I haven’t read the papers and therefore cannot comment on the quality of their data or reasoning, but it would be fair to say that IIHS believes there is more to their opposition to risk compensation than simply finding the idea distasteful. They have some research they can point to.

That said, both IIHS articles do not mention the failure of Britain’s seat belt law to provide anything close to the projected reductions in deaths and injuries, let alone provide some alternative explanation of that outcome. Their silence on this matter would suggest that on the issue of risk compensation, the IIHS position is not so solid, and Prof. Adams’ position is not so weak, as the IIHS would have their readers believe.

Anything that challenges their shibboleth must, therefore, be wholly and fundamentally wrong. Ask a member of IIHS if they would drive without a seat belt, and if not, why not. I bet you a pound their answer will be a practical indication that they risk compensate.

It is absurd to suggest that people do not compensate for levels of perceived risk. The only question is by how much. You can have a rational discussion around the balance of levels of perceived risk, degrees of compensation, and whether the actual benefit would outweigh the resultant change in behaviour, but to deny the existence of risk compensation simply because you dislike a proposal that uses this mechanism as a supporting pillar is fatuous and indicates a profound lack of intellectual rigour.