RL in Toronto sends this article, and notes that someone should explain moral hazard to the researchers.
As KPC hero Gordon Tullock suggested, if you wanted to increase auto safety, you might do this:
In other words, if players were safer, they would play more aggressively, and the net effect (that's a hockey goal joke!) would be close to zero. People choose their own level of risk. Safer equipment, more risk = no change injuries.
(pic credit to EconoBonus, even though he attributes the idea to Peltzman. EconoBonus's "Fact 2" is not a fact at all, I should say: deaths and injuries per mile have fallen, not risen. It's just an example, though. It's true Peltzman did good research on the subject...)
To be fair, both death rates and injury rates have actually fallen sharply for cars. The effect on pedestrians is ambiguous. I think the most you can say about the Peltzman effect is that the improvements in health that result from improvements in safety may be less than you expect. They do NOT appear to wash out completely. Safer cars and safer roads really do appear to have reduced injuries, by quite a bit.
As KPC hero Gordon Tullock suggested, if you wanted to increase auto safety, you might do this:
In other words, if players were safer, they would play more aggressively, and the net effect (that's a hockey goal joke!) would be close to zero. People choose their own level of risk. Safer equipment, more risk = no change injuries.
(pic credit to EconoBonus, even though he attributes the idea to Peltzman. EconoBonus's "Fact 2" is not a fact at all, I should say: deaths and injuries per mile have fallen, not risen. It's just an example, though. It's true Peltzman did good research on the subject...)
To be fair, both death rates and injury rates have actually fallen sharply for cars. The effect on pedestrians is ambiguous. I think the most you can say about the Peltzman effect is that the improvements in health that result from improvements in safety may be less than you expect. They do NOT appear to wash out completely. Safer cars and safer roads really do appear to have reduced injuries, by quite a bit.
7 comments:
The "net effect" of course depends on the information asymmetry. With most safety devices, the increase in safety that is perceived by the agent is not necessarily the same as the actual increase in safety. If the perceived safety increase is greater than the actual safety increase, then injury would become more common. If the perceived safety increase is less than the actual, then the injury would become less common.
In this case, the actual effect of the collar may be none or placebo, in which case it endagers players. On the other hand, the collar may cause a huge increase in safety, but players don't notice it much...perhaps because it's comfortable and small. In the second case, the collar would reduce injuries drastically because the players would not alter their behavior, and head injuries would me more difficult to produce.
It has merely reached a new equilibrium. Or maybe it was always here, due to poor judgement on the part of humans. It doesn't occur to me that reckless driving might harm me. The only fear I have is auto repair bills, which have gone up over time. Perhaps a body shop tax would increase self control without the need to impale some of us on steering wheels.
I think the most you can say about the Peltzman effect is that the improvements in health that result from improvements in safety may be less than you expect.
I've never understood the Peltzman effect arguments for precisely this reason. Because I think you're exactly right here: You should expect less of an improvement in safety from improvements/regulation than you would holding everything constant. Or, in other words, there's a substitution effect. But why is there any reason to expect total substitution, or risk-level targeting?
Or is there something I'm missing? Wouldn't a "full" Peltzman effect require some pretty bizarre assumptions about people's appetite for risk/utility for safety?
Thank you for the last paragraph.
I'm not saying at all that it trumps the earlier part, but I appreciate the empiricism.
"To be fair, both death rates and injury rates have actually fallen sharply for cars."
Couldn't that be because of speed limit or other traffic fines? For example, if cars are more safe, I may be willing to increase my speed 90 MPH on the interstate, but I'm not willing to risk paying the fine. So its the relative rise in financial risk, not the fall in safety risk, that has led to lower injury rates.
The equipment build-up is one of the things ruining professional hockey. Visors are going to be mandated soon.
Hockey players used to wear less equipment, the game was more violent, there was higher scoring, and there were fewer injuries.
Clearly, other factors are involved, but when you let players put body armor on and fly through the neutral zone at top speed, you're going to get devastating checks and strategic shock blocking.
Don't even get me started on the instigator rule.
I don't think car accident death and injury rates have fallen.
Post a Comment