Against safety regulation

From CroziervisionWiki

I am against safety regulations (or health and safety regulations as they are sometimes called, not that it makes any difference as they are both, in theory, trying to do the same thing ie make us live longer, healthier lives) because they:

involve force (or the threat of force) which I oppose
are often based on the assumption that safety ie living as long as possible is paramount. I disagree.
are often based on the assumption that private enterprises are not interested in their customers' safety. I disagree with this too.
often make things even more dangerous than they already are.
need bureaucracies to enforce them. These people could be doing something useful.
can rob people of responsibility. People can start to think: "I don't have to bother about safety because the regulations are there."

1 Questions
2 References

[edit]

Questions

[edit]

Living as long as possible not paramount?

Yes. I only have to look at my own life to know this. I make hundreds of decisions where there was a safer option eg buying a CD when I could have bought a fire extinguisher. In doing so I am making the statement that I prefer the near certainty that I will enjoy the enjoyable thing to the slightly reduced risk of whatever unpleasant death may await me. I bet you do the same. Heck, many people actively seek out danger eg motorcyclists and recruits to the army.

[edit]

Companies care for their customers?

Well, OK they don't care as such. But they do care about their profits and because they care about their profits they have to care about safety. See what happens to them when they don't eg. Perrier. When an aircraft crashes that costs a fortune. Likewise train crashes. The company loses the trainset, has to repair the infrastruture, loses revenue for the time they are not operating and loses the future business of people who are put off travelling by train. As one boss put it: "Even minor incidents cost millions."¹

[edit]

So what happened to Perrier?

If I recall correctly they had a problem with benzene. They didn't go bust but they sailed pretty close to the wind

[edit]

But surely aircraft loses etc are covered by insurance?

Yes, but where do insurance companies get their money from? Premiums. They are trying to make a profit out of everything they underwrite. If, for instance, it seems to them that railways are getting more dangerous, they will hike up the premiums. In extreme cases they will even refuse to underwrite the risk.

[edit]

But what about commuters, they don't have a choice, they have to get to work?

It certainly feels like that. The key thing to remember is that some commuters do have a choice. They can find a job nearer where they live (something that would be easier if we abolished planning laws). If enough passengers leave the rail company is in big trouble.

[edit]

Safety regulations making things more dangerous? Any examples?

Spontaneously combusting bendy buses, which were enforced on London on safety grounds are a classic example. A better example is rail safety regulation. These put up costs and cause delays. So, people take to the much more dangerous roads and people get killed.

[edit]

But, surely, to err is human

The idea being that they'll get it right in the end. The thing is they never seem to. And I suppose my feeling is that if a government is going to do anything it should be pretty damn sure it's right. I don't think law should be a suck it and see it affair.

[edit]