Hacker News Reader

Comment by curiousgeorgio | Hacker News Reader

Consider this: every time you get into a car, you are putting yourself into life-or-death scenarios that greatly depend on the class and quality of car you've chosen. The government enforces some minimum safety standards for any registered car on the road, but above that, you pay for safety - quite literally.

Does the government prevent the sale of cheaper, inferior cars just because higher-priced cars are substantially safer?

Why should medical devices be any different? If the barriers to entry (e.g., costs associated with FDA approval) were lower, then we'd absolutely have some inferior EpiPens on the market. But we'd also have a lot more options, and all of them (even the best) would be ridiculously cheap compared to what we're seeing now. Wouldn't that be better overall for people who might not be able to afford one at all in the current system?

View on HN

> The government enforces some minimum safety standards

I think this understates the safety regulations for automobiles by quite a bit. Maybe there's an example of an industry which makes lightly regulated, dangerous products, but I don't think cars are it.

True - the government's automobile safety standards are far from trivial, but there's no denying that the difference in safety between the cheapest smart car on the road and the safest car on the road is huge. In a head-on collision between the two, there's absolutely no contest.

Asking why the government should allow an EpiPen competitor with a 0.1% higher failure rate is akin to asking why the government should allow people to purchase small, cheap cars.

> there's no denying that the difference in safety between the cheapest smart car on the road and the safest car on the road is huge. In a head-on collision between the two, there's absolutely no contest.

I don't think that's true. Certainly expensive cars have new safety features, but ...

I read a study of empirical data on what, in practice, made cars more survivable in accidents. It was awhile ago but here is my vague memory:

The data was hard to analyze - they were trying to untangle cause and effect from wrecks - but the conclusion was that the most important factor was the relative location of hard points: If their hard point (e.g., bumper) lines up with your soft spot (e.g., driver-side door/window), it's bad for you. That's something that doesn't depend on cost.

Otherwise, I would assume safety depends heavily on weight and structural integrity, and certainly some cheaper vehicles, such as pickup trucks, would be much safer by those measures than much more expensive sedans.

It also might depend on center of gravity, roll-over potential, breaking ability, etc.

I once read someone stating that "The safest car on the road is the one with a ten-inch razor-sharp metal spike fixed to the centre of the steering wheel.".

As a road user (walker, cyclist, occasional runner) I consider small vehicles that are easy to see around and above far safer than heavy, bulky vehicles.

Cars aren't designed for the safety of anyone but their occupants, though.

> Cars aren't designed for the safety of anyone but their occupants, though.

This is not the case. Part of the reason that all new cars from large manufacturers are as bulky looking as they are is to conform with US pedestrian collision regulations.

While I applaud this initiative, I'd like to be able to buy a smaller, nimbler car and simply avoid hitting pedestrians.

Yes, but that's mostly because the safest car is more like a suburban tank while the smart car is more like an urban mobility device. If there were no suburban tanks around, the smart car would instantly be much safer.

gun industry

Firstly, the standards and regulations a manufacturer needs to meet to get even a single car on the road are staggering - probably comparable to FDA approval in complexity. Also, the testing of single components and complete vehicles is extremely comprehensive.

Secondly, there's a huge difference between the two cases that you're not considering: medical devices are designed to interact directly with the human body and alter it from within.

> Does the government ban us from purchasing cheaper, inferior cars just because higher-priced cars are substantially safer?

Yes?

But also no, I can be a used car with lower safety features than mandated for new cars I believe

In that case, there is no ambiguity when it comes to determining who's responsible, unless the DMV or whoever allowed you to drive it.

Yes, and you can use an expired or recalled medication. I'm not sure how that's relevant.

The used car will also need to pass an annual safety inspection here in NY, at least, as it's required to meet some minimum safety standards.

Even though there are cars with a 5-star safety rating, you can still get ones with a 4-star or even 3-star ratings. So I would say the answer to the original question "Does the government prevent you from buying less safe cars" is "No".

In both situations, the government sets a minimum permissible safety standard to sell the product. Medications and medical devices are allowed to kill/injure, but only to a point. Same with cars.

The Government doesn't forbid you, the consumer, from buying questionable cars. It's the manufacturer who is restricted by Government regarding what cars they can sell.

> The Government doesn't forbid you, the consumer, from buying questionable cars.

Yes, they do. There are special regulations around salvage vehicles. Most (all?) states require cars to pass inspection to be on the road. The FTC requires certain disclosures on used cars. WA won't let you sell a post-1964 car - even in a private sale - without seatbelts (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.37.510). etc. etc. etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com