For and againstDoes risk homoeostasis theory have implications for road safetyForAgainst
BMJ 2002; 324 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7346.1149 (Published 11 May 2002) Cite this as: BMJ 2002;324:1149
Does risk homoeostasis theory have implications for road safety
Risk homoeostasis (also called risk compensation) theory predicts that, as safety features are added to vehicles and roads, drivers tend to increase their exposure to collision risk because they feel better protected. Gerald Wilde provides evidence for it and suggests that it should be used to inform road safety strategies. Leon Robertson and Barry Pless, however, argue that the evidence is deeply flawed and that the theory is little better than an excuse for doing nothing
For
- Gerald J S Wilde (wildeg@psyc.queensu.ca), professor emeritus of psychology
- Department of Psychology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
- a 11 Dixon CT, Nogales, AZ 85621, USA,
- b Montreal Children's Hospital, C538 2300 Tupper, Montreal QC H3H 1P3, Canada
Anyone wishing to reduce the risk of misfortune on the road to zero can do so by never using the roads, but that person would also miss all the benefits accruing from road travel and thus live a greatly diminished life. Suboptimal risk taking also occurs if a person underestimates or overestimates the danger of a given activity, because that person would either take too much risk or too little for greatest net benefit. A person learns to assess risk by perceiving the outcomes of decisions. Our intuitive assessment of risk is honed by our experience and that of others, sometimes communicated through the mass media. This feedback will thus confirm or correct a person's perception of the size of the four utility factors that determine the optimal (or target) level of risk (see box).
Theory of risk homoeostasis
While some actions entail more danger (probability×magnitude of loss) than others, there is no behaviour without some risk. The challenge, therefore, is to optimise rather than eliminate risk. This optimal, or target, level of risk is that which maximises the overall benefit (probability×amount). Four utility factors determine the target level of risk:
The expected benefits of risky (comparatively dangerous) behaviour options
The expected costs of comparatively cautious behaviour options
The expected benefits of comparatively cautious behaviour options
The expected costs of risky behaviour options.
The first two factors increase …
Log in
Log in using your username and password
Log in through your institution
Subscribe from £173 *
Subscribe and get access to all BMJ articles, and much more.
* For online subscription
Access this article for 1 day for:
£38 / $45 / €42 (excludes VAT)
You can download a PDF version for your personal record.