When a manufacturer makes a chair, he has extensive record keeping requirements, where every part of the design must be documented extensively with proof that the design is adequate, other options have been given proper consideration, and so forth. Part of this is a bunch of very stringent safety and other standards
While bureaucratic regulation surely inhibits innovation, assuming that the manufacturer really wants to innovate in the first place, the absence of such regulation, or shortcuts taken to avoid that regulation, has consequences too. Here's a link to one case that regards worker safety regulation rather than product design regulation,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46143670/ns/business-us_business/#.TyE_AHqfW9sbut there are far too many instances where ignoring certification requirements, sometimes with malintent, other times perhaps just out of stupidity, have led to marketing of life-threatening products. The recent case of breast implants in which contaminated, industrial-grade materials were used instead of medically-certified materials, is surely criminal, and the CEO is now in a French jail awaiting trial. Other cases don't seem to involve criminal intent, but are still worrisome: a search, for example, for Medtronic recalls and safety warnings will come up with public domain documents that are not very reassuring, and the case of radiation therapy software that all too-easily led to horrid overdoses is another. On a more mundane level, the Italian equivalent of Consumer Reports recently tested some imported small, cheap home appliances (made where good manufacturing practices are not enforced) and found multiple, frightening cases of electrical and thermal dangers.
While demanding engineering justification of every nut and bolt (as JoeC described very well in a post in the wheelchair reviews section) can be a horrid impediment to making better products, one can't legislate "smarts" and can only legislate procedures that might avoid "idiocies" (and just plain greed) from hurting or killing people. Balancing freedom and safety is never going to be an easy task, and each of us probably has a bit different view on where that balance should be. Most of us here, for example, very much object to lack of access to OEM-level programming tools, but I, for one, would not want to see uncontrolled distribution of these to anyone who asks for it because in the hands of the sloppy or ignorant they can indeed do great harm. Not one of the durable medical equipment dealers that I have had personal contact with in either the U.S. or Italy should have an OEM programmer!
Luckily, many of us live in societies where, as individuals, we can take risks to try to do things better and where we are free to publicise our experiments, and our mistakes, so that others can learn from them. It may take a long, long time to see the positive results reach the general public, but we can at least hope that eventually some of them will. John's latest LiFePO4 project is a case in point. Only when the BM3 has been in use for a while will John really know whether it meets his design goals, and only then will John know what the side effects are (e.g. does moving the CG up with the lighter batteries too badly compromised stability?). Even then, and even if 100% successfull, it will be still be a design for the very techy, and not a plug-and-play solution that would be usable by more than those few. Once its functional superiority has been demonstrated, however, we can at least hope that someone will start working on things that would make it usable by others.
I hope you don't see my bit of devil's advocacy as blind support of an often non-functional industry, but if we want to see change I think we're also going to have to try to understand the other side and avoid vituperative attitudes.
Ciao,
Lenny