Originally Posted by
sudo bike
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
Originally Posted by
sudo bike
I'd rather not ignore pertinent data that has been studied to some extent.
No one is asking you to ignore it. Just don't except it as "holy writ". That is, understand the problems and deficiencies of it (not understanding that is careless).
I do understand that; buzzman was just complaining about all the "asterisks" I had included in my risk compensation argument, so I'm not sure how you could see that as taking it as "holy writ".
You indicated that people were implying that you should "ignore pertinent data". No one has done that. And you appear to think that authority (eg, government recommendations) suffices as an argument. You really have to look at the actual sources supporting those recommendations rather than treat them as "holy writ" (yes, that's hyperbole) so you can avoid the "appeal to authority" fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...authority.html
Originally Posted by
sudo bike
*sigh* I'm not ignoring data. Yes, there is contrary information, just as there is for pros/cons of helmet efficiency in the first place. Even if you don't like the ABS example, there are others out there.
You are arguing that there's risk compensation with ABS. The one "cabbie" study doesn't (necessarily) show that. The Queensland data strongly shows that the ABS is still very beneficial meaning that risk compensation doesn't occur OR
the risk-compensation that does occur doesn't matter.
The issue isn't that there is "contrary information". It's why you seem to prefer information from one side!
I haven't seen the other studies. It would seem that you haven't either (otherwise, you would have linked to them).
So, is ABS significantly better or worse overall? Or is it something of marginal/moot benefit?
===========
Originally Posted by
sudo bike
Imagine if all cars were made of Nerf and accidents were harmless; do you really think people would drive as "carefully"? Of course not, because perceived risk has dropped. This is an extreme example, but it demonstrates the point. The same thing happens with safety gear. It's more subtle, and varies based on how people perceive it affects their level of risk, but it's the exact same assessment process we all make, both consciously and otherwise.
For real cars,
the most common result of careless driving would be damage to the car. Dealing with that is expensive and inconvenient. Why doesn't that cause people to drive more safely than ABS (supposedly) makes them drive less safely?
I can see quieter cars causing people to drive faster because the lower noise level
leads to a direct actual sense that one is driving more slowly. I don't see what
actual sense ABS (or helmets) are changing.