Why ‘everyone is responsible for their own risk-based decisions’ isn’t the right approach to take

[chrisch]

...
It's not that I don't like rules - it's that I find the rules that competition creates to be more effective than the rules legislatures dictate.

Competition creates competition not rules. The long run of competition is monopoly as big companies buy up smaller ones. Data communications for example is pretty much Cisco, operating systems pretty much Microsoft and so on. This is why there are rules and government departments to regulate competition.

But I agree that ineffective rules are exactly that - ineffective. Also you are right that corruption encourages governments to create rules that favour companies that pay the political parties, for example the oil companies that pay government to lie about man made climate change and pretend it is not an issue, when it clearly is.

I like personal responsibility. I would agree that there is an element of society that would like it outsourced to the government - they are wrong in that goal. Also the devotees of the market who would like to outsource their responsibility to the market.

 

[The Chairman]

Maybe ScubaBoard should have a designated "Religion, Sex and Politics" forum exclusively reserved for such discussions, like the one that currently exists on BoardGameGeek ?

It's called the Pub and you have to join "Pub Regulars" user group to get in. Join User Groups Here

 

[Kharon]

We already have such a law in Quebec, but in practice the police only give tickets to people who try to drive around with a "snow mattress" 10-20-cm thick on the roof of their car.

The problem with a law like this is it's unnecessary and stupid. If you drive a lawful distance behind the vehicle in front of you, generally accepted as 3 seconds (closer is legally either tailgating or reclkess driving, at least here), any snow or ice on the vehicle ahead that blows off will hit the pavement long before you get to it - at any speed. I have been 3 seconds behind trailer trucks on the expressway after a major blizzard and had a massive amount of snow blow off the trailer and didn't come anywhere near getting hit. Same after an ice storm.

So if police ticket tailgaters (or they get their due) no need for another law. Personal responsibility instead of nanny.

 

[Schwob]

The problem with a law like this is it's unnecessary and stupid. If you drive a lawful distance behind the vehicle in front of you, generally accepted as 3 seconds (closer is legally either tailgating or reclkess driving, at least here), any snow or ice on the vehicle ahead that blows off will hit the pavement long before you get to it - at any speed. I have been 3 seconds behind trailer trucks on the expressway after a major blizzard and had a massive amount of snow blow off the trailer and didn't come anywhere near getting hit. Same after an ice storm.

So if police ticket tailgaters (or they get their due) no need for another law. Personal responsibility instead of nanny.

Not necessarily disagreeing with the general gist you outline, but thinking that (my 2 psi) if you've ever seen a roof load of snow slide off the roof of a sharply breaking car at a stop light and crash into the stopped vehicle infront, and considered what if it also had been a bunch of ice, you might think differently about roof top snow and ice and think of it a little more like the badly secured (roof) load... that it very well can be.

 

[Kharon]

Not necessarily disagreeing with the general gist you outline, but thinking that (my 2 psi) if you've ever seen a roof load of snow slide off the roof of a sharply breaking car at a stop light and crash into the stopped vehicle infront, and considered what if it also had been a bunch of ice, you might think differently about roof top snow and ice and think of it a little more like the badly secured (roof) load... that it very well can be.

I guess. But anyone slamming on their brakes at a stop light (or sign) in those conditions, besides being a jerk, is most likely going to crash into the car in front of them anyway. Intersections are the first to ice up from cars sliding to a stop. Snow/ice is then a minor problem. Also, slamming on the brakes is reckless driving. You are likely to get rear-ended by the vehicle behind.

I see your point, but I think personal responsibility is sadly lacking today. Oh, just to be clear, I always clear all the snow and ice off my car before driving. LOL I just think the law is dumb and unnecessary. It's common courtisy to make sure your car is clear of debris.

Another thing I just thought of. If you don't completely clear all the glass you can get pinched for obstructed vision. A cop friend of mine told me that any competent cop can follow you for a quarter mile and easily find something to stop and ticket you for.

 

[KenGordon]

I think you missed the whole purpose of my careful choice of Volvo vs Fiat. Just in case you are unaware, Volvo and Fiat do not share similar safety records - despite the fact that they are both heavily regulated! Volvos are arguably the safest cars on the road, while Fiats are one of the least safe. Their dramatic difference in safety records show how ineffective regulations are at normalizing quality. If regulations were effective in accomplishing what you seem to believe they do, Volvo and Fiat would be equally safe. Volvos are safer because Volvo decided to compete by building a safe car - and Volvos would still be safe in a world free of regulation. BUT in a regulation free world, you would probably see safer Fiats. Because people naively place trust in regulations, there is less incentive to worry about safety when car shopping. Regulations are like the RSTC - they make customers erroneously believe all cars / scuba agencies are equally safe - so customers are less likely to shop based on safety statistics. Without regulations, Fiat would have to increase safety in order to stay competitive. Similarly - without government imposed instructor regulations, or the RSTC, there would be greater incentive for agencies to compete and make scuba diving safer for all.

My wife is a nurse. Consequently, she has to pay the Board of Registered Nursing hundreds of $$$ every year to renew her occupational licenses. And what does she, or the public, get in return? Absolutely nothing! No one from the BRN has EVER met with my wife to make sure her standard of care, or her teaching (she is a professor of nursing) is quality! The market is entirely responsible for her maintenance of quality. If the BRN were dissolved tomorrow, it wouldn't reduce the quality of nursing she practices at all. If anything, it might cause her to improve her quality - because then there would be more competition for quality nurses. The BRN removes competition by making the public think all nurses are the same - just like the RSTC does to scuba - and just like instructor regulation would do to scuba. The only thing a Board of Registered Scuba Instructors would do to scuba is increase costs by several hundred $$$ per year to renew licenses, and further reduce competition - and consequently quality - by increasing the perception that 'all scuba instructors are the same' - because perception would be that they are all held to the same regulatory safety requirements.

You misunderstood - my post was about the advantages of agency competition - not about instructors individually.

There is more government interference in your life than you think. Time magazine did a study not too long ago that concluded that there are so many laws (regulations) on the books, that the average American commits at least one felony a day! But we (you) are so used to the control, you don't even notice it unless you actively pay attention for it.

Regulatory protection is NOT the primary role of government. The primary roles are to protect your individual right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Many regulations impede those roles - just like they impede incentive for Fiat to build a safer car! Another example is the FDA. Even though Americans are supposedly protected by the FDA's 'stringent approval process,' many approved drugs are found to be detrimental. But wait - if the FDA approved it, how is it possible that for an approved drug to be detrimental? Because regulations are mostly ineffective at 'protecting' us from harm. The best person to protect you is yourself - armed with the appropriate information that only free market competition can provide!

Although regulations are sold to the ignorant voting public as necessary for their own protection, the primary purpose of regulation results in something far more sinister - government created monopolies. Again, using the FDA as an example, $600 epi-pens would not exist in an environment of free market competition. Without the FDA, the public would be much safer - because they would have greater access to life saving $6 epi-pens!

It's not that I don't like rules - it's that I find the rules that competition creates to be more effective than the rules legislatures dictate.

Cheers

Maybe you’d like the choice of buying a Tata Nano? A nice cheap runabout, doesn’t take too much space, maybe a first car for the kids, or maybe the nanny?

http://www.autos.ca/general-news/india-may-have-the-most-dangerous-cars-in-the-world/

I couldn’t find anything to support your assertion that Fiat is worse than Volvo. In the past Volvo marketed safety and long life, but since then they have discovered motorsport and been owned by Ford and now a Chinese company. Apparently though nobody has died inside an XC90 as long as they have been on sale in the U.K., but I have no idea of how many have just outside one. Generally bigger cars are safer, Volvo makes quite large cars mostly, Fiat make a mix but it’s most popular ones are small.

More interesting stuff can be found here Driver death rates you may notice some local market lRge vehicles which are particularly poor.

Interestingly, road death rates per capita in the US are three times higher than most European countries. Maybe a bit more big brother/nanny statism would save a few tens of thousands of lives, likely more than everyone driving volvos.

BTW I see that you all suffer from excessive regulation of diving. With the exception of calling The Long Room on the radio to check if an idiot submarine or aircraft carrier is due I can dive whereever I want in the sea whenever I want, no flags required.

There is a lot of “Devil take the hindmost” on this thread.

 

[GJC]

My wife is a nurse. Consequently, she has to pay the Board of Registered Nursing hundreds of $$$ every year to renew her occupational licenses. And what does she, or the public, get in return? Absolutely nothing! No one from the BRN has EVER met with my wife to make sure her standard of care, or her teaching (she is a professor of nursing) is quality! The market is entirely responsible for her maintenance of quality. If the BRN were dissolved tomorrow, it wouldn't reduce the quality of nursing she practices at all. If anything, it might cause her to improve her quality - because then there would be more competition for quality nurses. The BRN removes competition by making the public think all nurses are the same - just like the RSTC does to scuba - and just like instructor regulation would do to scuba. The only thing a Board of Registered Scuba Instructors would do to scuba is increase costs by several hundred $$$ per year to renew licenses, and further reduce competition - and consequently quality - by increasing the perception that 'all scuba instructors are the same' - because perception would be that they are all held to the same regulatory safety requirements.

Cheers

I think you need to show your wife what you posted and see if she agrees with it.

Saying you are married to a nursing professor may cause people to view what you post with more authority and credibility than it deserves.

Most nurses do not mind paying the fee to renew their license every 2 years (in California) that allows them to earn pretty good pay.

The Nursing Board does not do nothing.

The Board screens all applicants, does a background check, ensures they have graduated from an accredited nursing school, administers an exam and issues licenses.

The board does not exist to make all nurses the same. It exists to ensure minimum standards of education and practice are followed.

The board also investigates complaints and ensures minimum practice standards are met.

The board implements disciplinary action, suspends and revokes licenses for nurses that break the law and those that abuse drugs and alcohol.

That board maintains a database available online to the public that shows who has an active or expired license and if it has been revoked or restricted.

I think the state boards of nursing do a pretty good job of protecting the public and ensuring that nurses can do their job effectively.

 

[chrisch]

...
I see your point, but I think personal responsibility is sadly lacking today. Oh, just to be clear, I always clear all the snow and ice off my car before driving. LOL I just think the law is dumb and unnecessary.

I too think personal responsibility is sadly lacking today. Very much so.

The law is only dumb and unnecessary if everyone felt like me and you. They don't. So it is necessary. I'd need to read it in full to see if it is dumb or not.

 

[sigxbill]

I couldn’t find anything to support your assertion that Fiat is worse than Volvo.

https://nypost.com/2018/01/12/safest-car-in-the-world-scored-nearly-perfect-in-crash-test/

You still missed the point of my posts. The point was that regulation reduces competition -> which reduces quality, and only helps the major players in that particular market. My posts are about SCUBA - not cars. The only reason cars came up is because I tried to use them to demonstrate how regulation makes people think cheap cars are just as safe as more expensive cars. The same can be seen in the scuba industry. The RSTC (scuba's version of regulation) makes people think that all training is the same, which reduces competition -> and consequently quality. Reliance on RSTC makes consumers erroneously think that cheap three day OW courses produce the same result as longer more expensive courses from agencies trying to compete on quality. If a consumer thinks all training is the same, because of regulation, very few are going to dig to try and find out why smaller agency training can cost twice as much.

I thought we were debating the OP's premise that imposing government regulation on instructors would improve safety, so I don't understand your closing remark that seems to indicate I am complaining about existing government regulation that doesn't exist. My point is to keep regulation non-existent in scuba ....

cheers

 

[sigxbill]

The Board screens all applicants, does a background check, ensures they have graduated from an accredited nursing school, administers an exam and issues licenses.

The board does not exist to make all nurses the same. It exists to ensure minimum standards of education and practice are followed.

The board also investigates complaints and ensures minimum practice standards are met.

The board implements disciplinary action, suspends and revokes licenses for nurses that break the law and those that abuse drugs and alcohol.

That board maintains a database available online to the public that shows who has an active or expired license and if it has been revoked or restricted.

I think the state boards of nursing do a pretty good job of protecting the public and ensuring that nurses can do their job effectively.

The BRN is absolutely unnecessary, and is a government leech and encroachment on the healthcare industry. The free market could do all of the things you list better than the BRN does. Regulation also teaches people not to be responsible for themselves - because the government takes care of us.

It is the job of an employer to screen applicants - not the governments. It is the job of nursing schools to compete to produce quality nurses - not a government accreditation body. And it is the school's job to issue exams. Then it is the nurse's job to convince an employer they are quality enough to be hired. The board does not need to investigate to make sure that practice standards are met. That is the job of the employer, consumer, and consumer advocate organizations. And what business does the government have in monitoring a free people's consumption of anything! Again, if job performance suffers - for any reason, resolving that is the job of the employer!

And a publicly viewable database to ensure that nurses have paid their annual fees? LOL! I guess a nurse magically forgets everything they learned the second their occupational license expires, and then magically remembers when they write their check to the government!

The BRN does very little to 'protect' the public. I would much rather that medical service providers competed for customers based on quality - including the quality of their nurses. This would allow consumers to better protect themselves - rather than rely on fiat protection from the government. The BRN reduces competition of nurses. Regulations increase costs and reduce competition - and then quality. For cheaper better medical care, the health care industry needs competition - which is absent from that industry ... I am sure we will have to agree to disagree.

Again, my point about the BRN is that regulation reduces competition in nursing and healthcare - just like regulation of scuba instructors would do to scuba. I don't think this is the proper forum to debate the advantages and disadvantages of the BRN - I just used that as an example. Obviously that example didn't work for you - so feel free to disregard it.

cheers