Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The problem is that the bridge collapses that do happen are just catastrophic. The economic impact alone will be massive for Baltimore. But will the responsible parties pay out that damage in full? Unlikely.

Cost-benefit analyses aren't designed to evaluate the total risk a business venture presents to everyone who could possibly be involved; they're designed to evaluate the risk posed by a problem that will launch lawsuits that will play out in courts for years, if not decades. Meanwhile, some injured parties settle for pennies on the dollar, laws change, and in the absolute worst-case scenario, major shareholders draw down their positions in the corporate venture that caused the problem. The world keeps on spinning, and just maybe some regulatory agency will pay attention to the report issued by the likes of the NTSB and USCG.

The process does not adequately protect the public.




Regulations are written in blood, because trying to make everything safe pre-emptively is impossible economically for a number of reasons. Primarily being, you can’t (usually) realistically force people to spend the money on something that isn’t clearly an actual problem.

And that fundamentally means until someone ‘bleeds’/a big enough disaster happens, some things won’t get fixed.

See the triangle shirt waist factory for an example of what it took to be able to force people to pay for certain kinds of fixes.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_...]

Since folks aren’t currently burning down the NTSB’s offices or the like, it also seems like your opinion that the public is not currently adequately protected isn’t a majority one?

The only way we’ll ever hit zero accidents is if we are all dead, it’s impossible to do anything without some risk.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: