5 ms·

This is very much like: > The name "Tullock's spike" refers to a thought experiment in which Tullock suggested that if governments were serious about reducing

by nayuki 4y ago

This is very much like: > The name "Tullock's spike" refers to a thought experiment in which Tullock suggested that if governments were serious about reducing road casualties, they should mandate that a sharp spike be installed in the center of each car's steering wheel, to increase the probability that an accident would be fatal to the driver. Tullock's idea was that the normal process of risk compensation would then lead to safer driving by the affected drivers, thereby actually reducing driving fatalities. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Tullock#Tullock's_spike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Tullock#Tullock's_spike

itronitron 4y ago
Now I'm sort of curious how they died, and whether their personal automobile had any modifications to the interior.
- monkeybutton 4y ago
  Doesn't it only work if everyone has one? If only one or a few do, they can be as cautious as possible and still be the victim of another reckless driver who doesn't have one. It reminds me a bit of the trend where parents buy larger vehicles for their teenaged children because of their perceived safety. It ends up having the opposite overall effect because less experienced drivers are getting into accidents with larger and more deadly (to those around them) vehicles.
  - itronitron 4y ago
    I think it would work for anyone that had one, even if they were the only one, as they would be a much more defensive driver. They would probably save money on gas as well :)
jgeada 4y ago
Risk compensation or risk homeostasis is one of those hypothesis that sound good to economists and the moralizing class, but has never been proven. https://slate.com/technology/2021/11/risk-compensation-debunked-masks-rapid-tests-vaccines-safety.html https://slate.com/technology/2021/11/risk-compensation-debun... https://www.mdpi.com/2313-576X/2/3/16/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2313-576X/2/3/16/htm Edit: added another reference
Mountain_Skies 4y ago
It's a good thought experiment but assumes that everyone has the same ability to assess risk, which isn't true. Not only does the ability to correctly assess risk vary greatly between individuals, it varies greatly over the lifetime of an individual and sometimes even over the course of a day for the same individual.
- mslate 4y ago
  So the takeaway here is that some people should not be issued drivers licenses.
  - supertrope 4y ago
    Well now we go down a rabbit hole of a complex social problem. People don't drive just to joyride. They so because many areas are zoned into car dependency. When faced with no legal way to drive: (1) Keep driving anyway without a license or with a suspended license. (2) Use public transit that takes two or three hours one way. When the bus is late again one day they get fired possibly setting off a downward spiral and that's another person on public assistance. (3) Vote for politicians who allow ridiculous policies like Arizona's lifetime driver licenses.
    - usrusr 4y ago
      (4) Zoning would change for less car dependency, and more demand would allow better transit (lines served more frequently and a wider selection of lines leading to less changes)
      - supertrope 4y ago
        That's my wish too. People will not use low quality public transit. It will remain low quality as long as it's starved of funding relative to the free* roads, free* parking, and restrictive zoning iron triangle. Funding will remain a trickle until a critical mass of voters demand it. People think because it's low quality now it's not worth spending more taxes on. *Free to motorists, not the taxpayers and real estate consumers.
988747 4y ago
Can't that be seen as an argument against seatbelts and airbags as well?
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  Not really, because people perceive the threat differently. A spike in the steering wheel is very obviously extremely dangerous. Not having a functioning airbag is invisible. If you are trying to change people's behavior, the perception of risk is more important than the actual statistical risk.
  - GuB-42 4y ago
    People will get used to that spike. People get used to a lot of dangerous and scary things. Going faster than walking speed and operating heavy machinery is dangerous and scary if you are not used to it, and yet, people do it every day without a giving second thought. People will need constant reminders that that spike is dangerous, like seeing people they know die from it. So it is essentially advocating that in order to make less people die from car accidents, we have to make more people die from car accidents, which make no sense. Protective equipment, and the absence of spikes on the steering wheel work. For example, machine tools today are much safer than they once where, resulting in much less workplace accidents. By the Tullock's spike standards, removing the cover between you and that blade loudly spinning at high speed should improve safety by making people more careful, it doesn't, and there are few more obvious threats than that.
naniwaduni 4y ago
Setting aside whether reverse risk compensation actually works (and it would be absolutely bizarre to have >100% risk compensation), Tullock's spike has the problem that it makes driving less effective, i.e. people get from point A to point B more slowly. If your policy goal is for people to drive less then sure. If your goal is for people to be safer in the course of achieving their actual objective of getting from point A to point B, though, the policy is spectacularly bad.
- jessaustin 4y ago
  That's really not the point. The thought experiment doesn't consider the safety, and far less the convenience (did you call this "effectiveness"?), of drivers. Rather, it examines the safety of all those who suffer the presence of drivers: pedestrians, cyclists, road workers, wild animals, unleashed dogs, etc.
  - naniwaduni 4y ago
    Of course it's not the point! The problem with the thought experiment is that it misses the point! Getting from point A to point B faster is more than an incidental convenience to a driver, it is the primary goal of having a car and driving it!
    - jessaustin 4y ago
      Sure, that is a goal for many drivers. There's no reason for anyone else to care about it. Whatever the hypothetical advantages of automobiles to society in general, police-enforced speed limits exist. Since you seem opposed to limits on speed, one might expect you to value Tullock's spike as another possible solution in the trade-off space that would allow faster travel for those who, like you, really value that, while still somewhat protecting the rest of us on the street.

by nayuki 4y ago

itronitron 4y ago

Now I'm sort of curious how they died, and whether their personal automobile had any modifications to the interior.

monkeybutton 4y ago
Doesn't it only work if everyone has one? If only one or a few do, they can be as cautious as possible and still be the victim of another reckless driver who doesn't have one. It reminds me a bit of the trend where parents buy larger vehicles for their teenaged children because of their perceived safety. It ends up having the opposite overall effect because less experienced drivers are getting into accidents with larger and more deadly (to those around them) vehicles.
- itronitron 4y ago
  I think it would work for anyone that had one, even if they were the only one, as they would be a much more defensive driver. They would probably save money on gas as well :)

jgeada 4y ago

Risk compensation or risk homeostasis is one of those hypothesis that sound good to economists and the moralizing class, but has never been proven. https://slate.com/technology/2021/11/risk-compensation-debunked-masks-rapid-tests-vaccines-safety.html https://slate.com/technology/2021/11/risk-compensation-debun... https://www.mdpi.com/2313-576X/2/3/16/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2313-576X/2/3/16/htm Edit: added another reference

Mountain_Skies 4y ago

It's a good thought experiment but assumes that everyone has the same ability to assess risk, which isn't true. Not only does the ability to correctly assess risk vary greatly between individuals, it varies greatly over the lifetime of an individual and sometimes even over the course of a day for the same individual.

mslate 4y ago
So the takeaway here is that some people should not be issued drivers licenses.
- supertrope 4y ago
  Well now we go down a rabbit hole of a complex social problem. People don't drive just to joyride. They so because many areas are zoned into car dependency. When faced with no legal way to drive: (1) Keep driving anyway without a license or with a suspended license. (2) Use public transit that takes two or three hours one way. When the bus is late again one day they get fired possibly setting off a downward spiral and that's another person on public assistance. (3) Vote for politicians who allow ridiculous policies like Arizona's lifetime driver licenses.
  - usrusr 4y ago
    (4) Zoning would change for less car dependency, and more demand would allow better transit (lines served more frequently and a wider selection of lines leading to less changes)
    - supertrope 4y ago
      That's my wish too. People will not use low quality public transit. It will remain low quality as long as it's starved of funding relative to the free* roads, free* parking, and restrictive zoning iron triangle. Funding will remain a trickle until a critical mass of voters demand it. People think because it's low quality now it's not worth spending more taxes on. *Free to motorists, not the taxpayers and real estate consumers.

988747 4y ago

Can't that be seen as an argument against seatbelts and airbags as well?

UncleMeat 4y ago
Not really, because people perceive the threat differently. A spike in the steering wheel is very obviously extremely dangerous. Not having a functioning airbag is invisible. If you are trying to change people's behavior, the perception of risk is more important than the actual statistical risk.
- GuB-42 4y ago
  People will get used to that spike. People get used to a lot of dangerous and scary things. Going faster than walking speed and operating heavy machinery is dangerous and scary if you are not used to it, and yet, people do it every day without a giving second thought. People will need constant reminders that that spike is dangerous, like seeing people they know die from it. So it is essentially advocating that in order to make less people die from car accidents, we have to make more people die from car accidents, which make no sense. Protective equipment, and the absence of spikes on the steering wheel work. For example, machine tools today are much safer than they once where, resulting in much less workplace accidents. By the Tullock's spike standards, removing the cover between you and that blade loudly spinning at high speed should improve safety by making people more careful, it doesn't, and there are few more obvious threats than that.

naniwaduni 4y ago

Setting aside whether reverse risk compensation actually works (and it would be absolutely bizarre to have >100% risk compensation), Tullock's spike has the problem that it makes driving less effective, i.e. people get from point A to point B more slowly. If your policy goal is for people to drive less then sure. If your goal is for people to be safer in the course of achieving their actual objective of getting from point A to point B, though, the policy is spectacularly bad.

jessaustin 4y ago
That's really not the point. The thought experiment doesn't consider the safety, and far less the convenience (did you call this "effectiveness"?), of drivers. Rather, it examines the safety of all those who suffer the presence of drivers: pedestrians, cyclists, road workers, wild animals, unleashed dogs, etc.
- naniwaduni 4y ago
  Of course it's not the point! The problem with the thought experiment is that it misses the point! Getting from point A to point B faster is more than an incidental convenience to a driver, it is the primary goal of having a car and driving it!
  - jessaustin 4y ago
    Sure, that is a goal for many drivers. There's no reason for anyone else to care about it. Whatever the hypothetical advantages of automobiles to society in general, police-enforced speed limits exist. Since you seem opposed to limits on speed, one might expect you to value Tullock's spike as another possible solution in the trade-off space that would allow faster travel for those who, like you, really value that, while still somewhat protecting the rest of us on the street.