I don't think aggregating it is a sensible way of addressing what the responsible approach of each property owner is.

Our idiot prior owners planted sequoia trees on our .11 acre lot. Very pretty. Totally inappropriate for the lots. One of them had a split trunk, to make matters worse. The trees are an inevitable hazard to driveways, fences and, eventually, rooves and brains. We just spent about a thousand having them out (to the indignation of our neighbors who called us tree-hating cretins but said that, no, they would not sign a perpetual release of liability)

We felt that spending this money now was the responsible thing to do even though it might take ten years for the one tree to crush our neighbor's house and, even then, they might not be inside at the time. If you frame the question as whether a property owner should spend one thousand, five thousand, etc. to alleviate a clear risk of harm that would result in far larger liability, then the decision becomes clearer. Aggregating the effect of that decision among everyone in the country who has a similarly costly risk on their property shouldn't distort what the right thing to do in particular cases is.

Perhaps you have, but then you would be prey to a common misconception regarding public assistance. The majority of those who come through our doors can, as you so colorfully phrased it “manage their own sh*t”. The stereotype of the “Welfare Queen” is outdated and false. Most are here because of something outside of their control; the death of a spouse, the primary wage earner being laid-off (especially poignant right now), illness, disability… Many of the families we see would have bee considered middle class ten/twenty years ago. Now, they can barely make ends meet; one paycheck away from destitution. Often it takes just one setback to send them over the brink, then they have little choice but to come here. I talk to these people every day. I hear their stories and see the fear and desperation in their eyes. Trust me, they would rather be anywhere than standing in line at the welfare office!

Except that aggregating is very common for evaluating whether government imposed regulations are sensible (just because something is the "right thing to do" does not necessarily mean it should be mandated by the government).

Also, I'd argue that if the only reason you removed the tree now was because of a 1 in (let's say to just pick a number) 100,000,000 chance of killing someone in any given year beyond 15 years from now that your $5,000 was very poorly spent.

If the odds of damage or death from the tree, however, are significant then aggregating might very wear bolster the case.

Conversely, what if a rather than the $5,000 fix there is a $40 fix that would save 70% of the lives (I have no idea if there is). At what point is the cost disproportionate to the minuscule -- though very real -- risk?

There may "only" be 33 kids that have been killed by the drains but many more have been permanently injured (usually after evisceration). Further, it is thought that many more deaths are probably attributable to pool drains but are listed as drownings since that is the actual cause of death.

Examples:

Here.

Here.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00016693.htmAnd here.


I'm amused by the idea that somehow these kids aren't "supervised". Only someone without kids would make a blanket statement like that. The pool we go to is very well supervised. I also supervise my 8yo. Nonetheless, she is often underwater...playing games, swimming, exploring, etc.. She is an excellent swimmer. I don't get up and follow her every time her head dips underwater. I don't expect there to be a freak hidden danger like a drain that would hold her down so firmly it would suck her intestines out.

Maybe in some of your minds this makes me a bad parent. Maybe you think I don't adequately supervise my daughter. But I also think that if there wasn't a "hidden" danger, and you saw me hovering* to that extent, you would think I was a total nutjob.


*Personally, I think this kind of extreme supervision at 8 would go beyond hovering and border on some kind of pervasive psychological condition.

I'm sorry, but if I were a parent, there is no way I'd allow my 7 or 8yo child swim in the deep end of the pool.

Then it would be likely your kid would be the dork odd man out because his parents wouldn't let him in the deep end.

I am a parent and I let my 7 or 8 year old swim in the deep end all the time. She took swim lessons for years and is a fairly strong swimmer. When we were that age we spent hundreds of hours at the public pool diving in the deep end. There were these square blocks you could check out and dive for them in the 8ft, which I hated cause I always feel like I'm drowning if I go that deep. And diving for them was a part of our swim lessons as well.

And I don't think it's all lack of supervision, although it could be. Kids can do the darndest things so fast you can't stop them. Madz got her head stuck in the fencing at the Tomorrowland Train Station when she was two. They finally got her out with bolt cutters but they thought they might need to weld. She did it in a second and none of us could figure out how she even got her head in a position to get in the space so we couldn't get her out.

The second link is to a personal injury law firm trolling for cases. That doesn't mean what they say is inaccurate just that they have a financial incentive to maximize the perceived risks.

The third link to the CDC is to a case where the protective drain cover was missing for some reason so very well might have happened regardless.

But my point is not that this regulation is unwarranted (as I said, I don't know enough to know), just that just as the "supervise your kids" thing is misguided, I think the "it's a real risk so the cost is a moral obligation which justifies making it a legal obligation regardless of the relative risk" is also misguided.

When we were 8 that was the year of school required swimming lessons. And this was back when there was a 10M high dive at the public pool (other risk concerns eventually got rid of that) and we all used it with abandon once we had passed the necessary stage of lessons.

Sorry about the second link. The third link is to an uncovered drain* but it address the same issues this legislation does. The reason for the drowning was the suction power created by having only one drain and the inability to free her because there was no emergency cut off switch.

*I believe, though am not certain that this is another issue the legislation addresses, i.e. easily removable drain covers.

eta: I added a new 2nd link.