# No helmet=legal, no seatbelt=illegal. Why? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 30, 2003, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-helmet-legal-no-seatbelt-illegal-why/204777 "2003-09-30T21:45:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Futile\_Gesture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f05b48/32.png) [@Futile\_Gesture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Futile_Gesture)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2003, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-helmet-legal-no-seatbelt-illegal-why/204777/21 "2003-10-01T16:04:12Z")
There are currently TV adverts in the UK that graphically demonstrate what damage an unrestrained passenger (particularly in the back seats) can do to other occupants of the car in the event of a crash. Particularly memorable is the one calmly describing how the teenage son “sat up on his seat, killed his mother and then sat back down again.” So there’s very good reasons to make it the law, your actions have a very real impact (no pun intended) on others. It’s not quite the same for a motorcyclists, though I have to say anyone on a motorbike in traffic without a helmet does need their head seeing to. ---
**Author:** ![Spiff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spiff/32/9852_2.png) [@Spiff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiff)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2003, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-helmet-legal-no-seatbelt-illegal-why/204777/22 "2003-10-01T16:19:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*The people with motorcycles have better lobbyists. That’s the only reason. \*\* Substitute “scarier” or “more intimidating” for “better” and you’d have the situation here in Minnesota. I used to work at the state Capitol, and let me tell you, the last time the state reps tried to legislate a madatory helmet law, they crumpled in the face of the bikers who roared up to the Capitol steps (literally) in response. Often, when these anti-helmet biker dudes testified at committee hearings on the bill, they had to be reminded of the severe penalties for making threatening remarks to legislators. (At these hearings I learned that the Sergeant-At-Arms position at the legislature is not soley a ceremonial position.) These bikers were a bunch of rude, crude, low-lifes. But hey, as a political strategy, it worked! ---
**Author:** ![lucky\_henry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bc8723/32.png) [@lucky\_henry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucky_henry)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-helmet-legal-no-seatbelt-illegal-why/204777/23 "2003-10-02T00:02:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > \*\*Are you aware of any studies that show those who wear belts and helmets are more accident prone then those who don’t? Since driving I’ve always worn a seatbelt. I certainly don’t think I take any more risks because of either the belt or my airbag. > > Marc \*\* I first heard of the study in a book titled Armchair Economist by Steven E. Landsburg. The original study was conducted by Dr. Sam Peltzman at the University of Chicago. A bit of Googling led me to an article by Scott Geller, Prof of psychology, Virginia Tech, and senior partner with Safety Performance Solutions. In a nutshell, studies suggest that protective equipment leads to more reckless behavior. In the specific example of auto safety equipment the use of the equipment resulted in more reckless behavior _and_ more accidents, although fewer of the accidents were fatal for the driver. Fatalities for pedestrians also increased. Here’s the link to the article: [http://www.ishn.com/CDA/Article\_Information/BehavioralSafetyItem/0,3563,3436,00.html](http://www.ishn.com/CDA/Article_Information/BehavioralSafetyItem/0,3563,3436,00.html) Here are some excerpts from that link: > [@](#): > > In recent years, the issue of compensating for safety has been given several different labels, including risk homeostasis, danger compensation, risk-offsetting behavior, and perverse compensation. Whatever the label, the basic idea of risk compensation is quite simple and straightforward. People are presumed to change their behavior to compensate for changes in perceived risk. If a job is made safer with machine guards or the use of PPE, employees might perceive less risk and actually work more dangerously. > > This idea certainly seems intuitive. In fact, I bet every reader has experienced the phenomenon. I clearly remember the increased risks I took when wearing a standard high school football uniform. With the protective helmet and shoulder pads, I’d willingly throw my body at another player or leap high to catch a pass. I didn’t perform these behaviors until perceiving security from the personal protective equipment. > [@](#): > > The notion of risk compensation made its debut among safety professionals following the theorizing and archival research of a University of Chicago economist, Dr. Sam Peltzman. Peltzman systematically compared vehicle crash statistics before (1947-1956) and after (1966-1972) the regulated installation of safety engineering innovations in vehicles, including seat belts, energy absorbing steering columns, padded instrument panels, penetration-resistant windshields, and dual braking systems. > > As predicted by risk compensation theory, Peltzman found that these vehicle-manufacturing safety standards did not reduce the frequency of crash fatalities per miles driven. Perhaps the most convincing evidence of risk compensation was that the cars equipped with safety devices were involved in a disproportionately high number of crashes. > [@](#): > > Most within-subject tests of risk compensation theory have been restricted to simulated laboratory investigations. This is because within-subject observations under different risk conditions are time consuming and quite difficult to pull off in a real-world situation. One such study was conducted by Dr. Fredrick Streff and myself in 1987. To conduct this research we built an oval clay go-kart track (about 100 meters in circumference) and equipped a 5-hp go-kart with an inertia reel-type combination shoulder-lap safety harness. > Subjects were told to drive the go-kart around the track quickly, but at a “comfortable” speed. The 56 subjects were either buckled or unbuckled in the first of two phases of 15 driving trials. After the first phase, the safety condition was switched for half the subjects. That is, the safety belt was unbuckled for subjects previously buckled up, or the belt was used by subjects who previously did not use it. The speed and accuracy of each subject’s driving trial were systematically measured. Following the first and second phases (of 15 trials each), the subjects completed a brief questionnaire that assessed their perceived risk while driving the go-kart. > > The between-subject comparisons showed no risk compensation. That is, the subjects who used the safety belt for all trials did not drive faster than subjects who never used the safety belt. And, the perceptions of risk were not different across these groups. > > On the other hand, the within-subject differences did show the predicted changes in risk perception and behavior. That is, subjects reported feeling safer when they buckled up, and subsequently drove the go-kart significantly faster than subjects who used the safety belt during both phases. The subjects who took off their safety belts reported a significant decrease in perceived safety, but this change in risk perception was not reflected in slower driving speeds (compared to drivers who never buckled up in the go-kart). > > Our go-kart study was later followed up in the Netherlands using a real car on real roads. Specifically, habitual, “hard-core” non-users of safety belts buckled up at the request of the experimenter. Compared to measures taken when not using a safety belt, these buckled-up drivers drove faster, followed more closely behind vehicles in front of them, changed lanes at higher speeds, and braked later when approaching an obstacle. So, to recap, more total accidents, but fewer fatal to the driver. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-helmet-legal-no-seatbelt-illegal-why/204777.md?page=1)