4 ms·

Most pedestrians aren’t walking on highways and seatbelts didn’t encourage people to drive faster down Main Street. but hey, I’ve only been driving for 40 year

Most pedestrians aren’t walking on highways and seatbelts didn’t encourage people to drive faster down Main Street. but hey, I’ve only been driving for 40 years and didn’t start wearing a seating until about 20 years ago. Sure, you can find an extreme person to argue anything but I certainly am not familiar with this difficult to believe argument

kube-system 4y ago
> Sure, you can find an extreme person to argue anything but I certainly am not familiar with this difficult to believe argument I am not here to say it is either correct or incorrect to apply it to this situation. But it is a commonly studied theory in behavioral science. And I don’t think it is considered an “extreme” theory in general. It is definitely something that is discussed enough to have a variety of studies on the matter. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
- melling 4y ago
  yes, do people drive faster and more reckless at high speeds, like on highways. That’s a great question, which has been studied. But that’s not the point I’m arguing. Where do the pedestrians come into all of this? “killing more pedestrians.”
  - kube-system 4y ago
    Pedestrian risk is an obvious hypothesis of the risk compensation theory, because seat belts can only functionally protect people who are seated and belted in a vehicle. If the driver does compensate for their own risk, the reasonable hypothesis is any compensation would be at the detriment to others. This hypothesis was tested by researchers at respected institutions: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4791083_Risk_Compensation_or_Risk_Reduction_Seatbelts_State_Laws_and_Traffic_Fatalities https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4791083_Risk_Compen... It may be wrong, but it isn't some crazy unreasoned hypothesis posed by "extreme" people with "difficult to believe" arguments.

kube-system 4y ago

> Sure, you can find an extreme person to argue anything but I certainly am not familiar with this difficult to believe argument I am not here to say it is either correct or incorrect to apply it to this situation. But it is a commonly studied theory in behavioral science. And I don’t think it is considered an “extreme” theory in general. It is definitely something that is discussed enough to have a variety of studies on the matter. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

melling 4y ago
yes, do people drive faster and more reckless at high speeds, like on highways. That’s a great question, which has been studied. But that’s not the point I’m arguing. Where do the pedestrians come into all of this? “killing more pedestrians.”
- kube-system 4y ago
  Pedestrian risk is an obvious hypothesis of the risk compensation theory, because seat belts can only functionally protect people who are seated and belted in a vehicle. If the driver does compensate for their own risk, the reasonable hypothesis is any compensation would be at the detriment to others. This hypothesis was tested by researchers at respected institutions: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4791083_Risk_Compensation_or_Risk_Reduction_Seatbelts_State_Laws_and_Traffic_Fatalities https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4791083_Risk_Compen... It may be wrong, but it isn't some crazy unreasoned hypothesis posed by "extreme" people with "difficult to believe" arguments.