The Law of Unintended Consequences.

 I'm always minded to disagree when someone says "The Government must do something" regarding whatever pet interest they are championing.

The problem is that the rules that come out of that "Doing Something" may not do the thing you want them to do and have further unforeseen consequences down the line, or elsewhere in legislation.

I'm reminded of this by the Formula One debacle last weekend, where Carlo Saintz hit an unsecured manhole cover and destroyed his car. It required serious repairs to fix the car ready for the following day.

But Formula One has had rule changes over the last decade to try and enforce some semblance of fairness and to allow lesser-monied teams to compete with the teams with larger pockets. Laser-focussed on creating a fair playing field, they ignored the affects the rule changes would have on every single scenario, including the repair of a car forced upon a team by outside forces.

So teams are limited to the number of things they can change on a car to limit the amount of upgrades or to stop them adding important parts that only last a race. Changing major parts incurs a penalty.

Teams are also cost-capped.to try and even the playing field, so none of the big teams could have a budget ten times the amount of the smaller teams and gain an advantage in increased R&D.

Sadly, no-one foresaw a car being damaged by a poorly prepared track.

So Carlos's car was destroyed by the track. Unfortunately major parts required replacing. Instant penalty. Go back ten places on the grid.

Despite the stewards looking at loopholes to try and avoid Carlos being penalised through no fault of his own, there were none. The rules were watertight. Ten steps back you go. Very unfair on the driver as everyone recognised. But... unintended consequences.

Not only that, the costs of the repair now rest with The team Ferrari. That's an unplanned cost that now affects their cost cap. So late in the season there is very little chance to absorb that cost into the overall budget. So it's possible they may be over the allowed budget at the end of this season. That is, unless someone accept liability for the unsecure manhole cover and compensates Ferrari for the cost of the repairs, so the work than becomes budget-neutral. Would the track owner pay the hundreds of thousands out of their insurance? Would insurance cover it? Would Ferrari chase the operative that welded the manhole shut, if they were self-employed? Would their professional liability cover pay out? 

The point I'm making is that unless you are some omnipotent being that can foresee absolutely every consequence of your actions and any legislation you propose, then be very wary of imposing it. Because one day there may be a very unintended consequence of your legislation, something severely affecting a person or group of people you never intended to affect.