From a little something I posted to CiF:

Cars are instructive to our unconscious approach to regulation.

We're angry that Gordon and Tony introduced light touch regulation on the banks, but we want the speed limits on the roads taken away, because we can be trusted to drive safely. We think it's okay to speed up to a camera and then slam on the brakes, but then complain furiously about how Lehmans was window-dressing its accounts at each period-end. We want borrowers' recklessness to be stopped,and tight controls put on how much banks can lend to people as a multiple of salary. But we resist any attempts to limit our own car usage.

And remember, the banks didn't actually kill anyone. Cars kill some 3,000 people a year in the UK. Are we sure we really like our ultra light touch regulation?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for heavy regulation everywhere forever; merely using our extreme tolerance for cars as an example of how we don't need to react to every single bad outcome with more regulation.

People who read this post also read:

• Outrage over Barclays and Diamond’s tax bill
• What do the House of Lords know about accounting?
• Shouldn’t The Guardian hire a deputy City editor who understands accounting?
• Rhetorical question about Lloyds Banking Group’s results
• Bizarre reporting from The Guardian on RBS’s results

Filed under: Other blogs, Regulation with tags banks, guardian, lehman