0 saved
10.2K 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. Quis non odit sordidos, vanos, leves, futtiles? Tu autem, si tibi illa probabantur, cur non propriis verbis ea tenebas? Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Hunc vos beatum; Qui autem esse poteris, nisi te amor ipse ceperit? Quid, si non sensus modo ei sit datus, verum etiam animus hominis? Utinam quidem dicerent alium alio beatiorem! Iam ruinas videres.
Sed audiamus ipsum: Compensabatur, inquit, tamen cum his omnibus animi laetitia, quam capiebam memoria rationum inventorumque nostrorum. Quod cum accidisset ut alter alterum necopinato videremus, surrexit statim. Cur tantas regiones barbarorum pedibus obiit, tot maria transmisit? Quod non faceret, si in voluptate summum bonum poneret. Quaero igitur, quo modo hae tantae commendationes a natura profectae subito a sapientia relictae sint. Praeclare hoc quidem. Fortitudinis quaedam praecepta sunt ac paene leges, quae effeminari virum vetant in dolore. Tuo vero id quidem, inquam, arbitratu. Traditur, inquit, ab Epicuro ratio neglegendi doloris. Bonum negas esse divitias, praeposìtum esse dicis?
Quamquam id quidem licebit iis existimare, qui legerint. Mihi vero, inquit, placet agi subtilius et, ut ipse dixisti, pressius.
- Expect less immediate positive impacts for new safety measures.
Understanding ...
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quamquam haec quidem praeposita recte et reiecta dicere licebit. Quo studio Aristophanem putamus aetatem in litteris duxisse? Bona autem corporis huic sunt, quod posterius posui, similiora. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Restinguet citius, si ardentem acceperit. Ergo ita: non posse honeste vivi, nisi honeste vivatur? Tum Triarius: Posthac quidem, inquit, audacius. Non est ista, inquam, Piso, magna dissensio. Idque testamento cavebit is, qui nobis quasi oraculum ediderit nihil post mortem ad nos pertinere? Bork
Potius inflammat, ut coercendi magis quam dedocendi esse videantur. Quo plebiscito decreta a senatu est consuli quaestio Cn. Aliud igitur esse censet gaudere, aliud non dolere. Restincta enim sitis stabilitatem voluptatis habet, inquit, illa autem voluptas ipsius restinctionis in motu est. Ita nemo beato beatior. Quamquam haec quidem praeposita recte et reiecta dicere licebit. Atque haec coniunctio confusioque virtutum tamen a philosophis ratione quadam distinguitur. Apud imperitos tum illa dicta sunt, aliquid etiam coronae datum; Callipho ad virtutem nihil adiunxit nisi voluptatem, Diodorus vacuitatem doloris. Etsi qui potest intellegi aut cogitari esse aliquod animal, quod se oderit? Iam enim adesse poterit. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio.
Eiuro, inquit adridens, iniquum, hac quidem de re; Eam tum adesse, cum dolor omnis absit; Isto modo ne improbos quidem, si essent boni viri. Transfer idem ad modestiam vel temperantiam, quae est moderatio cupiditatum rationi oboediens. Quid ergo hoc loco intellegit honestum? Et nemo nimium beatus est; Honesta oratio, Socratica, Platonis etiam. Ab his oratores, ab his imperatores ac rerum publicarum principes extiterunt. Unum nescio, quo modo possit, si luxuriosus sit, finitas cupiditates habere.
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.