In his 1975 paper, Sam Peltzman argues that people respond to safety measures (ABS, seat belts, airbags) by taking more risks. The safer a car becomes, the more the driver tends to consume the “margin of error” created by that safety by driving faster or more carelessly. Because of the human psychological tendency to remain at a “constant level of risk,” safety improvements may fail to produce the large reductions in fatalities that are expected.
According to Gerald J.S. Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory, every individual has a “target level of risk” shaped by genetics, experiences, and current goals. People are not satisfied merely with survival. They want to test limits. Instead of remaining content, they seek to win, feel excitement, or pursue new experiences. When conditions improve, our chances of survival appear to “increase,” and we tend to use this surplus to satisfy other desires (speed, carelessness, etc.).
People may drive more dangerously because they have seat belts, and death rates may not fall as expected. Drivers may brake later because of ABS, and accidents may not decrease. People who take medication may consume unhealthy things because they rely on the drug. Protective sports equipment may encourage athletes to enter more dangerous positions. Insuring buildings may lead to construction in riskier locations.
Should we avoid precautions?
Risk compensation is a statistical matter. Humans can prevent dangers with simple precautions and can intellectually locate a balance of risk. Even in situations involving physical danger, searching for a risk balance is normal. In fact, this is precisely what development is. Just as power increases responsibility, development also brings greater burdens. Risk balance is a result of humanity’s past of testing limits and learning by pushing boundaries. Without striving toward risk balance, discoveries would not occur. In fact, most learning happens through trial and error as we attempt to find this balance of risk. We should not complain about risk compensation that comes after taking precautions. For example, when we gain wisdom and begin to see things differently, we should not claim that “ignorance is bliss.” The limits of wisdom are also the limits of awareness and anxiety. The existence of risk compensation does not mean we should avoid risks or precautions. Humans live not by eliminating risks but by diversifying them.
The productivity paradox
- When new roads are built in a city, traffic is expected to decrease. However, the opposite often happens. More people begin to drive. Long-distance commuting increases. People who used public transportation switch to cars. If autonomous vehicles reduce accident and time risks, they may also be used even more frequently.
- Historically, when agricultural production increased, populations with access to food also grew, so food shortages could not be permanently eliminated.
- Digital technologies were expected to save time, yet we now live busier lives due to unnecessary emails and distracting digital notifications.
- As energy efficiency increased, total energy consumption did not fall because people used more lighting. Cars became more fuel efficient, but they were also used more often. Over time, energy consumption has grown alongside efficiency.
- We assumed cloud technologies would reduce the cost of CDs and disks, but because storage became cheap and convenient, demand for larger files and transfers increased. The resources spent on data storage have grown exponentially.
Why do we take risks?
We are the descendants of risk-takers. Our ancestors took risks and stood upright; now we have back pain. Once our ancestors began learning through experimentation, they triggered a chain reaction that has never stopped. We keep watching to see how far it will go. As long as we do not become satisfied, there will be no end to risk-taking. As the continuation of those who could not stay still, we carry an endless desire for risk. Some of us take fewer risks because we also inherit a tendency to be content at a certain level. We live not on reckless daring but on reasonable risks.
It should also be noted that risk and productivity cannot be analyzed perfectly. The future is unpredictable. It is impossible to calculate all existing variables. Moreover, we often do not know what we truly want or what is actually good for us. Maximization is not always our priority. Human beings have purposes beyond their immediate goals. For this reason, it is difficult to calculate which risk will produce which benefit.
