Only kamikaze cyclists would choose to cycle in Wellington. Known for its steep, winding roads barely wide enough for a Reliant Robin let alone two lanes, parked vehicles and a bus. Cyclists in this city must be either giddy on endorphins or psychotic daredevils.

Thank goodness for mandatory bicycle helmets then!

Unfortunately, there is evidence that mandatory helmet laws may not only discourage people from choosing to cycle, but also induce risky behaviour on the part of both cyclists and motorists.

Mandatory helmet laws tempting risky behaviour leading to an increased number of accidents? That is an all-too-common unintended consequence of regulation.

Now, consider the good intentions of regulations concerning consumer warning labels on food packages.

Millions around the world suffer from peanut and other tree nut allergies, with exposure proving fatal in some cases.

Regulation requiring explicit labelling like “this product may contain traces of nuts” may seem nonsensical when that product is say, a peanut brownie. But in the U.S., food manufacturers have begun placing defensive labels on food products where no traces of nuts may exist, just to decrease the possibility of being sued. Where does that leave people with nut allergies? Starving. Everything may contain traces of nuts.

Overzealous labelling of food products to reduce legal liability? That is an unintended consequence. 

In a case closer to home, consider the bureaucratic nightmare endured by a Kiwi couple as a result of the overly onerous Resource Management Act.

Ideally, the RMA should allow for the harmonious balance of environmental sustainability and efficient development.

Instead, thanks to a rule introduced in 2012, it lead to the denied consent application of a couple who simply wanted to build a house with a living area facing away from the road, to maximise sunlight. The justification for this denial was that the house failed to provide for a “positive private to public space relationship”. In other words, facing away from the road would mean the couple could not keep a safe eye on the street.

Micro-managing architectural choices right down to dictating the window views of residents. That is an unintended consequence. And just plain meddling in people’s lives.

There are, arguably, unintended consequences for all policy regulations, from the miniscule to the downright ridiculous. 

The issue is how to formulate good policy so as to minimise these unintended consequences as much as possible. As Frédéric Bastiat quoted; “…The good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.”

To avoid these unintended consequences of regulation, perhaps the question the public should ask is this: do these regulations contain nuts?