[abakker]

I used alcohol as an example, and should have been more clear that it was _just_ an example.

I'm sure you and I could find common ground where we believe that carrot/stick approach is dumb, but that some rule should be passed.

[Dracophoenix]

With regard to alcohol, the government, federal or state, shouldn't have a place in it.

With respect to other matters, it would depend on the circumstances. In the context the article at hand, I doubt writing legislation dictating that a car should be only so high and only so wide would be effective. Legally, speaking, even if such a law were passed, it would be unenforceable. It would hurt the automotive industry and kill hundreds of not thousands of jobs. And with regards to safety, smaller cars are more cramped wouldn't fit a wide-berthed family of five.

Countries with low vehicular fatalities per person make it difficult for anyone but the rich to own a car in the first place usually via high import taxes or a yearly vehicle licensing or excise tax. But that goes back to our original point in that direct policies would immediately receive pushback and legal challenges where as more indirect policies that "solve" the immediate and medium-term issue but will eventually cause economic consequences that fully aren't grasped until it's too late. Both approaches eventually lead to undesirable outcomes.