Number of European countries require safety to be engineered into the product. Example, where I work, a machine in automation had a risk assessment that it produced 1600 newtons of clamping force, same biting force of an adult panda, could take off limbs. This machine could be sold in the USA and not the Europe. Re-engineered to be safe and sold in Europe, machine cannot even take off a finger.
USA is poorly regulated to keep operators safe. Designing for European mark means you can market safer than the competition in USA and sell in Europe at the same time. This also remove the need to build in safety guards or use light curtains.
Which one would you or your family members like to use day-in day-out, the 1600 newton limb remover built on USA standards or the one built around safety for Europe?
Depends, I might opt for the limb remover if it is simpler and works more reliably. Time is money and I'm confident I could use either properly so I'd likely waste more of my limited lifespan fixing the safe but more complex and more unreliable machine.
If there's no cost to the safety factor then sure, put it in. However there's almost always a cost. We all pay with a portion of our life every time we stand in an airport security line and every time we click accept to one of those EU cookie popups in a futile attempt to keep our data safe. With each click, billions of humans have a precious few moments severed from their short time on earth, moments that could be spent with loved ones.
I've been around a lot of people who say that sort of thing and it's why in my neck of the woods we note that "I never get distracted, I'm never tired, I always work perfectly" is the mantra of a woodworker who has eight fingers. (He didn't learn the first time.)
Time is money, but you can't get a finger back. And neither can your employees who work for you, who the EU regulations are, rightly, more concerned with than your bottom line.
You can get a finger back but only if your medical science is sufficiently advanced. Full fingers have been re-attachable since the 1960s, and soon we will be able to grow new fingers like a newt. The key is to continue the progress quickly rather than slow things in the name of onerous safety.
Yeah! How could you know anything really, you know? It's just impossible to know that you should securely affix, and test the security of, the cover of an accelerator pedal on a motor vehicle. There's no prior art to accelerator pedals and no examples of what happens when you make a bad one.
There's a difference between selling a multi-ton vehicle that has crumple zones and curved lines and selling a multi-ton vehicle that is designed to tenderize pedestrian rib cages. This comment also applies to today's pickups and SUVs; but while those vehicles are pretty nightmarish for the safety pedestrians and other drivers the CT is a further escalation of matters through both design and build quality.
I don't understand the motivation behind such a question. We sell cars because the benefits to motor transportation outweigh the safety risks in aggregate. That aggregate tradeoff is nonresponsive to the singular case of YOLOing avoidable risks on a Tesla.
Safety is the new snakeoil. Add just a drop and a sprinkle of "think of the children" and you can sell your BS to anyone.