In the 1960s, the federal government—in its infinite wisdom—thought that cars were too unsafe for the general public. In response, it passed automobile safety legislation, requiring that seat belts, padded dashboards, and other safety measures be put in every automobile.
Although well-intended, auto accidents actually increased after the legislation was passed and enforced. Why? As Lansburg explains, “the threat of being killed in an accident is a powerful incentive to drive carefully.”
In other words, the high price (certain death from an accident) of an activity (reckless driving) reduced the likelihood of that activity. The safety features reduced the price of reckless driving by making cars safer. For example, seatbelts reduced the likelihood of a driver being hurt if he drove recklessly and got into an accident. Because of this, drivers were more likely to drive recklessly.
His work has led to a theory called “The Peltzman Effect,” also known as risk compensation. Risk compensation says that safety requirements incentivize people to increase risky behavior in response to the lower price of that behavior.
This study tested the hypothesis that seat belt usage is related to driver risk taking in car-following behavior. Individual vehicles on a Detroit area freeway were monitored to identify seat belt users and nonusers. Headways between successive vehicles in the traffic stream were also measured to provide a behavioral indicator of driver risk taking. Results showed that nonusers of seat belts tended to follow other vehicles closer than did users. Users were also less likely than nonusers to follow other vehicles at very short headways (one second or less). The implications of these findings for occupant safety in rear end collisions are discussed.
Author(s): Buseck, Calvin R. von, Leonard Evans, Donald E. Schmidt, and Paul Wasielewski
Publication Date: 1980
Publication Site: jstor, originally published in SAE Transactions, vol 89
von Buseck, Calvin R., et al. “Seat Belt Usage and Risk Taking in Driving Behavior.” SAE Transactions, vol. 89, 1980, pp. 1529–33. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44633774. Accessed 21 May 2022.
Motor vehicle fatalities in Connecticut have risen dramatically since the pandemic, echoing a trend that we’ve seen across the country. About 300 people are killed annually on Connecticut’s streets by motor vehicles, and about 100 times as many people (roughly 30,000) suffer injuries severe ePnough to warrant hospital admission.
Nationally, these figures are roughly 40,000 deaths and 3.4 million injuries per year. The U.S. is an outlier among developed countries in the number of deaths that we tolerate on our roads, with a death rate 2 to 3 times that of similarly wealthy countries. The human cost of this carnage leaves no one untouched: almost everyone knows at least one person killed by a vehicle, not to mention millions of others who suffer from life-altering consequences like paralysis and traumatic brain injuries.
If we truly care about saving lives and preventing injuries, we need to change the mindset by which we view the act of driving.
Epidemiologists report there is no precise definition for what is or is not an epidemic wave. ‘Waves’ are a phenomenon of infections that can develop during a pandemic. A wave implies a rising number of sick patients, a characteristic peak of illness and then a dramatic or sustained decline of infections reaching a baseline.1 Previous experiences with the Spanish influenza pandemic (1918) and seasonal influenza epidemics suggest further waves of COVID-19 are inevitable.2 The UK has endured the first two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic with widespread socioeconomic consequences and mortality.3 The WHO regional office for Europe has recently reported that incidence, hospitalisations and deaths in Central Europe, the Balkans and the Baltic states are among the highest globally suggesting a third wave of COVID-19.4 The reason for this third wave in Europe and anticipated further waves in countries with vaccine roll-out including the UK could be due to the Peltzman effect.
The Peltzman effect is named after Sam Peltzman, professor of economics at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. It describes the concept of ‘Risk Compensation’.5 In this concept, it is argued that highway safety regulations were not reducing highway deaths. ‘Risk compensation’ is a theory that suggests that people typically adjust their behaviour in response to perceived levels of risk. It postulates that people become more careful where they sense greater risk and lesser careful if they feel more protected. Peltzman theorised that though the introduction of safety devices, like seat belts or air bags, reduced the ratio of fatalities to accidents, the rate of accidents was found to have risen enough to offset the decreased fatality rate. He proposed that though people felt safer driving with a seat belt, it probably led to a phenomenon of driving with less attentiveness or higher speed causing an increased risk of run-off-road crashes or similar accidents.
COVID-19 vaccination triggering Peltzman effect—An analysis of Peltzman effect reveals four main factors contributing to risk compensation, all of which appear to be present in the current COVID-19 pandemic. To initiate an increase in risky behaviour, a measurable benefit must be ‘visible’, a criterion that COVID-19 vaccines meet. This is supported by the decreasing number of infections in vaccinated populations.7 Risk compensation is more likely to occur if people have a ‘motivation’ to take on a risky behaviour and if it is within their ‘control’ to do so. With the COVID-19 pandemic these two factors seem to have manifested as ‘pandemic fatigue’ with decreasing adherence to risk reduction strategies of social distancing, face coverings and hand washing in the population. Such behaviours of risk compensation have raised concerns about threat to global public health efforts to control the pandemic.8 The final factor, the overall effectiveness of the intervention, in this case of the COVID-19 vaccine, is being increasingly recognised worldwide.9 This is highly desirable, increasing the likelihood of vaccine-acquired ‘herd immunity’. However, for the Peltzman effect, this high efficacy is likely to reduce adherence to other safety precautions. Vaccination drives in most European countries started in late December 2020, after which the rise of cases was seen. Thus, people’s complacency and a false sense of increased security after vaccination may have been the possible reasons for people to abandon protective and preventive behavioural strategies.