Do more stringent rules sometimes backfire?

[Osem]

Can the introduction of new rules/regulations designed to improve standards, performance etc. have the opposite effect?

Some examples:

Tough new building regulations which mean that double glazing is now much more expensive than a few years ago and more people stick with their old draughty windows as a result.

Emission related VED rules which now mean it's far cheaper for my neighbour to run an old gas guzzling sports car than it is for me to run a modern, relatively efficient diesel car with far lower CO2 emissions.

Planning, safety and other rules that mean, for example, that it takes decades to get permission for and build a new airport in a sensible location whilst in the meantime, congested airports in heavily populated areas are forced to expand to cope with demand.

Got any others?

[BBKing]

Can the introduction of new rules/regulations designed to improve standards, performance etc. have the opposite effect?

Yes, it's called the Law of Unintended Consequences, and the answer is not to have so many crap laws, although there's nothing actually wrong with regulation per se - you wouldn't want people to be able to sell double glazing that didn't work, presumably, or cars that threw you through the windscreen on heavy braking.

The usual one quoted is the 1980s upgrading of cannabis in the US to the same level as heroin, including stringent penalties for selling it within x hundred yards of a school. The criminal fraternity, figuring the penalty was the same but the profits were higher, switched to dealing heroin. This sort of thinking explains why the War on Drugs is going as well as the War on Terrah.

Emission related VED rules which now mean it's far cheaper for my neighbour to run an old gas guzzling sports car than it is for me to run a modern, relatively efficient diesel car with far lower CO2 emissions.

? My old (1994) non-gas-guzzling Seat costs way more to tax (nearly double) than my newer (2001) non-gas-guzzling Skoda, which was registered after the cut-off date. Running costs include insurance and fuel, which should be way more for his than yours unless you drive everywhere with your foot on the floor and pay for it with the consequent insurance risk and police record. Do you do the same mileage?

Old cars aren't cheap to run, in my case it was cheap to buy and I'm driving it until it fails its MOT, not for any other reason. I've got nearly five years out of it for £1150, which is worth the £75 premium on VED.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by BBKing

Yes, it's called the Law of Unintended Consequences, and the answer is not to have so many crap laws, although there's nothing actually wrong with regulation per se - you wouldn't want people to be able to sell double glazing that didn't work, presumably, or cars that threw you through the windscreen on heavy braking.

The usual one quoted is the 1980s upgrading of cannabis in the US to the same level as heroin, including stringent penalties for selling it within x hundred yards of a school. The criminal fraternity, figuring the penalty was the same but the profits were higher, switched to dealing heroin. This sort of thinking explains why the War on Drugs is going as well as the War on Terrah.



? My old (1994) non-gas-guzzling Seat costs way more to tax (nearly double) than my newer (2001) non-gas-guzzling Skoda, which was registered after the cut-off date. Running costs include insurance and fuel, which should be way more for his than yours unless you drive everywhere with your foot on the floor and pay for it with the consequent insurance risk and police record. Do you do the same mileage?

Old cars aren't cheap to run, in my case it was cheap to buy and I'm driving it until it fails its MOT, not for any other reason. I've got nearly five years out of it for £1150, which is worth the £75 premium on VED.

We do about the same mileage - under 5000 pa - we both have clean licences and are perfect drivers in all respects . His is a 1980's Toyota Celica 2.0 GT which he told me he'd have got rid of had his VED increased substantially. We have a 2003 2.0l diesel MPV and my VED is going up by £60 despite producing far less CO2 than his. He's now keeping his car and I'm paying more for being greener.

What you say re VED may well be true for much small engined cars but the point I was making is not about the overall costs of ownership but about the fact that a new VED regime supposed to encourage less polluting cars can have the opposite effect.