ADUK Archive

Ancient wrote:Exactly how risk compensation effects the multiplicity of safety systems is still a matter for research, but the evidence is that mechanisms that people are informed of (such as the well-marketed safety systems in cars) have a stronger effect than those which people are only vaguely aware of (an example might be an improved road surface).

*This is the bit that most people just don't seem to 'get' about risk compensation - it is not necessarily a rational choice and we do not always decide to increase the risks, we sem to have a 'risk comfort' zone that moves when we feel the risk changes.

It does seem quite strange. I get the unconsciously part, but while I can imagine unconsciously risk compensating for real effects I can sense - e.g. in a modern, refined, very comfortable, noise-insulated car I might feel more cocooned from the outside world and so unconsciously might feel more immune from the dangers of the outside world - I think what you're talking about is different.

I haven't followed the links you've posted but it sounds like you're saying that people unconsciously risk compensate for safety systems they believe to be present rather than (or perhaps as well as) effects they can actually sense. So in order to get drivers to unconsciously risk compensate, you don't have to fit cars with airbags and ABS and ESP and stuff, you just have to tell drivers you've fitted them - is that it?

GJD wrote:I haven't followed the links you've posted but it sounds like you're saying that people unconsciously risk compensate for safety systems they believe to be present rather than (or perhaps as well as) effects they can actually sense. So in order to get drivers to unconsciously risk compensate, you don't have to fit cars with airbags and ABS and ESP and stuff, you just have to tell drivers you've fitted them - is that it?

Almost but not quite. This from the second link:

"The risk compensation theory which has received the most recent attention is the
“Theory of Risk Homeostasis” formally proposed by G. J.S. Wilde [Wilde, 1982a]. Wilde
proposed that while driving a vehicle, a person is:
“acting in a way that may be understood as a homeostatically controlled self-regulation
process. At any moment of time the instantaneously experienced level of risk is
compared with the level of risk the individual wishes to take, and decisions to alter
ongoing behavior will be made whenever these two are discrepant. Whether the
ensuing behavior will have the desired effect of reestablishing equilibrium between
the target level and the experienced level of risk, depends upon the individual’s
perceptual, decisional, and executional skills” [Wilde, 1982a, p. 2101." [my italics].

Essentially when someone is told of a safety feature, they will (to an extent that varies between individuals) unconsciously adjust their behaviour to keep the risk factor in their perception constant. Since the extent of this varies from individual to individual and each individual's assessment of the benefit of the safety mechanism differs and few or none truly and instinctively understand the actual change in risk; some will be comfortable with a slight change in behaviour and others will over-compensate and increase risk overall. Since car manufacturers make very strong marketing claims about the safety features of vehicles, using well-researched marketing techniques to convince people of their efficacy, it is likely that many will over-compensate (demonstrated to occur for example with car drivers overtaking helmet-wearing cyclists). Many will also perceive only the risk benefit they get and not consider other's potential dis-advantage (the 'seat belt effect').

I think a good example of risk compensation is the number of idiots who come unstuck every time there's a bit of ice or snow because they think the electronics in their car will allow them to drive normally when there's no friction between the car and the road

jont wrote:I think a good example of risk compensation is the number of idiots who come unstuck every time there's a bit of ice or snow because they think the electronics in their car will allow them to drive normally when there's no friction between the car and the road

Is that an unconscious compensation or a conscious but ill-informed belief? I said previously that I get the unconscious part. As I think about it more, I'm not so sure whether I do...

Taking Ancient's example of overtaking cyclists with helmets, I think the unconsciousness aspect of the risk compensation would mean that if you asked drivers whether they do anything different when overtaking cyclists with and without helmets they would say no, but if you watched them doing it you would see the answer was yes.

jont wrote:I think a good example of risk compensation is the number of idiots who come unstuck every time there's a bit of ice or snow because they think the electronics in their car will allow them to drive normally when there's no friction between the car and the road

But is that really because they believe they have an electronic invulnerability cloak, or because they're just idiots in the first place?

I would say most drivers have no idea whether their car has ABS, EBA, TCS or whatever, let alone any idea how these systems are actually supposed to work. Apparently many drivers of BMW 1-series believe their cars are front wheel drive

But they do strongly believe that their cars are intrinsically 'safer to drive' than they used to be (because that is the marketing hype). On the whole they are right, but they don't know the degree of increased safety, nor understand how it works (ABS, EPS, 4wd, etc)) and often over-compensate for a perceived 'risk homeostasis' (i.e. they are idiots and so would take big risks anyway, but take even bigger risks because they believe they have some control due to their vehicular 'magic').
Edit to add: To be clear, it is not just idiots that compensate in this way - we all do it to some extent. Our comfort with our understanding of the way risk changes has some impact on our behaviour, but as far as I have read the evidence suggests that it is an innate human (at least) trait.
The degree to which this is conscious or unconscious is one of the variables. 'Risk homeostasis' is just one of the theories about what is happening, but the effects are well documented and the cause appears related to the driver's perceived level of risk. For (the theories on) how it actually works, you'd need to read some very involved research papers.
The experiments about drivers passing helmeted or un-helmeted cyclists didn't (the ones I recall) ask the drivers if their actions were deliberate (they were examining cycle safety, not psychological causes). Apparently though the safest thing to wear on your head (with respect to being overtaken by other vehicles) is a long blond wig . This may be a cultural effect of where the experiment took place and cyclists in other environments may need to experiment further.

PeterE wrote:Apparently many drivers of BMW 1-series believe their cars are front wheel drive

WHAT?! It's not?!

Chris

ScoobyChris wrote:

PeterE wrote:Apparently many drivers of BMW 1-series believe their cars are front wheel drive

WHAT?! It's not?!

Chris

I probably couldn't tell the difference, except by having a look underneath the thing.

It wouldn't matter to me anyhow in view of my consummate skill and finesse: RWD, FWD, 4WD, what does it matter?

Best wishes, but only to the members of my fan club; that leaves most of you out of it,
Dave.

TripleS wrote:

ScoobyChris wrote:

PeterE wrote:Apparently many drivers of BMW 1-series believe their cars are front wheel drive

WHAT?! It's not?!

Chris

I probably couldn't tell the difference, except by having a look underneath the thing.

It wouldn't matter to me anyhow in view of my consummate skill and finesse: RWD, FWD, 4WD, what does it matter?

Best wishes, but only to the members of my fan club; that leaves most of you out of it,
Dave.

You'll be saying the emporer isn't wearing any clothes next. For what it's worth, I happen to agree with you, but don't tell anyone.

On a similar subject: what's your view on tyres: budget or premium?

Do other forum members think they risk compensate?

Even since the introduction of modern active safety systems, I have had the privilege of driving many superb cars without these systems - cars such as GT3, Caterham, Noble and TVR come to mind. I don't think I drove them notably more cautiously in similar circumstances than I would have driven my current nanny equipped machine - so in the nanny equipped machine my passengers and I are a little safer.

ScoobyChris wrote:

PeterE wrote:Apparently many drivers of BMW 1-series believe their cars are front wheel drive

WHAT?! It's not?!

Chris

So does it really make a difference on a modestly powered hatchback, equipped with modern safety systems? Personally, one son having had a one series and the other currently having an A3, I would say it does - but not a lot.

How does this relate to IAM? I have forgotten what this topic was about.

Silk wrote:......what's your view on tyres: budget or premium?

Well I don't want to be using cheap rubbish, but nor can I see the merit in buying expensive top of the range tyres. The superior properties of the top quality tyres - which I imagine relates mainly to offering high levels of grip - would be wasted on me.

My main concerns with tyres are that they should give me reasonable grip, long life and quiet running, and if the top end tyres offered those benefits, they might be a sensible choice for me.

Bear in mind that I started driving at a time when cross ply tyres and drum brakes were the normal fitment, so I learned to live with them. Even so, we got around quite briskly; so it amuses me when some of the younger drivers now make dismissive comments about cross ply tyres and drum brakes, as if they confined us to driving about at a snail's pace!

WRT to specific tyres, my Austin-Healey Sprites were on Dunlop 'Gold Seal', as were the Austin A35 and A40 models. My first 3.8 Mark 2 Jaguar - bought in 1968 - was on Dunlop 'Road Speed RS5'. These were of cross ply construction. Ever since then I've been on radial tyres - Dunlop SP41, Michelin X and ZX, and in more recent years with the 406 they've been Continentals, Pirelli P6000(1) and Hankook K415.

(1) Despite what some people say, I never found any ditches with these!

Best wishes all,
Dave.

waremark wrote:I have had the privilege of driving many superb cars without these systems - cars such as GT3, Caterham, Noble and TVR come to mind. I don't think I drove them notably more cautiously in similar circumstances than I would have driven my current nanny equipped machine

It's an interesting question. I think a related question exposes underlying attitudes; if you are able to disable these systems when driving powerful cars do you?

I was lucky enough share the driving of a very nice car last December on slippery roads. When it came to my turn one of the safety systems had clearly failed so I very much enjoyed the challenge. My two co-drivers said they would have been much more cautious if that system had failed while they were driving, whereas they had been less cautious when they were driving, (although still safe within the performance envelope that the 'car + safety system' offered).

waremark wrote:Do other forum members think they risk compensate?

Do other forum members feel that their AD skills allow them to make better 'progress' than they would otherwise have done?

Ancient wrote:Do other forum members feel that their AD skills allow them to make better 'progress' than they would otherwise have done?

100% yes