@article{ref1, title="Risk compensation theory keeps popping up where it's wholly irrelevant", journal="IIHS status report", year="2007", author="Lund, A.", volume="42", number="10", pages="6-6", abstract="The author comments upon a recent article by John Adams who claims that Britain's safety belt law "failed to achieve the life-saving benefits claimed for it" because of risk compensation and a lack of knowledge among those in the medical and safety communities. [Significance 2007; 4(2): 86-89. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-9713.2007.00236.x]

In this article the author discusses the use of risk compensation theory as applied to safety restraint legislation. Risk compensation theory surmises that drivers will behave less safely as safety legislation increases. That is, once drivers assume a certain safety threshold in the driving environment, they will compensate by behaving more erratically until a particular equilibrium is met. The author rejects this view and cites a lack of empirical evidence of its validity as applied to safety restraint legislation. The author explains that this is not to say that driving behavior is not altered by the introduction of new legislation or technologies, as the introduction of technologies such as anti-lock brakes have not improved braking safety as much as anticipated. It is also noted that drivers engage in higher speeds with higher performing automobiles. However, for improved steering columns, airbags, or windshields there is no evidence of alteration in driver behavior. Similarly, the author suggests, contra risk compensation theory, that mortality has been reduced in the wake of safety restraint legislation.

", language="en", issn="0018-988X", doi="", url="http://dx.doi.org/" }