Pelzman effect

Since the 1970s, the United States began to universally introduce a law on the mandatory use of seat belts for drivers. Economist — Samuel Peltsman conducted a series of studies to see how such a law would affect driving. The results revealed that after the adoption of the law, the number of road accidents has increased, while the number of deaths in accidents has decreased. To explain this phenomenon, Pelzman applied the economic principle of people's reaction to incentives.

It is common for a rational person to compare marginal good with marginal costs. The same thing happens when driving. The driver will slow down only in cases where the benefit of safe driving increases (for example, during rain or in icy conditions) and, conversely, increase the speed when this benefit decreases. Seat belts, in turn, reduced the costs of a traffic accident, since the probability of a fatal outcome decreases exactly, as well as the benefit of a careful ride. ^[3] Thus, a person subconsciously responds to seat belts as if they have improved the actual driving conditions, thereby allowing him to neglect other indicators (for example, speed, distance, attention, etc.) ^[4] . He described the result in his article “The Effects of Automobile Safety Regulation” published in the Journal of Political Economy in 1975.

Anti-lock braking system

Highway Loss Data Institute conducted studies that showed that the presence of ABS in vehicles does not reduce the risk of accidents . At the same time, the driver who drives a car with ABS has more chances to die than the driver of a car without a similar system ^[5] .

A similar experiment was conducted in Germany. Part of the Munich car fleet taxi service was equipped with ABS, and the other is not. After three years of observation, the results showed that drivers driving ABS vehicles showed a more dangerous ride than those who had no ABS. This means that the first group deliberately put itself at risk, knowing the anti-lock system, while the second group did everything to avoid it ^[6] .

Helmets

In 2006, a study was conducted in England, which showed that motorists are more likely to encounter motorcycle drivers who wear a helmet. This is due to the false certainty that the helmet is able to protect the motorcyclist, and, accordingly, it can be treated with more “disregard” than those without a helmet ^[7] .

Sweden’s transition to right-hand traffic

In 1967, Sweden switched from left-hand drive to right-hand traffic, which caused a significant reduction in the accident rate and death. The number of insured cars also decreased (by almost 40%), although in the next 6 weeks the rate returned to normal. The mortality rate returned to previous levels over the next two years. Researchers agreed that the reason was more accurate driving, caused by the effect of apparent risk ^[8] .

Sports

In one study, scientists compared injuries statistics in sports such as American football and rugby . The fact of the matter is that American football players have solid protective gear, while rugby players lack it. However, studies have shown that the chances of suffering in American football are much higher than in rugby. The level of risk that players take is proportional to how safe they feel. Thus, as a direct result of the presence of protection, American football players behave more aggressively and, therefore, receive more serious injuries than rugby players ^[9] .

Technologies

Observations have shown that users neglect the security of their personal data when using the latest operating systems or applications. For example, people who use the safest ISP believe that they no longer need an antivirus or firewall . Also, people tend to use simple passwords (1234, 0000, etc.) in social networks and online banks, when they are sure that their personal data is securely protected by the system ^[10] .

Communications

Telecommunications company AT & T conducted a study on the pernicious addiction of Americans to the use of smartphones behind the wheel. 7 out of 10 drivers admitted that they could not respond to notifications and check messages / emails while driving. Researchers claim that one of the main reasons for this behavior is the sense of security that modern cars provide. Automatic transmission, blocking noise, even the air conditioning system and stands for cups affect the perception of the situation. Thus, a person subconsciously allows himself to use a smartphone, compensating for this with the safety of his vehicles ^[11] .

Contraception

A study in 2015 showed that adolescents who believe that having sex with condoms is 100% safe begin to have sex before ^[12] .

James " Brad" DeLong - economist and professor at the University of California at Berkeley, quite ironically spoke about Pelzman's theory in his journal. He called the “seat belt theory” the worst example of how people respond to incentives, arguing that the latter does exist. He is confident that no rational person carries out complex mathematical calculations in his head regarding the seat belt and the speed with which he is going to drive a car. He also accused Peltsman of unfounded criticism of car safety and legal regulation by the state. DeLong argues that if you follow the logic of Peltsman, automakers should not produce safe cars, drivers should not wear up, and the authorities do not have the right to commit them to this ^[13] .

In 2007, Professor David Hoston of the University of Tennessee and Lillard Richardson of the University of Missouri conducted a series of studies to refute the Pelzman effect. They used data from 1985 to 2002 in different states on how the belt law affected the number of accidents and deaths in accidents. Unlike their predecessor, Hoston and Richardson took into account demographic variables, as well as the use of seat belts for all types of accidents (including motorcyclists, pedestrians and passengers). The result showed that the seat-belt law introduced in the United States, in general, has a positive effect on the safety of all road users. At the same time, frequent use of a seat belt does not in any way increase the risk of a false sense of invulnerability ^[14] .