Dangerous circuit board?

[John D v2.0]

His point is a lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean the regulations weren't beneficial, it just means we don't know whether they were or not.
The alternative view is all regulations have to prove they have a positive impact, which isn't always possible.

 

[JohnW2]

And your point is?

What I wrote - and, given that they presumably would not have wanted to become very poor, one can but assume that had your proposal come into force 'back then', a lot of the 'new regulations' would never have some into being.

It will, of course, never happen, which makes your initial comment as hypothetical as my response to it!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

His point is a lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean the regulations weren't beneficial, it just means we don't know whether they were or not.

Partially, but my point (and presumably also BAS's initial one) is also that many of the regulations probably have not been all that beneficial.

The alternative view is all regulations have to prove they have a positive impact, which isn't always possible.

That's not the only alternative. The first thing to look at is the nature/extent of the risk that a regulation would seek to reduce and the cost (in the widest sense) of introducing it - so that a 'cost-benefit' assessment can be made.

Many (most? nearly all?) might say that the 'non-combustible CUs' regulation is probably an example of one in which would probably be hard to justify (with hard evidence) on a 'cost-benefit' basis. More controversially, I have often mentioned my suspicions that the massive amount (probably 'billions') spent on buying and installing RCDs would probably have saved far more lives and serious injuries if it had been applied in a different area.

With the annual number of UK domestic electrocutions not far into 'double figures', and accepting that it is unrealistic to believe that it will ever fall to zero, the scope for reducing the number of these deaths is very limited - which means that the 'cost' side of the equation becomes the dominating consideration if the 'benefit' one looks at is a reduction in deaths (and much the same is probably true of serious injuries).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnD]

When the cost of implementing the regulation does not fall on the regulator, the regulator does not feel the impact of the cost.

 

[JohnW2]

When the cost of implementing the regulation does not fall on the regulator, the regulator does not feel the impact of the cost.

Indeed - hence, I suppose, BAS's hypothetical 'suggestion', such that the cost would at least fall on the 'regulator' if the regulation proved to be 'not beneficial'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnD]

the (wo)man who made the decision will have retired by then.

The Scottish Parliament building was decked out regardless of expense, and vastly overran its budget.

Guess who wasn't paying for it?