Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

In my view, the onus to conduct tests and prove that it is safe to use should be conducted by the manufacturer and should meet the requirements of the regulating authority (presumably NHTSA in the U.S.) and appropriate city/states if they agree to allow limited public road usage.


In theory, that sounds great, but in practice, why should we trust manufacturers to reliably test their own products?


I agree, but it's fairly common practise. I think a "trust, but verify" approach should be used and jail board members for attempts to fool the regulators (c.f. VW emissions fraud)


The problem is that the manufacturer of course has a very strong incentive to stand with themselves. People don't advocate against themselves, and companies are no different.

When J&J found out about potential asbestos contamination in their baby powder in the 70s, they managed to convince the FDA that they would research and handle it. It took until 2020 for it to come to light that they did not do that, and that, in fact, their baby powder was contaminated.

They ran multiple studies, and some of them even showed that the amount of asbestos in their product was dangerous. But those studies never saw the light of day, and the company acted in a self-preserving manner. It's a similar story with 3M and byproducts of Teflon.

But, federal or state agencies have no alliance to a company's bottom line. They don't have the same incentives to lie or downplay. So, I think, it only makes sense that they should be responsible for testing directly, not just supervising.

I also think we need to adopt some legislation so that we must test products before we release them. You may be shocked to know you're allowed to release new chemical products without proving their safety, and you can even release new food products without proving their safety. Most of these products end up being okay in the long run, but some we have to retroactively ban. It would be easier for everyone if we begin in a banned state.


I do agree with that. It's a complicated trade-off between spending resources to police companies Vs doing all the testing.

Companies will usually be doing a lot of internal testing on new products, so they'll have a lot of the necessary tech and processes already in place. The trick is to ensure that faking results is penalised enough to make it not worth the risk. Most of the time it's cheaper to trust companies and then focus on the safety stats, though that fails with your examples of non-obvious issues.


It's NOT a complicated tradeoff at all.

The point is you either willingly spend the resources to independently test things for safety or companies WILL kill you to save a dollar.

This has been proven time and time again, big and small. We have the FDA entirely because a small company made "medicine" by buying medicine powder and putting it in a solvent that was acutely toxic that they didn't even think to give to an animal or something first. Literally just sold a random liquid to people as "medicine" and it killed a hundred people in utter agony.

Leaded gas was never a technical requirement. We could have been using Ethanol as our anti-knock/octane booster since the very beginning and never poison anyone but quite literally, the company chose instead to put Tetraethyl lead into gas because they could patent it, despite it being literally poison.

Same with PFOAs from 3M, who knew it was lethally toxic to mammals at fairly low doses decades and decades ago, but made no attempt to tell anyone or notify anyone or even reduce how much they were pouring it into waterways upstream of small communities. When they finally got sued by a lawyer who dug this all up in discovery, they finally said "Okay we will replace it" and replaced it with a nearly identical chemical that is just as toxic to mammals that they hope will break down easier in the environment, but how long will that take to demonstrate is false, and what are they going to switch to then?

Nixon made the EPA because companies would rather everyone die than change literally anything they've developed about their process or product, because they don't care about people dying. This idea of "bad press" or people will just stop using your products has demonstrably failed.

So suck it up, pay some taxes, test things for safety, and stop letting people die for such minuscule boosts in private company profits.


The difference in staffing between trust+verification and no-trust is miniscule, because any savings are things that are trusted and unverified.

Why not take an objective, fact-based regulatory approach from the start?


I've read somewhere that the NHTSA people working on mandatory tests for self driving were fired by DOGE.


Tesla has been lying for years. Why would you trust them to conduct their own tests? That's completely backwards.

Independent tests are what's needed, and preferably done by agencies who won't get gutted because they find something that's inconvenient.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: