4 ms·

This theory (known in literature as ‘risk compensation theory’) has been debunked. See some references here: https://twitter.com/whitequark/status/1264486505168

This theory (known in literature as ‘risk compensation theory’) has been debunked. See some references here: https://twitter.com/whitequark/status/1264486505168482304 https://twitter.com/whitequark/status/1264486505168482304

amelius 6y ago
To be fair, it seems the debunking applied to people who were obliged to wear safety gear, not to people who were more cautious than average people.
- macleginn 6y ago
  If you are more cautious to begin with, you do not need to compensate for anything, so the theory does not apply.
  - amelius 6y ago
    But what if you are overly cautious and this bothers you and wearing safety gear makes you feel more normal?
pbhjpbhj 6y ago
tl;dr I would not use that link as evidence to say risk compensation is debunked. Interesting, I'd certainly say it applies to me - I dive more in volleyball if I have my kneepads; I tackle harder in football when wearing shin-guards, the moreso with ankle protection; drive far more cautiously on a motorbike than in the metal, crumpled-zoned protection of a car; etc. ... That tweet leads to https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847818305941 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136984781... "Bicycle helmets and risky behaviour: A systematic review" which concludes: >"Although two out of the 23 studies were supportive of risk compensation, ten other studies found helmet wearing was associated with safer cycling behaviour." // So, risk averse people wear helmets. Some of the support in the review comes from results like helmet wearers obeying traffic laws: the issue seems much more nuanced and complicated than that. FWIW, risk compensation doesn't require that the entire risk is negated (or even over-compensated) so statistics on accident occurrence and severity alone - for example - would not be sufficient to prove if the effect is real: take my car driving, no matter how much I exhibit riskier driving in a car - short of being a lunatic - it's not going to make it more dangerous than motorbike riding because of all the other people on the road. [This post relies on part on past activities and experiences!]

amelius 6y ago

To be fair, it seems the debunking applied to people who were obliged to wear safety gear, not to people who were more cautious than average people.

macleginn 6y ago
If you are more cautious to begin with, you do not need to compensate for anything, so the theory does not apply.
- amelius 6y ago
  But what if you are overly cautious and this bothers you and wearing safety gear makes you feel more normal?

pbhjpbhj 6y ago

tl;dr I would not use that link as evidence to say risk compensation is debunked. Interesting, I'd certainly say it applies to me - I dive more in volleyball if I have my kneepads; I tackle harder in football when wearing shin-guards, the moreso with ankle protection; drive far more cautiously on a motorbike than in the metal, crumpled-zoned protection of a car; etc. ... That tweet leads to https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847818305941 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136984781... "Bicycle helmets and risky behaviour: A systematic review" which concludes: >"Although two out of the 23 studies were supportive of risk compensation, ten other studies found helmet wearing was associated with safer cycling behaviour." // So, risk averse people wear helmets. Some of the support in the review comes from results like helmet wearers obeying traffic laws: the issue seems much more nuanced and complicated than that. FWIW, risk compensation doesn't require that the entire risk is negated (or even over-compensated) so statistics on accident occurrence and severity alone - for example - would not be sufficient to prove if the effect is real: take my car driving, no matter how much I exhibit riskier driving in a car - short of being a lunatic - it's not going to make it more dangerous than motorbike riding because of all the other people on the road. [This post relies on part on past activities and experiences!]