“A comprehensive 2003 US study also did "not find any evidence that higher seat belt usage has a significant effect on driving behavior." Their results showed that "overall, mandatory seat belt laws unambiguously reduce traffic fatalities.”
> Sure, you can find an extreme person to argue anything but I certainly am not familiar with this difficult to believe argument
I am not here to say it is either correct or incorrect to apply it to this situation.
But it is a commonly studied theory in behavioral science. And I don’t think it is considered an “extreme” theory in general. It is definitely something that is discussed enough to have a variety of studies on the matter.
Pedestrian risk is an obvious hypothesis of the risk compensation theory, because seat belts can only functionally protect people who are seated and belted in a vehicle. If the driver does compensate for their own risk, the reasonable hypothesis is any compensation would be at the detriment to others.
Traction control is a more likely candidate. Encourages people to think there’s more traction than there really is - only to find out the error when they need to stop
I wouldn't consider being aware of a vehicle's capabilities and utilizing them as being reckless.
One could argue that those folks are incurring a sort of opportunity cost by not learning the limits of vehicles that don't have ABS, and certainly they might be worse off for it, but that's not the same as recklessness.
Intentionally utilizing and knowing the limits of a vehicle is one thing - but driving beyond your capabilities because the vehicle covers for you most of the time is a problem.
The number of people who think AWD + ABS means they can ignore snow and ice and continue to do 60+ mph in blizzard conditions, for example.
There is data to this effect for bike helmets, that the feeling of safety induces more risky behavior. Helmeted riders act more aggressively near both cars and pedestrians, and also drivers allow less of a safety margin near a helmeted rider.
Helmets are still likely a net positive overall, but there is enough reason to at least consider the second-order effects.
Wearing a helmet is a choice (possibly one with legal consequences, but a choice), which gives a bias in any study which might have shown a behavioral difference by the rider.
It will be interesting to see the data roll in as this feature proliferates to standard consumer devices.
Obviously Garmin and others have had dedicated devices like this for years, but if you're in deep enough that you're dropping several hundred dollars on a dedicated satellite SOS device, you've probably also done a lot of work to learn how to keep yourself safe and generally not get in trouble. And you're acutely aware that even if people want to come save you, they might not be able to and ultimately it's on you to self rescue.
A lot of people don't know that at least in the US, search and rescue is free and largely volunteer run. It works great for now, but if the burden of unprepared wilderness adventurers grows to be too heavy, SAR as it currently is won't be able to bear it.
