Hacker News Reader

Comment by michaniskin | Hacker News Reader

Drugs are not somehow different from any other type of product. All products have some level of risk to the consumer, and may or may not do what they're advertised to do.

    The Car & Truck Administration (CTA) approval process
    ensures both that cars and trucks perform an intended
    function, and that cars and trucks don't harm people.
    Part of the expense of this process is making sure that
    both of these aspects are performed to sufficient
    standards.

And yet, we don't seem to need an FDA of cars and trucks costing auto manufacturers $1.4B to develop a new car, and our cars don't explode and kill us. The reason? A car maker who makes unsafe cars goes out of business. Consider Ralph Nader's "Unsafe At Any Speed" did to the Corvair corporation.

View on HN

Unsafe at Any Speed as an argument _against_ safety regulations? A creative approach, at least.

Uh, what? In the US, the NHTSA and DOT enforce rather rigorous safety standards, and this requires automakers to front relatively expensive R&D and certification costs. It's a huge (and given the history of motor vehicle safety, necessary) barrier to market entry.

Like the FDA, and as monopolies, NHTSA and DOT have much less stake in the safety of a consumer than do either car producers and drivers.

Personally, I trust myself not to buy a car that I've heard explodes. You may not, and I respect that. But I see no reason to pay for a service that assures you when I myself require no such assurance.

If NHTSA and DOT operated like UL, products that were less safe probably wouldn't have NHTSA or DOT seals, and those products would be much cheaper. People willing to trade safety for cost would be able to own a car. People willing to pay for safety would pay more. Because of the lower barrier to production, there would be probably much greater choice in car buying, and cars would be universally cheaper. In either case, the choice would rest with individual consumers, who know best their situation and risk tolerance.

You're completely ignoring the fact that consumer choices about automobile safety have externalities beyond the buyer. Sure, maybe you and I care enough about auto safety standards to buy a vehicle that isn't dangerous, but I don't trust other consumers to necessarily do the same thing. I don't want to be sharing the road with some corner-cutting jalopy that's likely to throw a tire through my windshield while we're passing each other on the highway, and I definitely don't want a market that permits such low-quality products to be operated in public spaces.

I can think of a few systems in place that mitigate cases like the one you mention.

First, I can think of very few things that could happen to someone's car that would disadvantage you without disadvantaging them. In the case you mention, the missing tire would render the jalopy inoperable, and so the buyer suffers for their poor choice of vehicle. Any buyer thus factors reliability and safety into their decision, whether or not they are particularly concerned about the safety of others. Plus, now they have to walk, and you probably won't be giving them a ride. A counter-argument to this would be effect on climate, an externality that's maybe best left out for now :-)

Second, individuals may sue other individuals for personal or property damage. So, at least one factor preventing everyone from terrorizing you with their jalopies is that they are liable for damage their jalopy causes to others. The decision to purchase a jalopy includes this risk, disincentivizing the purchase of dangerous (to others) vehicles.

Third, it's already a requirement in most jurisdictions that drivers are insured because of the above liability, and insurance companies could easily deny coverage to unsafe vehicles, as determined by any (private) mutually agreed 3rd NHTSA/DOT-like party.

Finally, because there is no competition in the area of safety certification, it seems highly unlikely that the government's assessments of risk correspond to the risk assessed by the average consumer. The fact that most people choose to drive used vehicles that don't meet the government's latest safety standards feels like implicit proof of this.

None of your defenses work outside of a thought experiment where every actor is rational. Real human beings are anything but, and there's a long history of precedents for why all of your positions here are bad ideas (and why regulatory bodies like NHTSA, DOT, and other regulators became necessary).

And your arguments rest on the assumption that politicians and voters are rational, surely?

My bet is on individuals to act in their own best interest. Likewise, politicians have every incentive to act in ways that benefit themselves and their friends at the expense of everyone else. In both cases I acknowledge the capabilities of these humans to use their own brains to think, but only politicians have an incentive become corrupt.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com