4 ms·

Saved you a click: It's "risk compensation". "It’s an idea that ...posits that people adjust their behavior in response to perceived risk: the safer you feel,

Saved you a click: It's "risk compensation". "It’s an idea that ...posits that people adjust their behavior in response to perceived risk: the safer you feel, the more risks you’ll take." regarding road guardrails, for example: "...proponents of the idea make a stronger claim: that guardrails cause so much reckless driving that any potential safety benefits of guardrails are offset or even reversed."

stephen_g 5y ago
I don't think that quite saves a click. Yes, you've posted what the idea is, but completely cut out the entire point of the article (that the actual amount of risk compensation that happens is usually low, and policy based on the idea tends to be more harmful)... Take the guardrail thing for example - you posted the arguments of proponents, but cut out the response where it goes through how the actual evidence shows it's not at all the case that guardrails increase risky behaviour!
- nielsbot 5y ago
  Sorry, I thought that was implied by the negative framing of the headline, but maybe not. The current headline is a bit clickbaity--I wish they'd give a preview of what the article is about (like the old days?) and if people are interested, they can read the whole thing.
neogodless 5y ago
> But whenever risk compensation has been subjected to empirical scrutiny, the results are usually ambiguous, or the hypothesis fails spectacularly. And when risk compensation does play a part in behavior, it tends to do so in small and specific ways... > The question—for driver safety, sexual activity, or public health—isn’t whether some individuals change their behavior in response to perceived risk. It’s whether, at the population level, an intervention makes the world a safer and better place. Just to make it clear how the article is arguing that "risk compensation" is generally a bogus concept.

stephen_g 5y ago

I don't think that quite saves a click. Yes, you've posted what the idea is, but completely cut out the entire point of the article (that the actual amount of risk compensation that happens is usually low, and policy based on the idea tends to be more harmful)... Take the guardrail thing for example - you posted the arguments of proponents, but cut out the response where it goes through how the actual evidence shows it's not at all the case that guardrails increase risky behaviour!

nielsbot 5y ago
Sorry, I thought that was implied by the negative framing of the headline, but maybe not. The current headline is a bit clickbaity--I wish they'd give a preview of what the article is about (like the old days?) and if people are interested, they can read the whole thing.

neogodless 5y ago

> But whenever risk compensation has been subjected to empirical scrutiny, the results are usually ambiguous, or the hypothesis fails spectacularly. And when risk compensation does play a part in behavior, it tends to do so in small and specific ways... > The question—for driver safety, sexual activity, or public health—isn’t whether some individuals change their behavior in response to perceived risk. It’s whether, at the population level, an intervention makes the world a safer and better place. Just to make it clear how the article is arguing that "risk compensation" is generally a bogus concept.