[Kon-Peki]

I think that the argument being made in the article is not that reckless driving and road rage didn't increase, but that these are "crimes of opportunity" and that the behaviors have always existed, but that traffic congestion suppressed their expression.

It's an interesting theory, and I believe that there is some truth to it. But I also believe that the events of 2020 did cause behavioral changes as well.

[derbOac]

I really enjoyed the article actually, and appreciated it being thoughtful about making actual predictions. However, I do think it was a little dismissive of the reckless driving hypothesis and made somewhat of a strawman out of it.

For instance, measuring population recklessness via vaccination rates isn't totally unreasonable, but it does conflate a lot to the point it's extremely questionable. For example, you could make the argument that many people have avoided vaccination precisely because they are extremely not reckless, trying to avoid unknown risks of the vaccines (I'm boostered at this point and would get another dose tomorrow if I could so I don't share this perspective, but it's there).

Your comment is relevant because I'm not sure the reckless driving hypothesis, or the one promoted by the author are really independent. They seem to think reckless driving is something different, but wouldn't lack of constraints from traffic congestion "reveal" reckless driving behavior?

I think you could take the author's same predictions and explain them via recklessness. They seem kind of like two different labels for the same thing at some level.

A more direct test might be to show that e.g., being in an accident during the pandemic was more strongly correlated with past risky driving indicators. E.g., the correlation between DUI history and accident event during the year was stronger during the pandemic. Maybe? It's interesting to think through, and I think important.