> Many of the rules are similar, because they are generally commonsense rules. Australia has a few extra ones....You have to get the pool fence reinspected and recertified every 3 years (this may differ state to state).

Yeah, this kind of thing is exactly why NYC has scaffolding on half of the buildings, forever. Huge backlogs and high costs for "recertification" of situations that rarely ever change and carry miniscule marginal risk, due to aggressive laws.

> It was not so much an assumption as it it was a presumption, which if true sets a lower bound on the cost.

No, it's an assumption. There's a difference between "drownings might go down if we do something to limit them" (i.e. "presumption") and "this SPECIFIC SET OF RULES is therefore the thing we must do to save lives" (what is actually happening).

> Taken individually, each pool fence that saved a life only cost the parents $5k. Well worth it.

OK, let's be clear: if you build a pool and have kids, then I have no argument against you being required to put a fence around it. I agree with you that the marginal cost is trivial. Same thing for hotels, rentals, etc. Some regulations make sense.

I start to disagree when these rules are applied to everyone, everywhere, in all circumstances. Many US states impose these rules on people who don't have children, don't live near children, etc. And of course, the comment that started this thread was demanding that we wrap every body of water, everywhere, with a fence "if a child is expected to be present".

If a child comes wandering onto my (hypothetical) property and falls into my (hypothetical) garden pond and drowns, that's the fault of the parent. Particularly so if I've already got a fence around my property, live far away from people, or any number of other factors that sensibly mitigate risk.