Hacker News Reader

Comment by TruthAndDare | Hacker News Reader

I am confused. You seem to be saying that the law had negative consequences for you and that you therefore think the cost needs to be increased to correct you into the intended behavior.

View on HN

The goal of the legislation was reduced use of plastic bags. I am saying that at the rate we accumulate reusable bags, the price of 10 cents is simply too low to force people to remember to carry a reusable bag when visiting the grocery store.

for me this is correct.. now me the consumer simply pays more.. once as a supermarket doesn't pay for it and does not lower their prices and twice as I as a consumer now pay for a rubbish bag.

no reduction in plastic bags, but usually more plastic waste as as they are bigger.

supermarkets, plastics manufacturers, and oil companies get more profits, ordinary consumers pay more, mother nature a slap in the face..

So then stop using plastic bags? That's the whole point of the legislation.

He is saying that the result is the opposite of the intent of the law. Telling a single individual to stop using the bags shows it doesn't work. It's like yelling at a user during user testing that they should just click the obvious button.

Laws should have A/B testing before rolling out to everyone.

In that plastic bag bans with the same basic parameters were applied in a few cities before spreading, in this particular case there was a kid of A/B testing before they were applied to everyone (actually, still pretty fast from everyone).

The argument upthread is that one household's behavior wasn't what the law intended, which is hardly a compelling counterargument.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com