swansonj
Guru
(Lifted from a different thread because this is a change of subject)
Are we sure? Compared to cycle helmets, the physics whereby seat belts should reduce deaths and injuries is much clearer, so there is certainly an expectation that seat belts should save lives, once an accident has happened. But risk compensation applies to seat belts as well as to helmets. This graph comes from John Adams:
You can see a downward blip coinciding with the introduction of the breathalyser in 1967 (though not any obvious long-term effect), but it would be a determined person who claimed any noticeable effect of the massive increase in seat-belt use following the legislation in 1982 [edit - legislation passed 1982, came into force 1983].
To me, that is a pretty powerful suggestion that risk compensation is indeed at work (with extra evidence coming from the increase in cycle/pedestrian injuries), but I'd be interested if anyone else has an alternative explanation or a critique of Adams' arguments or statistics.
Mind you, if it's hard work trying to persuade people to be be led by evidence rather than assertion on cycle helmets, just imagine trying to do that for seat belts...
Front seat belt laws are largely paternalistic, but quite apart from uclown's point, there is no comparison to be drawn, because there is no right to drive a car on the public highway in the first place, so whatever reasonable restrictions we choose to place on it are fair enough, especially restrictions which can be demonstrated to reduce deaths and serious injuries.
Are we sure? Compared to cycle helmets, the physics whereby seat belts should reduce deaths and injuries is much clearer, so there is certainly an expectation that seat belts should save lives, once an accident has happened. But risk compensation applies to seat belts as well as to helmets. This graph comes from John Adams:
You can see a downward blip coinciding with the introduction of the breathalyser in 1967 (though not any obvious long-term effect), but it would be a determined person who claimed any noticeable effect of the massive increase in seat-belt use following the legislation in 1982 [edit - legislation passed 1982, came into force 1983].
To me, that is a pretty powerful suggestion that risk compensation is indeed at work (with extra evidence coming from the increase in cycle/pedestrian injuries), but I'd be interested if anyone else has an alternative explanation or a critique of Adams' arguments or statistics.
Mind you, if it's hard work trying to persuade people to be be led by evidence rather than assertion on cycle helmets, just imagine trying to do that for seat belts...
Last edited: