Hacker News Reader

Comment by atoav | Hacker News Reader

Sometimes people fall down the stairs in their own homes. That doesn't mean the government should mandate everybody to wear helmets at home does it?

A measure needs to be in proportion to the actual risk it seeks to mitigate.

View on HN

I am not in favour of limiting adb access, but this does beg the question, how many accidents would it take to cause enough overfull ERs to make the requirement of staircase railings a thing, in order to make sure there are doctors to treat other things than broken bones. uh happy Saturday.

In many jurisdictions, staircase handrails are required[1] in residential homes.

And even when they are required, it's up to the person using the stairs to determine whether they wish to elect to use the handrail or not.

[1]: IRC R311.7.8

Well in my book it is a cost vs benefit question. Handrails are not expensive in comparison to a medical procedure, nor are they particularly hindering in the daily use of the stairs. In fact, quite the opposite: anybody who uses stairs without handrails may find themselves temporarily disabled, e.g. if a circuit breaker tripped and you have to walk down the stairs in the dark.

That means, handrails cost little and have nearly no downsides. Which is why I used helmets as a metaphor. The proposed restrictions has a lot of downsides to deal with a mostly theoretical risk.

I am not arguing with this. I am pointing out that there might be a burden on the medical infrastructure a whole lot of dizzy or partially blind or drunk/high people might put on the system. If you can guarantee you won't prevent someone else from a wait or medical care then it essentially affects noone else but whoever might need to clean up or buy the house you are in if you die and noone finds you in time from the head wound or broken limbs. :).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com