Are Safety Measures Making You Less Safe?
We live in a World were parents are afraid to let their children play outside with out supervision, we can’t ride a bike without a helmet, or in a car without a belt. For a while we could walk out outside without a mask and having 3 boosters of the Covid vaccine. However did you know that rugby has fewer injuries per player than in football. Why? Football players have helmets and padding, while rugby players have nothing. Wouldn’t more protective gear reduce the likelihood of injury especially when compared to the unprotected rugby players?
What we fail to recognize is how psychology tells is how football players’ safety gear actually affects their behavior on the field. In Chapter One of The Armchair Economist, “The Power of Incentives, How Seat Belts Kill,” Professor of Economics Steven E. Landsburg summarizes economics by saying, “People respond to incentives.”
Incentives change the effectiveness of government policy and shape day-to-day life. More specifically, reducing the price of a certain behavior will increase that behavior. As a corollary, increasing the price of a certain behavior will decrease that behavior. I agree with this theory (technically, it is an economic law) and it is best illustrated through several case studies.
THE PELTZMAN EFFECT
In the 1960s, the federal government—in its infinite wisdom—thought that cars were too unsafe for the general public. In response, it passed automobile safety legislation, requiring that seat belts, padded dashboards, and other safety measures be put in every automobile.
Although well-intended, auto accidents actually increased after the legislation was passed and enforced. Why? As Lansburg explains, “the threat of being killed in an accident is a powerful incentive to drive carefully.”
In other words, the high price (certain death from an accident) of an activity (reckless driving) reduced the likelihood of that activity. The safety features reduced the price of reckless driving by making cars safer. For example, seatbelts reduced the likelihood of a driver being hurt if he drove recklessly and got into an accident. Because of this, drivers were more likely to drive recklessly.
The benefit of the policy was that it reduced the number of deaths per accident. The cost of the policy was that it increased the number of accidents, thus canceling the benefit. Or at least, that is the conclusion of University of Chicago’s Sam Peltzman, who found the two effects canceled each other.
His work has led to a theory called “The Peltzman Effect,” also known as risk compensation. Risk compensation says that safety requirements incentivize people to increase risky behavior in response to the lower price of that behavior.
Risk compensation can be applied to almost every behavior involving risk where a choice must be made. Economics tells us that individuals make choices at the margin. This means that the incentive in question may lead the individual to do a little more or a little less of something.
Are Helmets Really Protecting Cyclists?
In 1990, the Australian state of Victoria made safety helmets mandatory for all bicycle riders. Although this change resulted in fewer injuries overall, the number of injuries per biker increased.
The best explanation for this is that the requirement of wearing a helmet increased the cost of cycling, so the number of bikers was reduced. Further, many bikers wearing helmets were more likely to engage in unsafe biking (risk compensation).
We are always at risk whenever we get on a bike or sit behind the wheel, so a biker or a driver may be willing to conduct these activities more recklessly in exchange for getting to his destination more quickly. Lansburg says that a baby-on-board sign may induce other drivers to drive more carefully. The fact that incentives reduce or increase behavior is an economic law.
Are Humans Rational?
Other times, a change in the cost of an activity can make the difference as to whether or not an individual engages in that activity at all. Economists assume humans are rational and engage in a cost-and-benefit analysis in nearly every activity. After all, resources are limited, so we must make choices on how we will use our time and money.
In the 1970s, the Federal government controlled gasoline’s value, holding it at a very low price. This sparked widespread oil shortages, which in turn led to very long lines at gas stations, among other factors.
When President Reagan lifted the price controls upon reaching office, prices increased, and the lines disappeared. Clearly, a small difference in the price of gasoline (or any other product) makes the difference for some people, in the question of whether or not to buy gasoline.
Now can you guess why football is a relatively more dangerous sport than rugby? Economics tells us that it is because the padding and helmets lead football players to play rougher, increasing the likelihood of injury.
According to the magazine American Heritage, the introduction of helmets in the 1950s “reduced some head damage but was held responsible for a tripling of neck injuries and a doubling of deaths from cervical spine injuries.” The same is true for hockey players.
The fact that incentives reduce or increase behavior is an economic law: Landsburg posits that “the literature of economics contains tens of thousands of empirical studies verifying this proposition and not one that convincingly refutes it.” Incentives change the effectiveness of government policy and shape day-to-day life.
CONCLUSION
The law has become the weapon of safety to the detriment of common since. (No cruise control does not mean you can leave the drivers seat.) Those that make the law and often those that litigate the law, simply excuse poor decision making by those that fail to think logically. The World looks to protect those “unable to help themselves,” by putting in safety restraints, making more law, requiring products to not be to sharp, hot, fast, slow, and on and on. If someone is injured or gets sick, everyone must be protected immediately.
The law is not designed to protect you from your poor decision making, It is designed to protect others from your poor decision making. What do I mean by this? An example: how many people do not speed because the sign says the speed limit is 35? 45? 55? You know you don’t go the speed limit. You have lights, mirrors, seat belts, airbags, sensors, metal cars – you are safe and truthfully should be allowed to drive 100mph if you did not threaten the lives of other people. However, being on the road with others you do threaten their lives. So why does a $100 fine not stop you from speeding. Would you still speed if you received 1 month in jail for every mile you were caught going over the speed limit? What if the fine was $1,000 for every mile over the speed limit? Would you speed?
If the goal is truly safety then we have to independently believe that either we are unsafe and then we will not do it, or we have to be so disincentivized to the point that it is not worth doing the activity. When you focus so much on safety, the World will fear the lack of safety. I am scared to fail and not be safe. I can’t open a business and risk not getting paid or drive a car, by yourself, without a mask. Likewise, when you don’t disincentivize harming others, but actually coddle and protect those that by their actions do harm others then you will not be able to protect the majority.
The law should protect you, your family, and your business, from others – not from yourself. However, when the punishment does not disincentivize the activity then you will become a victim of the activity. As an attorney what can I say other than if you are injured or hurt due to the actions of another, please call Winslow Law 843-357-9301.
