Abstract

Abstract The risk homeostasis theory suggests that safety measures will not reduce accident loss unless they lower ‘target levels of risk’. The theory is plausible but untestable—target levels of risk are unmeasurable, and no all-embracing index of accident loss exists. Risk compensation effects are frequently underestimated. If danger is defined as the potential of some thing or activity to cause harm, then accident statistics are a worthless measure of it. Because people react to perceived changes in safety, situations can be rendered safer or more dangerous without altering the numbers of accidents that they cause. Legislators and regulators who seek to promote safety, and measure their achievements with accident statistics are likely to be either chronically frustrated or deceived. The ‘road safety community’ needs a new agenda. It should be less concerned about protecting people from themselves, probably an impossible task, and more concerned about achieving a fairer distribution of road traffic risk.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.