Law of unintended consequences.
Discussion
A few stories/threads recently have got me thinking about the law of unintended consequences. That is - changing one thing has a detrimental effect on something else - that may in fact leave you in a worse position overall, or have an impact on something you hadn't considered.
Couple of possible examples.
Couple of possible examples.
- Parking charges in town centres. A good revenue raiser for local councils - yet has probably contributed to the decline of the high-street. How much have councils lost in business rates due to empty businesses or the rise of the charity shop? Have councils ultimately left themselves worse off as a result?
- Donor organs#. Many suitable donor organs come from accident victims. Could the continued drive for road safety, the wholesale reduction in speed limits etc have had an impact on the apparent decline in available organs reported in today's news?
I think there are still plenty of people dying and leaving a healthy set of organs to go and be cremated or buried, I think a lot of it is people don't think about it or are squeamish about it, perhaps there should be an opted in policy you have to opt out of for organ donation, rather than the other way around btu that is a whole other debate.
Smoking and the revenue it brings into the government. If we all stopped then income tax would be raised.
The Manchester congestion charge was to be partially funded by the people that would continue to drive. If we all stopped the public transport would not have been viable and the cost to travel would rise as a consequence.
The Manchester congestion charge was to be partially funded by the people that would continue to drive. If we all stopped the public transport would not have been viable and the cost to travel would rise as a consequence.
softtop said:
Smoking and the revenue it brings into the government. If we all stopped then income tax would be raised.
The revenue from smoking supports the raising cost of treating those with illnesses (cancer mostly) inflicted by smoking. Perhaps I'm being a touch naive about that though!Edited- realised that my example was not relevant
Edited by StuTheGrouch on Monday 20th July 18:45
StuTheGrouch said:
softtop said:
Smoking and the revenue it brings into the government. If we all stopped then income tax would be raised.
The revenue from smoking supports the raising cost of treating those with illnesses (cancer mostly) inflicted by smoking. Perhaps I'm being a touch naive about that though!Edited- realised that my example was not relevant
Edited by StuTheGrouch on Monday 20th July 18:45
The rest of the dosh is used to prop up the welfare state and low-ish tax regime...
Moonhawk said:
- Donor organs#. Many suitable donor organs come from accident victims. Could the continued drive for road safety, the wholesale reduction in speed limits etc have had an impact on the apparent decline in available organs reported in today's news?
Perhaps organ donorship should be opt out?
Moonhawk said:
A few stories/threads recently have got me thinking about the law of unintended consequences. That is - changing one thing has a detrimental effect on something else - that may in fact leave you in a worse position overall, or have an impact on something you hadn't considered.
Couple of possible examples.
It used to be that the council gives all Business Rate income to Central Government, and gets a 'grant' back. Hence they did not lose anything. A few years ago I think the rules were changed so that if business rate income increased they got to keep some - it's relatively a small amount though.Couple of possible examples.
- Parking charges in town centres. A good revenue raiser for local councils - yet has probably contributed to the decline of the high-street. How much have councils lost in business rates due to empty businesses or the rise of the charity shop? Have councils ultimately left themselves worse off as a result?
With regards to charity, the government funds the mandatory 80% discount. The council can top this up to 100% with a discretionary relief - but must fund it themselves so it's as rare as hens teeth.
At least that's how it used to be...
Recycling.....
Our local household recycling centre (formerly known as The Dump) is now so successful in saving the environment from old fridges, surplus TVs and the packaging from Ikea furniture that every morning there's a queue for 45minutes to get in the place......tailing back on to the nearest ring road roundabout causing no end of congestion.
All those cars......sitting in traffic, churning out nasty nasty fumes
Our local household recycling centre (formerly known as The Dump) is now so successful in saving the environment from old fridges, surplus TVs and the packaging from Ikea furniture that every morning there's a queue for 45minutes to get in the place......tailing back on to the nearest ring road roundabout causing no end of congestion.
All those cars......sitting in traffic, churning out nasty nasty fumes

marshalla said:
Airbags, crumple zones, side intrusion protection = more people driving like inconsiderate t
ts because they know they'll survive more collisions.
Are there more collisions though. I cant find any data for car/car collisions - but this website has a couple of charts (about half way down) for total road accidents in Scotland involving pedestrians and cyclists (presumably coming into conflict with motorised vehicles) - and the numbers seem to be trending down.
ts because they know they'll survive more collisions.If people were driving more inconsiderately because they felt safer - would you not expect the accident rate to have increased, especially with the number of vehicles on the road increasing over time too?
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/report/j9041-0...
Perhaps it has for car/car collisions - but there seems to be very little data around. The only data seems to deal with casualties (slightly injured, seriously injured or killed - which are all trending down) - but does not account for collisions with no injuries.
Sway said:
StuTheGrouch said:
softtop said:
Smoking and the revenue it brings into the government. If we all stopped then income tax would be raised.
The revenue from smoking supports the raising cost of treating those with illnesses (cancer mostly) inflicted by smoking. Perhaps I'm being a touch naive about that though!Edited- realised that my example was not relevant
Edited by StuTheGrouch on Monday 20th July 18:45
The rest of the dosh is used to prop up the welfare state and low-ish tax regime...
I think the intention was to show how expensive it is (and it's more expensive now)
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff



