It is not the government's job to enumerate every specific brand of stupid design that may be harmful multiplied by every class of product nor should it be.

If you want to do that stuff, do it with a performance test or criteria, not with stupid whack-a-mole rules. And don't think that weasel wording the test to the same effect is any better. If you want to do this the not stupid way you need to actually do the hard work and figure out what the over-arching general case performance characteristics need to be.

With better styling cues and design that make it obvious how to use the Tesla handles (and all the degrees of copycats) it wouldn't be an issue. But that isn't the kind of sleek sext angular bullshit modern car designers like so it never got made and here we are.

▲

csours 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Game it out - if you issue guidelines, people abuse them, then government agencies get in trouble (isn't it your job to stop this kind of thing?), so government agencies issue strict rules.

Bureaucracies have many fathers, the society we have is the result of conflict and incentives.

	▲	cucumber3732842 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>Game it out - if you issue guidelines, people abuse them, You wind up with smaller gaps with the qualitative and rules based approach than you do with the whack-a-mole list. >then government agencies get in trouble (isn't it your job to stop this kind of thing?), so government agencies issue strict rules. Government agencies tend to grow in scope and resources when they screw up. Even when punished, it's not like they go bankrupt and everyone is out of a job. >Bureaucracies have many fathers, the society we have is the result of conflict and incentives. And ideology. You can incentivize the Taliban all you want they won't send their girls to school. I postulate that the failure of american regulatory to systems to regulate without sucking is driven in large part by what goes on in the heads of the subset of people who spec out, create and operate said systems.

▲

pixl97 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>enumerate every specific brand of stupid design that may be harmful

As commonly said by the libertarian at heart, right up until the point their loved one gets injured or killed, then they are at the forefront of regulation.

> But that isn't the kind of sleek sext angular bullshit modern car designers like

Who likes safety and security? These features commonly make every day use more difficult. Who needs unblocked fire exits, that takes up too much room in the building. Who needs a common interface for a safety critical device, that removes the 'cool' factor.