Don't engage in statistical silliness
Published July 15, 2015
By John Hood
by John Hood, Syndicated columnist, Carolina Journal, July 15, 2015.
Should regulators require child-safety locks on stepladders?
Such a rule would have been a real problem at the Hood abode years ago when my boys were little. At the time, there were a couple of different folding ladders that got transported from room to room throughout the day, allowing the Little Rascals access to videotapes (remember those?), action figures, model cannons, Pop Tarts, and other essentials of modern life.
But according to a recent report, more people in North Carolina die from falls in their homes than they do from such hazards such as fires, drownings, or the discharge of firearms. Falls make up about a third of all accidental deaths in the home. The risk isn’t limited to the elderly, so don’t jump to conclusions: falls are also one of the leading causes of injuries to children under the age of 14.
So why not require some kind of lock or other device to keep young children and the infirm from mounting a stepladder? Because that would be impractical and silly, you might say. Because such a rule might even put more people in danger, since those deterred from using a ladder to reach a great height would probably use whatever else they can find to accomplish the task — some precarious tower of boxes or chairs that might make a fall more likely. You might also point out that while falls may represent one of the single-greatest safety hazards one might encounter in a home, the chance of being seriously injured or killed by a fall is still remote.
All of these arguments are valid. They also apply to other panicky governmental over-reactions.
For example, years ago Congress required pills to be placed in bottles with childproof caps. You can understand why. Every year, some children were sickened or even killed by ingesting multiple pills they found in their parents’ medicine cabinet. Unfortunately, as economist Kip Viscusi later established with carefully empirical study, the first round of childproof caps actually coincided with increases in overall poisonings. One explanation was that older people who took a lot of medicine found it difficult to work the caps and got in the habit of just leaving the caps off entirely. Another reason was a "lulling effect" on parents who took fewer precautions to keep their children out of medicine cabinets.
Think that mandating safety devices on automobiles represents an unalloyed improvement in traffic safety? Think again. There is a well-established phenomenon in these cases — called risk compensation or homeostasis by experts — in which drivers, knowing that they are surrounded by more protection or equipped with more safety devices, tend to drive a bit more recklessly. This can offset, partially or fully, the safety benefits of the regulation.
I trust I don’t need to spend a lot of time explaining why gun control might make at least some people less safe. By now, the arguments surely sound familiar. North Carolina is a concealed-carry state. Crime and homicide rates are lower today than they were when the statute was enacted. Perhaps they would have fallen even more if North Carolinians weren’t carrying concealed weapons, but it is certainly plausible — and there is, once again, empirical evidence pointing in this direction — that the policy deters some crimes by communicating to potential criminals that their victims could be armed and ready to respond with deadly force.
By the way, those who try to tally up the risks and rewards of gun availability by counting the number of times guns are fired in defense vs. in accidental injuries or deaths are engaging in statistical silliness. Guns are the most effective in enhancing our safety when they are not being fired. So to examine only cases in which guns are discharged is to seek an answer to the wrong question.
Freeing our lives from risk is impossible. Our goals should be to identify, manage, and minimize risk. The next time you hear someone mourn a tragic loss of life and pontificate about how “there ought to be a law,” express sympathy but then diplomatically ask him what his position is on stepladder regulation.
July 15, 2015 at 10:20 am
Norm Kelly says:
John is obviously NOT in touch with his liberal side. Were he in touch with his liberal side, he WOULD be calling for safety equipment on step ladders!
The words most favored by libs, besides 'tax the rich', are 'there oughta be a law!'. It does NOT matter the topic. It does not matter the hazard or the potential benefit. Especially when it comes to 'the children', libs desire is to pad them from head to toe for their entire lives. And not just their kids but my kids too. Libs claim they want to protect 'other' people from harm and they will force you to participate in their silliness. By court order if necessary. Cuz when libs can't get legislators to pass their goofy protection rules, they manage to find a court that will. And when a majority of voters choose what the libs don't want us to choose, they find a way to get a judge to override the majority. Cuz it's obviously the lib way or no way at all! (witness the lies being told about voting law changes in NC!)
As a good lib, everyone knows that there is NO downside to government regulation. There are no unintended consequences to government regulations implemented by libs. The only downside ever noted is when Republicans or conservatives implement change. Then it's automatically deemed bad or hurtful. Or worse yet, racist. When it's really 'bad' libs will claim it not only hurts blacks/minorities, but it's damaging to 'the children'.
So, now that John has given the idea of safety equipment for all in-home step ladders, how long before some lib decides this is a good policy? Trust me, they have already looked at this and are debating amongst themselves when the best time and best place is to propose this regulation. And it WILL be attached to some 'for the children' proposal. Because they are libs, and they believe deep down inside that there oughta be a law for every situation, they are debating other new/improved regulations as well. How long before they want to allow refrigerator inspectors to make sure you aren't feeding food to 'the children' that has been left over for too long? Or that your might be feeding 'the children' too much starch, or processed food, or gluten products, or red meat, or too few veggies, or whatever else hits the libs at the time. So long as it's 'for the childre', libs and Billary will propose, support, defend, and go to court for it! Regardless of what 'it' is. Worse, they won't tell us about any new goofy regulation until after it's passed into law. Remember their chant of 'you have to pass it to know what's in it'? Take over about 1/6th of the US economy, and we can't know what's in it, nor do they, until after it becomes law. And then, like good libs, get courts to rewrite the law so that it can be deemed valid! Another case of judicial activism if ever there was one. But the default position of using the courts to force their silliness upon the masses, whether it's good or not. And because it's a socialist idea, libs claim there are no downsides!
