It's almost a common n that wearing a at belt can keep pasngers from being injured or being killed in a car accident. But recent rearch done by John Adams shows more complicated statistics. More car accidents are caud by the reckless drivers who wear at belts.锁精固精丸
THE HIDDEN DANGER OF SEAT BELTS
David Bjerklie
鸱枭1 Seat belts still decrea our risk of dying in an accident, but the statistics are not all black and white. In fact, according to one rearcher, at belts may actually cau people to drive more recklessly.
2 If there's one thing we know about our risky world, it's that at belts save lives. And they do, of cour. But reality, as usual, is messier and more complicated than that. John Adams, risk expert and emeritus professor of geography at University College London, was an early skeptic of the at belt safety mantra. Adams first began to look at the numbers mo
冰淇淋机器re than 25 years ago. What he found was that contrary to conventional wisdom, mandating the u of at belts in 18 countries resulted in either no change or actually a net increa in road accident deaths.
四季常青的植物3 How can that be? Adams' interpretation of the data rests on the notion of risk compensation, the idea that individuals tend to adjust their behavior in respon to what they perceive; as changes in the level of risk. Imagine, explains Adams, a driver negotiating a curve in the road. Let's make him a young male. He is going to be influenced by his perceptions of both the risks and rewards of driving a car. The considerations could include getting to work or meeting a mend for dinner on time, impressing a companion with his driving skills, bolstering his image of himlf as an accomplished driver. They could also include his concern for his own safety and desire to live to a ripe old age, his feelings of responsibility for a toddler with him in a car at, the cost of banging up his shiny new car or losing his licen.
Nor will the possible concerns exist in a vacuum. He will be taking into account the wea
红轴声音大吗ther and the condition of the road, the amount of traffic and the capabilities of the car he is driving. But crucially, says Adams, this driver will also be adjusting his behavior in respon to what he perceives are changes in risks. If he is wearing a at belt and his car has front and side air bags and anti-skid brakes to boot, he may in turn drive a bit more daringly.
生活境界4 The point, stress Adams, is that drivers who feel safe may actually increa the risk that they po to other drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians and their own pasngers (while an average of 80% of drivers buckle up, only 68% of their rear-at pasngers do). And risk compensation is hardly confined to the act of driving a car. Think of a trapeze artist, suggests Adams, or a rock climber or motorcyclist. Add some safety equipment to the equation- a net, rope or helmet respectively- and the person may try maneuvers that he or she would otherwi consider foolish. In the ca of at belts, instead of a simple, straightforward reduction in deaths, the end result is actually a more complicated redistribution of risk and fatalities. For the sake of argument, offers Adams, imagine how it might affect the behavior of drivers if a sharp stake were mounted in the middle of the st
不闻不问eering wheel? Or if the bumper were packed with explosives. Perver, yes, but it certainly provides a vivid example of how a perception of risk could modify behavior.
签证如何办理
5 In everyday life, risk is a moving target, not a t number as statistics might suggest. In addition to external factors, each individual has his or her own internal comfort level with risk- taking. Some are daring while others are cautious by nature. And still others are fatalists who may believe that a higher power devis mortality schedules that fix a predetermined time when our number is up. Conquently, any single measurement assigned to the risk of driving a car is bound to be only the roughest sort of benchmark. Adams cites, as an example the statistical fact that a young man is 100 times more likely to be involved in a vere crash than is a middle-aged woman. Similarly, someone driving at 3: Sunday is more than 100 times more likely to die than someone driving at 10: Sunday. Someone with a personality disorder is 10 times more likely to die. And let's say he's also drunk. Tally up All the factors and consider them independently says Adams, and you could arrive at. a statistical prediction that a disturbed, drunken young man driving in the middle of the night is 2.7 million times more likely to be involved
in a rious accident than would a sober, middle-aged woman driving to church ven hours later.
6 The bottom line is that risk doesn't exist in a vacuum and that there are a host of factors that come into play, including the rewards of risk, whether they are financial, physical or emotional. It is this very human context which risk exists. That is key, says Adams, who titled one of his recent blogs: What Kills You Matters- Not Numbers. Our reaction to risk very much depends on the degree to which it is voluntary (scuba diving), unavoidable (public transit) or impod (air quality), the degree to which we feel we are in control (driving) or at the mercy of others (plane travel), and the degree to which the source of possible danger is benign ("doctor's orders), indifferent (nature) or malign, (murder and terrorism). We make dozens of risk calculations daily, but you can book odds- that most of them are so automatic or visceral- that we barely notice them.
