mine safety law creating mandatory inspection requirements, enforceable
health and safety standards, and civil and criminal penalties for willful violations. The law
laid the framework for even stronger protections under the Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977, which established the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA).

In 1969, the year that the Federal Mine Health and Safety Act passed, 152 fatalities
occurred for every 100,000 underground coal miners. After the act’s passage, these fatality
rates dropped off steeply, decreasing by 50 percent in just four years.37

Same link as above.

 

[g5000]

I am making the case that regulations, in and of themselves, do not save lives.

Your case has failed. Miserably.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Again, you continue to ignore the examples where there is no 'product' or wronged consumer to litigate a company into compliance via fear of losing profit.

Drunk driving is a perfect example, you offer the ridiculous failed logic of 'some' people will ignore the laws, therefore, not a single life is saved due to regulation.

I am being nicer than usual here.

I am not ignoring anything.

You ignore everything.

Let's look at, oh, say motorcycle helmet laws:

Each state’s data showed approximately the same trend:

• When universal helmet laws are enacted, helmet use increases, and fatalities
and serious injuries decrease.

• When these laws are repealed, helmet use decreases, and injuries and
associated costs increase, far exceeding the number of new motorcycles
registered.

• Motorcyclist fatalities increase when a helmet law is repealed.

These results are consistent in every state where studies on the effectiveness of
motorcycle helmet laws have been conducted. Additionally, data show that age-specific
laws do not protect that group of riders that are historically victims in a fatal crash: those
over the age of 21 years.'

http://www.savemolives.com/programs/documents/UCLAHelmetLawStudy.pdf

Now this is where you say that just because the data proves that motorcycle helmet laws save lives, it does not prove motorcycle helmet laws save lives.

You really have a bad habit of cutting off what people are saying, don't you? If the government is the answer why do laws that supposedly protect us end up killing more people?

 

[Seawytch]

Empirical evidence consistently shows that motorcyclist deaths are disproportionately concentrated among those riding without a helmet.

https://www.msu.edu/~telder/donorcycles_current.pdf