Definition:
According to the Peltzman Effect, when safety measures are implemented, people’s perception of risk decreases, and so people may feel that they can now afford to make riskier decisions. As a result, the phenomenon predicts that mandatory safety measures actually experience a lower benefit than we would expect, because the safety benefits brought about by these measures are offset to some extent by increases in risky behaviour.Explanation:
Peltzman’s second major contribution to the understanding of the unintended effects of regulation was his 1975 study of the effects on traffic safety of a slew of US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations on the design of cars. In the mid to late 1960s, the federal government made a number of safety features mandatory. These included seat belts for all occupants, an energy-absorbing steering column, a penetration-resistant windshield, a dual braking system, and a padded instrument panel. In his study, Peltzman stated that the goal of the mandates was to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries sustained as a consequence of vehicle accidents. But he found something different. Fatalities were not reduced at all. Instead, deaths of vehicle occupants fell but those of pedestrians and motorcycle drivers rose. Peltzman’s tentative explanation was that by reducing the probability of being killed in a given accident, the mandates caused drivers to drive more “intensely.” His finding became so well known that economists started referring to the “Peltzman effect.” Later studies found that drivers with anti-lock brakes tended to follow the cars in front of them more closely. A 2010 study of NASCAR accidents found that the “mandated use of a head-and-neck- restraint system has almost completely eliminated serious driver injury, while simultaneously increasing the number of accidents per race.”[hat tip David R. Henderson, who adds a personal story. I'm sure Eric Crampton, blogging at the Offsetting Behaviour blog, could supply even more ...]
2 comments:
Interesting. I observed what's possibly an example of this in my recent trip to Japan. The only warning for work on the road that could be a hazard (such as snowclearing) was usually a man in hiviz waving a neon wand at approaching cars. This seemed to have a greater impact on drivers, and less costly than all the cones, signs, barricades, etc that would be mandatory for similar work in NZ. Perhaps the excess of traffic management devices leads us into a false sense of security, whereas a man jumping out in front of us and waving something bright sends a stronger message of possible danger.
The conclusion regarding an increase of accidents in NASCAR being related to the introduction of neck restraints is unfounded. It ignores the significance of multiple rule changes and alterations to the cars which occurred at the same time (and since) the neck restraint technology was introduced (as the direct result of the death of first rank driver, Dale Earnhardt). In particular there have been changes to the car's aerodynamic qualities. The nature and practice of drafting has been dramatically changed, several times. At one point it became most efficient to draft in pairs. Then the rules changed the aero again and so it was better to draft in trains of four, five or more cars. Running low downforce cars with marginal stability at speeds approaching 200 mph (they used to routinely exceed that speed but since the mandatory final drive ratio changes were implemented they have yet to get back up to their earlier pace) in the draft is obviously going to result in a higher chance of impact and subsequent crashes (try driving down the road at 100kph within a few centimetres of the car ahead of you and you'll soon understand- now imagine it at 300kph with all the buffeting and turbulence pushing the car body around...). Apart from that there have been alterations on the format of the racing which is now more like a series of sprints rather than the previous (superior) format of endurance. There is also the notorious "chase" which is manipulated for TV numbers and ad breaks.
Too many uncontrolled variables exist to validly make the conclusion in the quote. In science one does not make conclusions without controls. There are none here. The conclusion is invalid in regards to NASCAR.
Post a Comment