The Zebra Crossing Principle of Ethics
The zebra crossing is a great example of how regulation is no substitute for just doing the right thing.
There used to be a zebra crossing on the road near my house. It worked. As a pedestrian, I was always grateful when a car stopped for me. As a driver I gave myself a brief illusion of virtue when I let a granny or a mum cross. But progress is progress, so the zebra has gone and been replaced by a controlled crossing: you can only cross when the lights are in your favour.
This improvement has cost real money. It also means that as a pedestrian, I often have to wait over 60 seconds to cross: with the zebra crossing it was rare to wait ten seconds. Most of the time pedestrians press the light and cross the road before the lights go green. By the time the lights go green for the pedestrian and red for the driver, the pedestrian has crossed and is out of sight. Drivers get predictably annoyed at being made to stop at a deserted crossing. The feel good factor of the zebra crossing has been replaced by feel bad factor of obeying pointless traffic rules.
The switch from zebra crossing to pedestrian lights highlights the challenges of trying to regulate behaviour rather than encourage the right behaviour. Regulation starts with good intentions but it also:
- Costs money: the council will only recoup its costs by issuing fines to drivers who fail to obey the new system.
- Has adverse side effects: regulation sets up adversarial, not cooperative relationships
- Causes resentment: pedestrians are delayed and drivers get to wait at deserted crossings
- Is ineffective: crossing the road is slower if you wait, and more dangerous if you do not.
Trust carries some risk. If we trust more, some people will cheat. But some people cheat regulations as well. Every extra rule and regulation may make sense in isolation. In total, they destroy the values which make the organisation effective. The greatest risk comes not from lack of regulation, but from too much regulation.