Nova Andromeda wrote:-People can do all sorts of things in their home (at least in the U.S.). I could build a whole workshop in my garage if I felt like it or load my own ammunition. This would obviously make my house a much more dangerous place than those who don't have such things. I don't see how one can pin down a "typical level of safety" in the case of either a residential home or a lab for that matter.
Yet again, you are demonstrating an incredibly slothful approach. You don't
want to make this work, so you stop at every conceivable point and say "I can't go any farther! Waaaaaaaa!"
Don't be a dumbshit; workshops are typically found in only one area of the house, they are obvious when you find one, etc. And yes, one could determine what is a typical level of safety for a workshop found in a home.
Some labs have very few hazards while other have many extreme hazards.
And what about my statement required that all types of labs be grouped together under one standard? I'm sick of you deliberately pretending that every goddamned little thing is an insolvable dilemma.
What can the homes and labs on the more hazardous end of the spectrum do? Certainly the precautions taken in labs aren't very useful to a person that is determined to break through physical barriers and doesn't understand the hazard labels (and very few people off the street understand many lab hazard labels). The same is true for a residential home, but to a lesser extent.
See above.
It seems to me that one should not be considered negligent if they comply with all the safety measures that are dictated by the government. Those measures are fairly clear for labs, but I don't know about residential homes.
You actually think the standard should be set by a shitload of regulation? Do you have any idea how much regulation would be necessary in order to define what can and can't be considered acceptable in a residential home? How much political uproar there would be? How much red tape there would be? How many stupid, asinine regulations would result from giving government bureaucrats primary authority over this?
Frankly, the idea that negligence should be based on what everyone else is doing is ridiculous.
Yes, it is a deeply flawed system. Its only real benefit is that alternatives are fucking stupid, and even worse. And I haven't seen you offer a viable alternative, unless you honestly think that government regulations governing what you can and can't do in your house would actually fly
Following that line of reasoning every lab could simply decide to have no safety at all and then they would never be found negligent regardless of how irresponsible they might be with regard to safety.
No, because labs would have to deal with both informal standards of care and formal government regulations. Residential homes do not have this problem. Not to mention the collusional aspect of what you're saying. Collusion is a good way to get in deep shit.
It is much better to have reasonable standards for different types of hazards in various locations. That way everyone can easily figure out what the standard is and the measure for negligence isn't decided via mob mentality.
This is like saying that it's a "mob mentality" to declare that the safest highway velocity is the average traffic speed, even though that is manifestly true. It is so wildly impractical to set government regulatory standards for domestic household activity on so many levels that I can't imagine any sane person seriously proposing it. You must not be a sane person.
