Public safety should be managed by public entities, not private. That’s a blatant conflict of interest and I’m not a fan whatsoever.

Some things can sometimes work well, like when the regulation is publicly managed but privately tested using straightforward methods. UL does decent work here, but the profit incentive on both sides creates a nasty conflict of interest and puts pressure on engineers and technicians that compromises their work and integrity.

There is nothing fundamentally broken about our regulatory system except politics. If the funding stops getting cut and politicians stop gutting regulatory bodies’ ability to interpret and enforce regulations there won’t be a problem.

Regulators in general care about their work, care about public safety, and use sound statistical approaches to getting the best bang for the taxpayer and corporate dollar. Keeping private profit out of the equation means costs are low and companies aren’t at a competitive disadvantage internationally.

I get your sentiment, certainly. When regulations work well they protect engineers and technicians from the pressure to cut corners to save money. That’s hard work that can only be done by well funded and fully empowered regulatory bodies something that’s unfortunately become a political issue and is being actively undermined.

That being said I’ve been on both sides of the engineer-regulator relationship and I’ve rarely been in a “trust us bro” situation. Both sides want a safe, high quality product. When regulators work well, they can definitely protect engineers from capitalist pressure. Being able to say “sorry, I know it’s expensive, but we have to do it or we won’t get certified” is worth its weight in gold when you’re trying to design a good, safe product!