Peltzman effect

Chalo said:
Shallow, brief address of the issues, but you don't have to trust me because I didn't write it.
Click to expand...
That law is very similar to Booth's Law - a law in skydiving that states that the safer skydiving gear becomes, the more chances skydivers will take, in order to keep the fatality rate constant. And while there is some truth to that, overall the skydiving fatality rate has gone down dramatically over the past 60 years.

In addition, when you look at fatality rates, you can see step changes where better/safer gear is introduced. Around 1980, fatality rates dropped from 4 per 100,000 jumps to under 2. This was driven by the fairly rapid switch from round military-surplus canopies with minimal reefing, to modern ram-air parachutes with pilot chutes and a reefing system. The next big jump happened around 1990, when AAD's (automatic activation devices) became common; the rate went from about 1.8 to 1.

For all those jumps, of course, there were people who died specifically because (for example) they figured they didn't have to make 100% sure they pulled; they knew they had an AAD to back them up if they didn't. I witnessed a few of them. But overall they made the sport safer.

So I don't buy the blanket assumption that safer gear always makes people take a proportionately higher risk. Booth's law, for example, isn't valid even in the industry he is describing (skydiving.)
 
JackFlorey said:
That law is very similar to Booth's Law - a law in skydiving that states that the safer skydiving gear becomes, the more chances skydivers will take, in order to keep the fatality rate constant. And while there is some truth to that, overall the skydiving fatality rate has gone down dramatically over the past 60 years.

In addition, when you look at fatality rates, you can see step changes where better/safer gear is introduced. Around 1980, fatality rates dropped from 4 per 100,000 jumps to under 2. This was driven by the fairly rapid switch from round military-surplus canopies with minimal reefing, to modern ram-air parachutes with pilot chutes and a reefing system. The next big jump happened around 1990, when AAD's (automatic activation devices) became common; the rate went from about 1.8 to 1.

For all those jumps, of course, there were people who died specifically because (for example) they figured they didn't have to make 100% sure they pulled; they knew they had an AAD to back them up if they didn't. I witnessed a few of them. But overall they made the sport safer.

So I don't buy the blanket assumption that safer gear always makes people take a proportionately higher risk. Booth's law, for example, isn't valid even in the industry he is describing (skydiving.)
Click to expand...

Normally 'laws' like that would fill up my google search from top to bottom, now the only relevant hit is a forum thread at a place called 'Dropzone' giving it nice credibility but even there it's clear there are no actual 'Booth's Law's' when you get towards the middle of page two, it's just a made up parody someone came up with to equate Murphy's law to the sport of skydiving.

The rest of my hit results is filled with legal firms and case files involving intercourse in a 'booth' 😂 ( ... duckduck ;) )

Especially Booth's Law #1 is a carbon copy -> whenever you take the most risk by opening low, you will have the slowest opening and the highest chance of malfunction.

So.. "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong, and at the worst possible time" but in skydyving....

Hence, I don't think you actually need to 'analyze' that 'law' much deeper then you just did as none of us are likely to give each other a deeper insight into selection bias and confirmation bias.

But I do find it entertaining to read while waking up
 
One of the reasons cyclist injuries might increase over time or remain constant even with introduction of helmet laws could include for example factors like the fact that car size, weight and bonnet height are increasing, with SUVs and monster trucks taking over the roads. There could be other factors also. I do ride more safely without a helmet on that is true. However I don’t want to ride that slow all the time so wear a helmet when going faster.

Apart from cost I would like to upgrade to an ebike rated MIPS helmet. Have never really considered full face. Interesting discussion.

Edit: The increase in SUVs and dangerous car designs on the road has been shown to be correlated to increase in pedestrian injuries. I’m sure this is also related to cyclist injuries. It’s often or almost always big 4WDs with bullbars that drive dangerously and threateningly in my area, as well as trucks and particularly utes (‘pickups’). Driver behaviour might also be deteriorating… attitudes can be pretty horrible on the road. I know people who say they have a near miss on every daily ride.
 
Last edited:
Can't everyone just agree that tin can's are the issue and that for incidents to be a> less frequent but mostly b> less impactfull, you need to minimize the energy in the collision.

Tin can's are the reason there is so much energy in those collisions,

Hence, the only real solution is to remove interactions between cycling and car infrastructure? You're not going to fix the impact of a tin can with a cyclist by giving them helmets, maybe those self inflatable motor full body bags.. but imagine yourself cycling in one of those...

And not that doesn't mean helmets are bad, or don't increase safety but fatalities do not correlate directly to head injury. Fatalities do correlate to the energy in an impact.

And again, there is so much energy in those cyclist on tin can collisions, not because of the cyclist. Nothing, and living in the 'most bicycle friendly country in the world' shows this without any doubt, removes the occurrences of death in accidents as much as making sure those accidents are as unlikely to happen as possible. Because even while most people here are on bikes not long after they can walk so to say, that doesn't at all mean people are 'smart about it'.

Just as with not being able to fix tin can occupants abilities and state of mind, you can't fix the stupid in some cyclists. What keeps those stupids alive for longer though is giving them bike lanes away from traffic, elevated intersections or tunnels just for cyclists and so on. And where it's not possible to keep them apart, implement traffic calming methods like we can see in most cities. I don't know if the US has the equivalent, but around here we got many 'fiets straten' aka 'bicycle streets', which is wonderful because while cars are allowed on them, it's the cyclist which is the intended main user and that's not only visible in their right off way over tin cans but also in the layout of the streets themselves. That's what I can see around me, and that's why with 17 million people with a culture where people are on bikes everywhere you look, we still had less as 300 fatal accidents in year where we at the same time had a 1/3rd increase over the previous year.
 
Some safety equipment or procedures prevent accidents, or protect all/other people - guardrails, lights, stop lights - these should often be mandated.

Others, like helmets, prevent injuries, not accidents nor others' injuries, so mandates there are not needed - I'll choose to wear my helmet and others can choose their own fate. Locally, helmet mandates exist for minors (maybe a case for that) and for motorcyclists and "Class 3", "Moped" riders. Less supportive of those mandates. I suppose if a mandated personal safety law actually reduces deaths, and also insurance claims that raise costs, there may be value there.

I have no real knowledge nor strong conviction on spoke thickness ;)
 
You could just be like "I just hate wearing one" and everyone would just shrug about it. No need to spend an hour typing to try and justify your decision, because at the end of the day you're an adult and you're free to make your own choices. Now, I'll fully proclaim my feelings on them- but you could just tell me to get stuffed and I can't do much about that.

ccihon said:
Locally, helmet mandates exist for minors (maybe a case for that) and for motorcyclists and "Class 3", "Moped" riders. Less supportive of those mandates. I suppose if a mandated personal safety law actually reduces deaths, and also insurance claims that raise costs, there may be value there.
Click to expand...
Its taken from the legal context that we've agreed that you're only really an "adult" when you're 18, and since you aren't you cannot be fully held liable for bad choices with personal safety.
Considering the shit we've done as kids- ya'll have probably also had roman candle fights too- it's a good thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top