1/23/2012 9:54 AM ET|
Safer cars can make unsafe roads
The Peltzman Effect may be debatable and hard to prove, but it points to a disturbing trend: Drivers who feel safer in their cars take greater risks. That can mean more crashes.
Sometimes a perfectly good theory can sound nuts. Take this one: Safer cars make the roads less safe.
Sounds as loony as the one about how you're better off not wearing a seat belt, right?
But the first statement is, in fact, a lot more credible -- and it leads to some interesting debate about driving behavior, accident rates and, ultimately, how insurance rates are calculated.
It's called the Peltzman Effect, a generally accepted principle that suggests that as people feel safer they take on greater risk. People have a set tolerance level for risk and adjust their behavior accordingly. Build a high-impact football helmet, and players will ram their heads harder. Improve car safety, and people will drive faster.
The danger comes when the added risk cancels out the benefits of the safety measures or, worse, adds new and greater risks. In football, for example, evidence is mounting that the fierce head butts of the modern game are causing long-term brain damage.
And it's increasingly clear that we feel safe enough in our cars to consume a meal, phone a friend or argue with our passengers at 75 mph.
So what if I crash?
University of Chicago economist Sam Peltzman conceived the theory in 1975 after finding that accident rates had remained stagnant in the 1960s following the introduction of federal auto-safety regulations. When drivers felt protected, they drove more recklessly, Peltzman concluded, putting pedestrians, cyclists and others at greater risk.
In the years since, vehicular fatality rates have dropped dramatically even as safety laws have mounted, refuting the notion that the Peltzman Effect offsets the benefits as a whole.
"There is some evidence that safety features that people get direct feedback from do cause them to drive less carefully, and the best example is studded snow tires," says Russ Rader, a spokesman for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. "But there's no evidence that this is widespread with things that don't give drivers direct feedback, like air bags" and electronic stability control.
In 1980, three years before the first state mandatory seat belt law went into effect, 51,091 people were killed in auto crashes in the U.S., a rate of 3.345 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. In 2010, an estimated 32,788 were killed, a rate of 1.09 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. (For a graphic illustration of how times have changed, check out this test crash of a 1959 Chevy with a 2009 Chevy. Hint: The driver of one would have been killed instantly; the driver of the other would have sustained a knee injury.)
"If it were affecting drivers significantly, then we would not have seen the dramatic reductions in crashes and fatalities that have occurred over the last 50 years, since auto safety regulations were first implemented," Rader says.
More from CarInsurance.com:
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
If car manufactures were required to place a big sharp spike in the center of the steering wheel, we would become better drivers.
I know I would.
Need more strict tests. Better education. Speed is not dangerous, stupid people are. Someone distracted is a road hazard. Whenever someone says "there ought to be a law", it is very likely that there ought not be a law.
Perhaps we need the cars that pretty much guaranteed a fatality in a 35 mph crash, you know...no seatbelt, solid construction without a crush zone, metal dash, etc...
enough sarcasm, this is a dumb speculation.
I can completely agree with the notion that if I have a safe car, I will most likely take more of a chance.
When I was in my early twenties, I drove cars around for a car lot during the late '90s. On one occasion, I had to test drive a high performance Porsche 911. There are several things a person needs to know about that car. One is, it is designed to handle corners; I knew that one. Two is, the car is super fast on top-end and on acceleration; I took the time to find out how accurate that statement really was.
My test drive consisted of going between 65 and 80 mph on 25 mph S-curves on a back mountain road. Fun-fun-fun, till the second to the last corner. I really wanted more, so I took it at 85 and broke traction. To put it nicely, I left two skid marks back there on the corner.
Safe means do more with less fear.
It did handle as well at 120 mph as it did at 20, 50, and 75.
Cars Are Unsafe Intentionally. Do You Really Think the Human Mind and Technology Cannot Get You to Point a to Point B without Killing You.?
It's Simply More Profitable to Have Your Wife and Children Killed in a Horrific Car Accident. even I could build rules and cars to get myself and my fellow humans from point a to point B. We live in a world of money comes before your child and ego and selfishness is the letter of the day.
So I say, cars are unsafe intentionally! You can talk about what we have and debate all the pros and cons all you want. But at least understand the truth that there could be a better world we do have the intelligence to get your wife to her sister in laws without killing her.
I find people talk about the fluff and never the root of any important issue this drives me nuts. Were not such an honorable species but we do have the intelligence if we only cared to use it to benefit ourselves and our fellow man.
Cars kill intentionally
Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.
Joe Cantrell says he faces charges after trying to take advantage of the retailer's policy.