[tobr]

They totally did. It used to be a common argument against mandatory seatbelts, that people would feel safer and drive more recklessly, killing more pedestrians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation#Risk_com...

[melling]

According to your article that’s not true.

“A comprehensive 2003 US study also did "not find any evidence that higher seat belt usage has a significant effect on driving behavior." Their results showed that "overall, mandatory seat belt laws unambiguously reduce traffic fatalities.”

[kube-system]

The claim the above person made was that the argument was used, not that the argument was a good argument.

[melling]

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]

> 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

[melling]

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]

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_Compen...

It may be wrong, but it isn't some crazy unreasoned hypothesis posed by "extreme" people with "difficult to believe" arguments.

[bombcar]

Some safety devices don’t encourage recklessness - id say seatbelts are in this category.

However others could - perhaps ABS brakes and all wheel drive on slippery roads.

[jdsully]

Traction control is a more likely candidate. Encourages people to think there’s more traction than there really is - only to find out the error when they need to stop

[dumpsterdiver]

I wouldn't consider being aware of a vehicle's capabilities and utilizing them as being reckless.

One could argue that those folks are incurring a sort of opportunity cost by not learning the limits of vehicles that don't have ABS, and certainly they might be worse off for it, but that's not the same as recklessness.

[bombcar]

Intentionally utilizing and knowing the limits of a vehicle is one thing - but driving beyond your capabilities because the vehicle covers for you most of the time is a problem.

The number of people who think AWD + ABS means they can ignore snow and ice and continue to do 60+ mph in blizzard conditions, for example.

[kube-system]

They’re claiming the opposite, that traction control masks a lack of available traction, and leads people to misunderstand their tires’ capabilities.