Seat belts benefits

The purchase of corrosion prevention measures in consumer goods is similar to the purchase of safety features in automobiles such as seat belts in cars. The purchaser may not pay for this feature although the long-term benefits in saving lives and money are present. In the case of automobile safety measures, the dilemma for the community is resolved by the government regulation of mandatory use of seat belts in automobiles. In the case of corrosion prevention measures, government intervention could lead to improved corrosion prevention awareness and practice. 

Seat belts restrain their wearers within the vehicle and, in the event of a collision, prevent or limit their contact with interior surfaces as well as with other occupants. Seat belts decrease the likelihood of serious injury or death by 40-50% (Cummins et ah, 2011 Evans, 1991). Because of their significant safety benefits, it has generally been concluded that the wearing of seat belts does not result in behavioural adaptation that would support a repeal of the seat belt laws (Hedlund, 2000 Levy and Miller, 2000 Mackay, 1985 Mackay et al 1982 Scott and Wallis, 1985). On the other hand, regulation and enforcement of seat belt laws have resulted in much more modest effects on traffic fatalities than initially forecast (Dee, 1998). This may be a result of the selective recruitment hypothesis (Evans, 1985), which posits that seat belt wearers are inherently more risk aversive than those people who choose not to wear seat belts, and, therefore, they have fewer violations and crashes. Therefore, if seat belt use is mandatory, the people who comply are already less likely to be involved in crashes than those who do not comply (Evans, 1985). Nevertheless, seat belt laws and their enforcement have resulted in major declines in fatalities and serious injuries. 

Rather than changes in drivers behaviour, more recent research has noted that the requirement for occupants of some special-purpose vehicles, such as school buses, to wear seat belts may result in behavioural adaptation on more strategic (Michon, 1989) levels. For instance, the provision of seat belts on school buses in jurisdictions where three children are usually seated across one bench seat may lead to decreased seating capacity if only two seat belts per seat were installed. This would require either more trips or more buses to accommodate the current population of schoolchildren. A relatively recent U.S. report points out that any benefits associated with the improved occupant protection associated with seat belts would be offset if schoolchildren found alternative, less safe, transportation to schools (Hinch et al., 2002). For more on behavioural adaptation to seat belts, see Chapter 5. 

Given the relatively small added absolute benefit of booster seats over seat belts, it is not surprising that some studies fail to show that they have added benefits at all. Levitt (2005) analyzed all fatal crashes involving children in the U.S. in 1975-2003 and concluded that child safety seats, in actual practice, are no better than seat belts at reducing fatalities among children aged 2-6 . However, as Levitt himself noted, actual practice of use of safety (mostly booster) seats is not necessarily proper use of the seats, and benefits of booster seats that may not be evident in fatality data may show up in injury data, as demonstrated by the studies of Ehirbin and Winston. 

The smvey finding of general correspondence between subjective and objective risks is consistent with a wealth of observational data on automobile safety belt use. Surprisingly, given an apparent conventional wisdom that seat belt use is too low and that all people should always wear their belts, a wide variety of studies yield results which indicate that indeed people do respond, and respond appropriately, to situations with different benefits and costs of seat belt use. 

Multivariate analysis of belt use isolate the separate efl ects of several individual variables at the same time. In my own work I employ an individual benefit-cost approach and multivariate probit analysis to explain voluntary seat belt use and nonuse. For a national sample of over 1,800 drivers in 19721 find that the probability of use is higher the greater are the expected net private benefits of belt use. 

Two recent multivariate studies support these earlier findings. For a national sample of over 2,000 drivers in 1983 Patrick McCarthy does a logit analysis of belt use, giving particular attention to travel conditions under which trips are made. He finds vers in risky environments are more likely to use their seat belts. Through logit analysis of his own 1984 survey of drivers in two eastern dties Clifford Wmston finds that belt use varies systematically with perceived benefits and costs. His results show drivers are particularly sensitive to the time it takes to fasten seat belts. ... 

The seat belt use evidence gives a clear indication of how useful our individual net benefit approach is for understanding traffic safety behavior. Studies of usage show that sufficient incentive, information and competency exists for different people in different travel situations to use seat belts differently in accordance with their own evaluation of the net benefits. 

Regardless of incentives and information, travelers must be sufficiently competent to make good decisions. The belief that individuals are incompetent to make risky decisions arises from research on behavioral decision rules in complex situations and on attitudes. Traffic safety dedsions are suspect because risks may be misperceived and expected safety benefits may be undervalued. Ola Svenson and his colleagues, for example, report based on their attitudinal study that subjects show optimism bias they feel they are more skillful and safer than typical drivers. They state that drivers who feel immune may discount measures such as seat belts. A sununary of this and other representative evidence of representative incompetence is presented in column 2 of Table 2-1. Next to these results, in column 3, is the evidence of competence for each subject natural hazards and insurance, gambling, risk perception, and safety belt use. 

Court even offers its own view on the net benefits of seat belt use. Despite the stated acceptance, the Court s approach to costs and benefits of traffic safety measures is pu2zling from an economic perspective. While accepting the idea that costs of passive restraints are relevant to NHTSA s decision, the Court reminds the agency that safety shall be the overriding consideration. While saying that the net benefits of seat belt use are undoubtedly positive, the Court restricts consideration to monetary costs. Thus even though the 1983 decision of the Court turned on procedural adequacy and not on anal ical adequa(7, analytical adequacy and benefit-cost analysis were discussed."... 

Are Nonpecuniary, Nongovernmental Costs Considered A common imperfection in regulatory decisions is the failure to include all real, sodal economic costs in benefit-cost analysis and in studies of motorist behavior. There is a penchant for Implicit user costs in the form of disdisutility costs would accompany passive seat belts for some motorists. To these costs time and incx)nvenience costs would be added in analysis of a policy which requires use of manual seat belts. Inclusion of nonpecuniary costs in analysis of passive seat belts would explain why some... 

So what is the role of the driver and other occupants in mitigating the consequences of a crash Actually their role is quite crucial. First, they must take advantage of the best restraint systems that will keep them in their seats when a crash occurs. Second, the driver must compensate for these benefits by engaging in high risk behaviors that can increase the likelihood of a crash, or the impact speed if a crash occurs. If we now recall the risk homeostasis hypothesis (see Chapter 3), this means that drivers must be convinced not to increase their speed because their car can help them survive high speed crashes that were unsurvivable 30 years ago. Unfortunately not everyone takes advantage of the belts, and some occupants who do, still don t get all the expected benefits. Who these drivers and occupants are, why they behave this way and what can we do about it is the focus of this chapter. 

---