Any regulation needs to be materially beneficial. It needs to meet simple criteria:
- positively impacts outcomes - fewer less serious incidents, accidents, harm
- is both capable of, and actually policed
- punishment for non-compliance proportional to the risks of non-compliance
- protects the general public either directly, or inhibits inadvertent misuse by users
Obvious examples include sensible speed limits, drink driving, electrical safety, emissions, use of harmful materials, MoT tests etc.
All regulation requires effort and resources. There is zero merit in regulation which does not meet clear criteria - examples abound of that created to meet either a theoretical or very limited need, never policed, or the product of a small vocal single interest group.
It is the workshop equivalent of clutter and mess - finding the item you actually want involves wasting time digging through piles of sawdust and discarded tools. "Tidy desk, tidy mind"
The "don't eat" silica gel warnings fall in the trivial, pointless and unnecessary category:
- the cost of label printing is trivial,
- those who may genuinely be at risk from eating it likely can't read or are profoundly stupid,
- it is policed only by exception,
- manufacturers comply simply because it removes a very small risk at very small cost.
How do these thoughts impact car speed limits - bluntly it is the driver behind the wheel not the car manufacturer whose actions cause accidents - a car fitted with a maximum speed limiter would not eliminate excess speed in urban areas and driver stupidity generally.
The remedy is more effective detection (traffic police + cameras), and punishment which deters.