My point was that you analogy doesn't apply. Pointing to ice on the roads is completely missing the point: that the analogy doesn't hold in the first place.
>I do not think you have refuted my claim that regulation leads to people suspending critical judgement about risks.
I did not say this! I said that specifying a reserve requirement does not reduce bank reserves. Please keep this argument to reserve requirements, not general regulation.
>If you don't buy my argument then you probably believe that people are so stupid that without regulation banks would hold $0 in reserves.
The UK does not have reserve requirements and they don't have zero reserves. But they did not raise their reserves to safe levels either, refuting your original point.
Incidentally, it's you that's arguing that regulation encourages banks to hold lower reserves than they would without reserve requirements. You are constantly conflating reserve requirements and general regulation, moving an argument about one to a conclusion about the other.
You then go on to talk about TARP again, illustrating my point.