Ignorance of safety precautions that are explicitly stated in the user manual that comes with the generator? To me that's stupidity.
> Not everybody has the education of the average HN contributor.
Anyone who is reasonably literate should be able to properly understand "don't run this generator indoors".
> some people have mild mental/intellectual deficiencies or simply below-average IQ
In a sane society, such people would be wards of other people who were responsible for looking after them and ensuring their safety. Of course, we don't live in a sane society.
But in any case, such people probably won't have portable generators because they won't be planning ahead that much.
> I guess that's the people you call "stupid"
Not at all. I call a person stupid who knows enough to buy a portable generator as a precaution, but can't be bothered to learn how to properly use it.
It’s hard for me to fathom how somebody could possibly think operating an internal combustion engine inside of a building is not going to kill them.
Lastly, a generator is used in emergency situations. If a safety feature that is unnecessary for 99.99% of people means your generator can’t start, that’s not good either.
You are assuming that "we" have to draw a line somewhere. "We" don't. Individual people should be making their own decisions about these things.
> It’s hard for me to fathom how somebody could possibly think operating an internal combustion engine inside of a building is not going to kill them.
It's hard for me too. But for a small number of people, it seems to be the case. As the saying goes, "You can't make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious."
But it's even harder for me to fathom how, given the above, people still somehow believe that government regulation will magically fix the problem, and ignore the fact that such regulations, as I've said, punish all the rest of us who are responsible adults for the irresponsibility of a tiny few.
Ok, then yes. We draw the line based on observed effects.
The observed effect is it’s costing the US $1Bn every year and the additional cost will pale in comparison.
If you want to disagree with those numbers fine.
If you think saving $1bn per year and tend to hundreds of lives at the cost of a few hundred thousand is not worth it. Fair enough. That’s why you elect legislators who have to approve and/or can disallow these rules.
The lines are drawn by your elected representatives based on costs and benefits.
That’s where you draw the line.
Given the number of people involved, which, as I've posted elsewhere in this thread, is miniscule (1300 deaths and 77,000 injuries over 17 years, which equates to 77 deaths and 4529 injuries per year), I have extreme difficulty believing this number. It looks like a number pulled out of someone's orifice for FUD.
> The lines are drawn by your elected representatives based on costs and benefits.
Not if they are based on numbers that don't seem to have any relation to reality.
Not to mention the fact, which has already been pointed out by several posters in this thread, including me, that the numbers involved are tiny compared to the numbers for traffic deaths--and automobile safety is already regulated up one side and down the other. Which should give anyone pause regarding the claimed "savings" due to regulation.
You frame this as stupidity, but I think a more accurate characterization would be ignorance. Not everybody has the education of the average HN contributor. Also, some people have mild mental/intellectual deficiencies or simply below-average IQ (I guess that's the people you call "stupid", but they are people too - and one day you might end up learning a bunch from one of them)