Jan 31

Myth Inflation

Anniversaries are convenient occasions on which to reinforce myths. Twenty five years ago, 31 January 1983, it became compulsory for occupants of the front seats of cars in the UK to wear seat belts. Today Britains Department for Transport has posted a press release announcing that in the 25 years since the seat belt law came into force it has saved 60000 lives 2400 per year!

Myths are durable fictions that have wormed their way into popular belief systems. Once established they become impervious to contradicting evidence. They are self-reinforcing. People who know nothing of the evidence routinely repeat the myth to each other. The mythology surrounding the efficacy of seat belt laws belongs to a special category of myth: it is not only durable and self-reinforcing, it is inflating. In October 1985, almost three years after the law came into effect, the Department of Transport put out a press release claiming that the law was saving 200 lives a year. This claim was challenged, not least by the Isles Report (http://john-adams.co.uk/2007/01/04/seat-belt-legislation-and-the-isles-report/), a report produced within the department itself. This report was never published.

Why should the government be so assiduously promoting and inflating this myth? It has ready access to the numbers that disprove it. I offer a simple, cynical, explanation: it feeds the larger myth of the efficacy of government.

The press release can be found at. https://www.gnn.gov.uk/content/detail.asp?ReleaseID=348983&NewsAreaID=2&HUserID=878,793,895,848,780,868,866,845,786,674,677,767,684,762,718,674,708,683,706,718,674 *It is particularly recommended for the accompanying photo of the Minister for Road Safety, Jim Fitzpatrick, looking remarkably like a rabbit caught in the headlights. The claim of 60000 lives saved was released in his name, but I strongly suspect he knew nothing about how it was produced.

For some of my analyses of the myth see:

http://john-adams.co.uk/2006/12/16/britains-seat-belt-law-should-be-repealed/

http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/SAE%20seatbelts.pdf

http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/failure%20of%20seatbelt%20legislation.pdf

http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/Seat%20belts%20for%20significance.pdf

*PS (31 August 2009) This link no longer works. It appears to have been consigned to the memory hole, presumably out of embarrassment, but proof that it once existed can be found by typing “seat belt law anniversary 60000 lives saved” into Google. This will yield thousands of hits reporting it.

Jan 07

Probably the best disclaimer in the world

Most risk assessments, warning notices and disclaimers are the legal equivalent of juju charms to ward off lawyers and probably as effective as the kind that believers wear around their necks. This disclaimer for Nelson Rocks Preserve in West Virginia was sent to me by Paul Winston, editorial director of Business Insurance . It is the most comprehensive I have seen.

It begins
WARNING

Nature is unpredictable and unsafe. Mountains are dangerous. Many books have been written about these dangers, and there’s no way we can list them all here. Read the books. For the full disclaimer click here .

Dec 19

Dangerous trees?

Arboricultural Journal 2007, Vol. 30, pp. 95103

 This is the published version of a paper prepared for a conference on The Future of Tree Risk Management, held in London on 15 September 2006.

 Abstract
Britain, in the view of former Prime Minister Blair, is in danger of having a wholly disproportionate attitude to the risks we should expect to run as a normal part of life. The result is a plethora of  rules, guidelines, responses to ˜scandals of one nature or another that ends up having utterly perverse consequences. My introduction to the world of tree risk management in Britain leads me to the conclusion that it is disproportionately risk averse and is having utterly perverse consequences. Read full article (PDF)

Dec 08

The cost of inaction: why cost-benefit analysis seldom settles arguments

Draft for WHO Workshop, Rome, 13-14 December 2007. The cost of inaction: economic valuation in environment and health.

Contemplation of the costs of inaction usually provokes questions about the benefits of inaction, which leads to cost-benefit analysis. Cost-benefit analysis, as a method for settling arguments about action or inaction is enormously seductive. You simply add up the benefits of doing something and subtract the costs and if the result is positive you have a case for doing it. What could be wrong with that? In practice quite a lot. ….

The cost of inaction, the title of this workshop, implies the existence of a set of problems within WHO’s sphere of responsibility in which conventional methods of economic evaluation will be able to convince those responsible for taking action that the benefits of action will outweigh the costs. I have my doubts. Read full paper .

Dec 07

The demise of the free-range child

In 1971 Mayer Hillman conducted a survey of how English children got about: at what age were they allowed to play in the street, ride a bike, get to school on their own, visit friends and get about the neighbourhood? In 1990 Mayer persuaded me to join him in re-surveying the same schools he had visited in 1971. We discovered a change even more dramatic than we had anticipated. In 1971 80% of 7 and 8 year old children got to school unaccompanied by an adult. By 1990 this had dropped to 9%. The report of the 1990 survey, documenting the demise of the free-range child between 1971 and 1990, is now available online – One False Move … a study of children’s independent mobility
Since 1990 for children things have got much worse. Two new reports document the continuing loss of children’s traditional independence and, one hopes, will inspire a counter-revolution: No Fear- growing up in a risk averse society by Tim Gill , and Risk and Childhood , by Nicola Madge and John Barker.

Nov 17

Risk compensation deniers

In October 2007 the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety published a Status Report (PDF: 1MB) complaining about my article “Britains Seat Belt Law should be Repealed” (PDF: 0.2MB) (published as “Seat Belt Laws Repeal them?” in the June 2007 issue of the statistical journal Significance). It went on to denounce all those who invoke the risk compensation effect to question the efficacy of seat belt laws. It concludes: “Dont believe them, not until they produce credible evidence that people compensate for safety”.

I first produced evidence on the subject sufficiently credible to pass peer review for publication in the Society of Automotive Engineers Transactions in 1982 – “The Efficacy of Seat Belt Legislation” (PDF: 0.2MB). I have revisited the evidence that people monitor their environments for signs of safety or danger, and adjust their behaviour in response to perceived changes, in numerous publications since, including two books: Risk and Freedom: the record of road safety regulation (1985) and Risk (1995).

The idea that people compensate for safety was considered outrageous in 1982,  and still is by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety: “To believe Adams youd have to believe that people have a certain tolerance for risk and that their levels of risk are regulated by a homeostatic mechanism so that, if forced to consume more safety than they voluntarily would choose, people will balance the safety increase by taking more risk. Its a stretch, isnt it?” 

The “stretch” appears to be now becoming conventional wisdom. It underpins the increasingly popular concept of shared space (PDF: 15KB); Hans Monderman, the Dutch originator of the concept spoke to an enthusiastic sold-out meeting in Londons City Hall this week. And it is even finding its way into government planning guidance in Britain. This quotation can be found in the Department for Transports Manual for Streets: evidence and research (PDF: 10MB): One of the most important variables that needs to be taken into consideration is ˜risk homeostasis the way in which drivers adjust their behaviour to maintain a consistent level of risk. As drivers feel safer they begin to take more risks, whereas conversely, if road conditions make them feel unsafe, drivers are likely to adjust their behaviour to take fewer risks.

Nov 12

Risk and Freedom – product recall and replacement

Many thanks to Jim Tubman who noticed that the previously posted version of the book was missing page 89. Further thanks to Jim for inserting it, and adding further bookmarking features. The new, improved product is now online at http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/risk%20and%20freedom.pdf.

Oct 27

“Risk and Freedom” now free online

Now available as a free online download

Amazon Review (*****):

Risk and Freedom is a book of historic significance. Published in 1985 and out of print for many years it continues to have a profound influence on road safety policy. It provides the first coherent application of the concept of risk compensation to the management of risk on the road. Risk compensation is a term coined by Canadian psychologist Gerald Wilde in the 1970s to describe the behavioural adjustments of people to perceived changes in safety or danger. In Risk and Freedom Adams applies the idea to a wide variety of road safety measures – seat belts, helmets, speed limits, alcohol limits, highway improvements, crumple zones and other crash protection measures, improved brakes and tires, and accident blackspot treatments, to name the main ones.

The idea that risk compensation could explain the failure of such measures to achieve their promised benefits was, at the time, unanimously dismissed out of hand by highway engineers, vehicle designers, and regulators. Today it is widely accepted as mere common sense, and serves as the basis for the new, and increasingly popular, shared space schemes. The most obvious explanation for the success of these schemes is Adams argument that road users are not obedient automatons, but alert and responsive participants in what Adams calls in his last book, Risk, the dance of the risk thermostats. Also, unlike most books on this subject it is well-written and entertaining.

Sep 08

Shared Space – would it work in Los Angeles?

(Commissioned, but not used – and worse not paid for – by The Los Angeles Times. So published here free of charge on the slightly-smaller-circulation Adams’ Blog)

There is a growing enthusiasm amongst European transport planners for “shared space”. It is an intriguing idea pioneered by Hans Monderman, a highway engineer in Friesland. He removed almost all the traffic lights, pedestrian barriers, stop signs and other road markings that had been assumed to be essential for the safe movement of traffic.

For traditional highway engineers his idea was anathema. Since the advent of the car they have planned on the assumption that car drivers are selfish, stupid, obedient automatons who had to be protected from their own stupidity, and that pedestrians and cyclists were vulnerable, stupid, obedient automatons who had to be protected from cars – and their own stupidity…
Full article here [PDF]

Sep 07

Never mind the width, feel the quality

(Published in abbreviated form in The Times Higher on 24 August 2007, as Tide of paranoia swells safety fears needlessly)
We are in danger of having a wholly disproportionate attitude to the risks we should expect to run as a normal part of life. So said the Prime Minister in May 2005. At the highest level those concerned with our Health and Safety are worried that we are getting things out of proportion. Bill Callaghan, chair of the Health and Safety Commission is sick and tired of hearing that ˜health and safety is stopping people doing worthwhile and enjoyable things. He urges people to stop concentrating effort on trivial risks and petty health and safety. This is a sentiment shared by Rick Haythornthwaite, head of the Better Regulation Commission who declares Enough is enough It is time to turn the tide.
Field work perils mount, the main front-page story in The Times Higher on 3 August shows that the tide of risk aversion is still running strongly in the world of higher education…
Full article here [PDF]