0 saved
8.8K 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. An eum discere ea mavis, quae cum plane perdidiceriti nihil sciat? Quid ei reliquisti, nisi te, quoquo modo loqueretur, intellegere, quid diceret? Vitiosum est enim in dividendo partem in genere numerare. Duarum enim vitarum nobis erunt instituta capienda. Quid enim ab antiquis ex eo genere, quod ad disserendum valet, praetermissum est? Innumerabilia dici possunt in hanc sententiam, sed non necesse est. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Illa sunt similia: hebes acies est cuipiam oculorum, corpore alius senescit;
Qui non moveatur et offensione turpitudinis et comprobatione honestatis? Neque enim disputari sine reprehensione nec cum iracundia aut pertinacia recte disputari potest. Venit enim mihi Platonis in mentem, quem accepimus primum hic disputare solitum; Sed haec nihil sane ad rem; Sed haec nihil sane ad rem; At enim, qua in vita est aliquid mali, ea beata esse non potest. Quem Tiberina descensio festo illo die tanto gaudio affecit, quanto L. In motu et in statu corporis nihil inest, quod animadvertendum esse ipsa natura iudicet?
Immo alio genere; Atqui, inquam, Cato, si istud optinueris, traducas me ad te totum licebit. Ergo, si semel tristior effectus est, hilara vita amissa est? Stulti autem malorum memoria torquentur, sapientes bona praeterita grata recordatione renovata delectant. Quamquam id quidem licebit iis existimare, qui legerint. Hinc ceteri particulas arripere conati suam quisque videro voluit afferre sententiam. Progredientibus autem aetatibus sensim tardeve potius quasi nosmet ipsos cognoscimus. Quod autem in homine praestantissimum atque optimum est, id deseruit. Quid iudicant sensus? Quaesita enim virtus est, non quae relinqueret naturam, sed quae tueretur.
- Expect less immediate positive impacts for new safety measures.
Understanding ...
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nunc de hominis summo bono quaeritur; Haec quo modo conveniant, non sane intellego. Laboro autem non sine causa; Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Cum id fugiunt, re eadem defendunt, quae Peripatetici, verba. Sit sane ista voluptas. Sin ea non neglegemus neque tamen ad finem summi boni referemus, non multum ab Erilli levitate aberrabimus. Habent enim et bene longam et satis litigiosam disputationem.
Est tamen ea secundum naturam multoque nos ad se expetendam magis hortatur quam superiora omnia. Pugnant Stoici cum Peripateticis. Sed tempus est, si videtur, et recta quidem ad me. Cur tantas regiones barbarorum pedibus obiit, tot maria transmisit? Egone non intellego, quid sit don Graece, Latine voluptas?
Sed haec nihil sane ad rem; Quae diligentissime contra Aristonem dicuntur a Chryippo. Summus dolor plures dies manere non potest? Ut enim consuetudo loquitur, id solum dicitur honestum, quod est populari fama gloriosum. Videmusne ut pueri ne verberibus quidem a contemplandis rebus perquirendisque deterreantur? Nunc vero a primo quidem mirabiliter occulta natura est nec perspici nec cognosci potest. Quae cum praeponunt, ut sit aliqua rerum selectio, naturam videntur sequi;
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.