Risk Compensation: Revisited and Rebutted
AbstractThis Commentary addresses the ongoing disagreements between many safety advocates who endorse traditional models of prevention and those who oppose them, arguing that safety measures are offset by risk compensation (RCT). The debate is especially heated with respect to regulatory or legislative prevention measures. After explaining the rationale behind risk compensation (aka risk homeostasis theory) (RHT), I provide examples of RCT studies to explain why I believe they should be rejected. The main basis for my rebuttal, however, rests on data that show steady declines in unintentional injury mortality, which, according to RCT, should not have occurred. There are many other reasons for rejecting this theory, and it seems that the time has come for the debate to finally be concluded. View Full-Text
Scifeed alert for new publicationsNever miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
- Get alerts for new papers matching your research
- Find out the new papers from selected authors
- Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
- Define your Scifeed now
Pless, B. Risk Compensation: Revisited and Rebutted. Safety 2016, 2, 16.
Pless B. Risk Compensation: Revisited and Rebutted. Safety. 2016; 2(3):16.Chicago/Turabian Style
Pless, Barry. 2016. "Risk Compensation: Revisited and Rebutted." Safety 2, no. 3: 16.
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.