Largely because we have a long inversion of how government should act. It should have never needed "approval" in the first place, government should have to seek to ban a product, innovation, etc based on their own creditable evidence the thing is dangerous.
Instead of we adopted a position of everything being illegal until it is blessed by a regulator, it is in effect guilty until proven innocent.
Until we put government back into the proper context innovation will continue to be inhibited
> Largely because we have a long inversion of how government should act. It should have never needed "approval" in the first place, government should have to seek to ban a product, innovation, etc based on their own creditable evidence the thing is dangerous.
Uh, no. There should be a well defined standard of what light need (light area of this and that size or at least this or that brightness) and can't (low beams blinding oncoming traffic etc.) do, then let market work within those limits. The regulation should have actual research behind it. Pretty sure that's how it works in EU.
Then if for some reason behavior of lights on the market causes problem, the standard should be revised, not ban random products for breaking rules that haven't existed when they were created (aside from extreme cases I guess)
Instead of we adopted a position of everything being illegal until it is blessed by a regulator, it is in effect guilty until proven innocent.
Until we put government back into the proper context innovation will continue to be inhibited