Beware Governments' help in regulating cars and traffic

What happens when a government mandates things for drivers and carmakers, supposedly to help ensure our safety behind the wheels of our vehicles?

Well, sometimes it could be a good thing— the use of seat belts comes to mind, though I would argue that they shouldn't be mandated by law—but sometimes what I like to think of as "the law of unintended consequences" rears its ugly head.

The latter appears to be the case with the mandating of daytime running lights on vehicles in Canada. This law has been on the books for ages and is theoretically aimed at helping eliminating head on collisions in the daytime, because stupid people might notice an illuminated front end approaching them whereas they might not notice a non-illuminated front end approaching them.

By John Stewart on 2024 02 02

A main artery into the sub-division which I live-in was recently dug-up to replace pipes. When this work was complete, and it was time to pave the road, the city chose to make this busy road narrower than before, and build concrete "choke-points" by building the boulevard sections wider on each side of the street. They even placed black and yellow warning signs on each side to warn drivers of the choke-point they would encounter. Another useless thing was to make the sidewalk wider and the entire boulevard wider too, thereby narrowing the street, which made the already narrowed chock- point an extreme hazard, especially when cars are parked on the west side constantly, making only one lane where there is a parked car. Now if there are cars coming from both direction, one of them has to stop to let the other approaching car pass. This hazardous situation did not exist before the construction.

When I wrote to the city, they said it was to slow-down traffic; but instead they created a hazard, especially at busy times.

Just one quick note about safety. How about pedestrians stepping onto the road with their eyes glued to their cell phones, without looking out for traffic, then blame drivers for any accidents which occur?

By bob F on 2024 02 02

Frankly, I've always thought that since the insurance companies really rule the world (after all, if Lady Gaga wanted to do a concert in Detroit or wherever but the insurance backers told her they would not cover it, it's not going to happen) they should be the ones to incentivize folks.

For instance, not covering for medical expenses if it turned out the injuries would have been ameliorated or eliminated had the seat belt been worn would give the driver financial incentive to wear it. Or for motorcyclists - no or very limited coverage for situations where the driver was not wearing a helmet rather than having the gub'ment make laws that invariably some riders resent. I mean, you spins the wheel and ya takes yer chances, right? But don't make big brother force me to do it.

As for the unintended consequences of well intentioned laws and statutes - there are some videos on YouTube with very simple examples - at the 2 minute mark in this one the notion of CAFE standards and how that push for higher fuel efficiency utterly backfired (I had not realized that my Subaru Outback is technically a truck!).

By Dirk Beauregarde on 2024 02 04

An excellent article for sure. to this I will add something that can be used to explain most government policies....What is the definition of an elephant?? A mouse designed by a government committee. This example can be applied to most government activities.

By Hal on 2024 02 12

Excellent article with loads of common sense - it appears good Canadian drivers have the same problems as good New York State drivers - and we see (mostly) good Canadian drivers on our NY State roads almost every day (I'm in western NY near Buffalo), even good Canadian semi drivers. -have to agree with Mr Bates 100%.

Support Canada Free Press