How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized for?

Re:How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized ... by amelius on Tuesday June 30, 2020 @11:19AM (#23690936)

Some tips:

Dress like a motor-cyclist. Wear a helmet and airbag suit.

This is probably also useful when traveling by airplane.

I have no data on the effectiveness, however.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized ... by pbhjpbhj on Tuesday June 30, 2020 @01:03PM (#23692195)

People who feel safer can take greater risks, thus safety equipment can create negative returns.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized ... by macleginn on Tuesday June 30, 2020 @03:31PM (#23693866)

This theory (known in literature as ‘risk compensation theory’) has been debunked. See some references here: https://twitter.com/whitequark/status/1264486505168482304

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized ... by pbhjpbhj on Wednesday July 01, 2020 @06:33AM (#23699969)

tl;dr I would not use that link as evidence to say risk compensation is debunked.

Interesting, I'd certainly say it applies to me - I dive more in volleyball if I have my kneepads; I tackle harder in football when wearing shin-guards, the moreso with ankle protection; drive far more cautiously on a motorbike than in the metal, crumpled-zoned protection of a car; etc. ...

That tweet leads to https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136984781... "Bicycle helmets and risky behaviour: A systematic review" which concludes:

>"Although two out of the 23 studies were supportive of risk compensation, ten other studies found helmet wearing was associated with safer cycling behaviour." //

So, risk averse people wear helmets.

Some of the support in the review comes from results like helmet wearers obeying traffic laws: the issue seems much more nuanced and complicated than that.

FWIW, risk compensation doesn't require that the entire risk is negated (or even over-compensated) so statistics on accident occurrence and severity alone - for example - would not be sufficient to prove if the effect is real: take my car driving, no matter how much I exhibit riskier driving in a car - short of being a lunatic - it's not going to make it more dangerous than motorbike riding because of all the other people on the road.

[This post relies on part on past activities and experiences!]

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized ... by amelius on Tuesday June 30, 2020 @03:36PM (#23693906)

To be fair, it seems the debunking applied to people who were obliged to wear safety gear, not to people who were more cautious than average people.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized ... by macleginn on Tuesday June 30, 2020 @04:28PM (#23694408)

If you are more cautious to begin with, you do not need to compensate for anything, so the theory does not apply.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized ... by amelius on Tuesday June 30, 2020 @06:55PM (#23695752)

But what if you are overly cautious and this bothers you and wearing safety gear makes you feel more normal?

[ Parent | on HN ]