WTF Stories of the Week

[Alex]

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.

[bewitched]

Originally Posted by Alex

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.

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.