0 saved
9K views
This phenomenon can explain why football players wearing helmets can be more prone to neck injuries; why pedestrians are at greater risk when ...
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Iam id ipsum absurdum, maximum malum neglegi. Haec quo modo conveniant, non sane intellego. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Quo igitur, inquit, modo? Diodorus, eius auditor, adiungit ad honestatem vacuitatem doloris. Quae cum essent dicta, discessimus. Beatus autem esse in maximarum rerum timore nemo potest.
Bona autem corporis huic sunt, quod posterius posui, similiora. Sapiens autem semper beatus est et est aliquando in dolore; In eo enim positum est id, quod dicimus esse expetendum. Saepe ab Aristotele, a Theophrasto mirabiliter est laudata per se ipsa rerum scientia; Restincta enim sitis stabilitatem voluptatis habet, inquit, illa autem voluptas ipsius restinctionis in motu est. Collatio igitur ista te nihil iuvat. Sit ista in Graecorum levitate perversitas, qui maledictis insectantur eos, a quibus de veritate dissentiunt. Quid turpius quam sapientis vitam ex insipientium sermone pendere? Diodorus, eius auditor, adiungit ad honestatem vacuitatem doloris. Et quidem, inquit, vehementer errat;
Quid iudicant sensus? Ex ea difficultate illae fallaciloquae, ut ait Accius, malitiae natae sunt. Hoc loco tenere se Triarius non potuit. Qui convenit? Hic quoque suus est de summoque bono dissentiens dici vere Peripateticus non potest. Non modo carum sibi quemque, verum etiam vehementer carum esse? Ille vero, si insipiens-quo certe, quoniam tyrannus -, numquam beatus; Dolere malum est: in crucem qui agitur, beatus esse non potest. Honesta oratio, Socratica, Platonis etiam. Ab hoc autem quaedam non melius quam veteres, quaedam omnino relicta.
- Expect less immediate positive impacts for new safety measures.
Understanding ...
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed quae tandem ista ratio est? Ut in geometria, prima si dederis, danda sunt omnia. Re mihi non aeque satisfacit, et quidem locis pluribus. Urgent tamen et nihil remittunt. Et quidem saepe quaerimus verbum Latinum par Graeco et quod idem valeat;
Morbo gravissimo affectus, exul, orbus, egens, torqueatur eculeo: quem hunc appellas, Zeno? Plane idem, inquit, et maxima quidem, qua fieri nulla maior potest. Illis videtur, qui illud non dubitant bonum dicere -; Ne amores quidem sanctos a sapiente alienos esse arbitrantur. Summus dolor plures dies manere non potest? Eodem modo is enim tibi nemo dabit, quod, expetendum sit, id esse laudabile. Ut aliquid scire se gaudeant? Ita fit cum gravior, tum etiam splendidior oratio. Qua tu etiam inprudens utebare non numquam. Non est ista, inquam, Piso, magna dissensio. Huius, Lyco, oratione locuples, rebus ipsis ielunior. Innumerabilia dici possunt in hanc sententiam, sed non necesse est.
Quorum sine causa fieri nihil putandum est. Multoque hoc melius nos veriusque quam Stoici. Quid ad utilitatem tantae pecuniae? Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Quid de Platone aut de Democrito loquar? Satisne vobis videor pro meo iure in vestris auribus commentatus? Quid igitur, inquit, eos responsuros putas? Nisi enim id faceret, cur Plato Aegyptum peragravit, ut a sacerdotibus barbaris numeros et caelestia acciperet?
Peltzman’s work was critiqued in a paper two years after its publication. Leon Robertson’s paper entitled A Critical Analysis of Peltzman’s ‘The Effects of Automobile Safety Regulation’ broke down a number of statistical problems with Peltzman’s work, explaining that: “The variables used in Peltzman's analysis were reviewed. It was concluded that some of them were arbitrarily chosen, that some were correlated, and that important factors were omitted. This may cause spurious and biased correlations. Peltzman's time series regression equations were reconstructed and found unstable, which makes them useless for predictions which are one basis for Peltzman's conclusions.” For those of you unfamiliar with academic discourse, them’s fighting words!
That said, the principle behind Peltzman’s work has persisted and evidence seems to demonstrate the effect does occur but generally does not negate all benefits of safety initiatives. A 2006 Dutch paper conducted an empirical study of motor vehicle safety and found that behaviour change related to the Peltzman Effect reduced less than 50% of the overall benefits.
Seat belts.
This 1994 study of seat belt wearing explored behavioural adaptation by those starting to use seat belts and found that “beginning wearers (group iii) showed signs of continuing behavioral adaptation, in the form of increased speed and increased propensity for close following.”
Bike helmets.
Cycling UK has argued against the compulsory use of helmets, explaining: “Cycle helmets have in any case not been shown to be an effective way to reduce cyclists’ injury risks. Indeed they might even be counter-productive, by encouraging drivers or cyclists to behave less cautiously, and/or by increasing the risks of neck and other injuries. By deterring people from cycling, they may also reduce the benefits that cyclists gain from ‘safety in numbers’.”
Booths Rule #2.
Skydiving has become consistently safer over the last few decades thanks to a number of safety initiatives, some of them developed by skydiving enthusiast and inventor Bill Booth. However, Booth’s Rule #2 states, "the safer skydiving gear becomes, the more chances skydivers will take, in order to keep the fatality rate constant." Indeed, without the popularity of complex low to ground maneuvers and high speed canopies that allow for faster speeds, some claim that fatalities would be a fraction of what they were a few decades ago.
d
Sam Peltzman, an economist at the University of Chicago, first described this effect in 1975 in relation to the car safety entitled The Effects of Automobile Safety Regulation. In the study, he argued that the increase of safety regulations was offset by people’s behaviour creating no change in highway deaths. The results of his report have been criticised (see Limitations above), though the effect named after the work persists.
My Notes
Oops, That’s Members’ Only!
Fortunately, it only costs US$5/month to Join ModelThinkers and access everything so that you can rapidly discover, learn, and apply the world’s most powerful ideas.
ModelThinkers membership at a glance:
“Yeah, we hate pop ups too. But we wanted to let you know that, with ModelThinkers, we’re making it easier for you to adapt, innovate and create value. We hope you’ll join us and the growing community of ModelThinkers today.”
You Might Also Like:
- Actionable summaries of the world's most powerful ideas.
Subscribe now and download this practical guide to transform your thinking, plus recieve one short, powerful and actionable idea in your inbox each month.