It\'s almost a common sense that wearing a seat belt can keep paengers from being injured or being killed in a car accident.But recent research done by John Adams shows more complicated statistics.More car accidents are caused by the reckle drivers who wear seat belts.
THE HIDDEN DANGER OF SEAT BELTS
David Bjerklie
1 Seat belts still decrease our risk of dying in an accident, but the statistics are not all black and white.In fact, according to one researcher, seat belts may actually cause people to drive more recklely.2 If there\'s one thing we know about our risky world, it\'s that seat belts save lives.And they do, of course.But reality, as usual, is meier and more complicated than that.John Adams, risk expert and emeritus profeor of geography at University College London, was an early skeptic of the seat belt safety mantra.Adams first began to look at the numbers more than 25 years ago.What he found was that contrary to conventional wisdom, mandating the use of seat belts in 18 countries resulted in either no change or actually a net increase in road accident deaths.3 How can that be? Adams\' interpretation of the data rests on the notion of risk compensation, the idea that individuals tend to adjust their behavior in response to what they perceive; as changes in the level of risk.Imagine, explains Adams, a driver negotiating a curve in the road.Let\'s make him a young male.He is going to be influenced by his perceptions of both the risks and rewards of driving a car.The considerations could include getting to work or meeting a mend for dinner on time, impreing a companion with his driving skills, bolstering his image of himself as an accomplished driver.They could also include his concern for his own safety and desire to live to a ripe old age, his feelings of responsibility for a toddler with him in a car seat, the cost of banging up his shiny new car or losing his license.Nor will these poible concerns exist in a vacuum.He will be taking into account the weather and the condition of the road, the amount of traffic and the capabilities of the car he is driving.But crucially, says Adams, this driver will also be adjusting his behavior in response to what he perceives are changes in risks.If he is wearing a seat belt and his car has front and side air bags and anti-skid brakes to boot, he may in turn drive a bit more daringly.4 The point, strees Adams, is that drivers who feel safe may actually increase the risk that they pose to other drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians and their own paengers (while an average of 80% of drivers buckle up, only 68% of their rear-seat paengers do).And risk compensation is hardly confined to the act of driving a car.Think of a trapeze artist, suggests Adams, or a rock climber or motorcyclist.Add some safety equipment to the equation- a net, rope or helmet respectively- and the person may try maneuvers that he or she would otherwise consider foolish.In the case of seat belts, instead of a simple, straightforward reduction in deaths, the end result is actually a more complicated redistribution of risk and fatalities.For the sake of argument, offers Adams, imagine how it might affect the behavior of drivers if a sharp stake were mounted in the middle of the steering wheel? Or if the bumper were packed with explosives.Perverse, yes, but it certainly provides a vivid example of how a perception of risk could modify behavior.5 In everyday life, risk is a moving target, not a set number as statistics might suggest.In addition to external factors, each individual has his or her own internal comfort level with risk- taking.Some are daring while others are cautious by nature.And still others are fatalists who may believe that a higher power devises mortality schedules that fix a predetermined time when our number is up.Consequently, any single measurement aigned to the risk of driving a car is bound to be only the roughest sort of benchmark.Adams cites, as an example the statistical fact that a young man is 100 times more likely to be involved in a severe crash than is a middle-aged woman.Similarly, someone driving at 3:00 a.m.Sunday is more than 100 times more likely to die than someone driving at 10:00 a.m.Sunday.Someone with a personality disorder is 10 times more likely to die.And let\'s say he\'s also drunk.Tally up All these factors and consider them independently says Adams, and you could arrive at.a statistical prediction that a disturbed, drunken young man driving in the middle of the night is 2.7 million times more likely to be involved in a serious accident than would a sober, middle-aged woman driving to church seven hours later.6 The bottom line is that risk doesn\'t exist in a vacuum and that there are a host of factors that come into play, including the rewards of risk, whether they are financial, physical or emotional.It is this very human context which risk exists.That is key, says Adams, who titled one of his recent blogs: What Kills You Matters- Not Numbers.Our reaction to risk very much depends on the degree to which it is voluntary (scuba diving), unavoidable (public transit) or imposed (air quality), the degree to which we feel we are in control (driving) or at the mercy of others (plane travel), and the degree to which the source of poible danger is benign (\"doctor\'s orders), indifferent (nature) or malign, (murder and terrorism).We make dozens of risk calculations daily, but you can book odds- that most of them are so automatic or visceral- that we barely notice them. 翻译
安全带的隐患
The hidden danger of seat belts
安全带可以避免乘客在车祸中受伤或死亡，这几乎是常识。但是，约翰．亚当斯最近所做的研究得出了更加复杂的统计数据。当司机系着安全带时，他们开车无所顾忌，更多车祸因此而发生。
座椅安全带固然能降低我们在车祸中死亡的危险，但从统计数据看，情况并不是那么绝对。事实上，据一位研究者说，安全带可能会使人们在驾车时更加肆无忌惮。
对于这个有危险的世界，如果有一件事我们还算了解，那就是座椅安全带可以救命。当然，它确实可以救命。但实际情况通常要更混乱、更复杂。伦敦大学学院的风险专家、地理学荣誉教授约翰·亚当斯早就质疑安全带能保证驾车安全的信条。亚当斯最早开始查看统计数字是早在25年前的事了。他的发现与人们的普遍看法恰恰相反——在18个强制使用安全带的国家，要么交通事故死亡率根本没有变化，要么实际上反而导致了死亡率的净增长。
怎么会这样?亚当斯用风险补偿的概念来解释这些数据资料，这个概念就是：人们往往会根据他们意识到的风险程度的改变来相应地调整自己的行为。亚当斯解释说，假设一位司机驾车途中要过一个窄弯道，这名司机是个男青年，那么他会受到自己对以下两方面认知的影响：驾车的风险和驾车的回报。他所考虑的东西可能包括：能够准时上班或准时赶赴朋友的饭局、让同伴对他的驾车技术留下深刻印象、使自己作为熟练驾车手的形象更加巩固。他还可能考虑到自身的安全问题、长命百岁的愿望、对车上年幼乘客的责任感、撞毁自己的漂亮新车或驾驶证被没收的代价。
这些可能的担心也不是孤立存在的。他还要考虑到天气和路况、交通拥挤的程度和所驾车子的性能。但亚当斯说，关键的是这个司机还将根据他对风险变化的判断来调整自己的行为。如果他系上了安全带，而他的车子带有前、侧气囊和防滑刹车系统，他驾起车来可能会更大胆。
亚当斯强调说，问题就在于自我感觉安全的司机们实际上对其他司机、骑自行车者、行人和自己车上的乘客来说是更大的危险(平均80％的司机系安全带，而同车后座的乘客只有68％系安全带)。风险补偿绝不仅限于驾车行为。亚当斯说，类似的还有表演高空秋千的艺人、攀岩者或摩托车手。如果在他们的安全等式上增添某种安全装置——比如说分别给他们一张救生网、一根保险绳或一个头盔——这个人可能就会试着做些平时认为很愚蠢的技巧性表演。因此，安全带并非简单、直截了当地减少死亡人数，而是对风险和死亡事故进行了更加复杂的再分配。为了说明其中的道理，亚当斯提出人们可以想象一下，如果在方向盘中间安一个尖头的木桩，司机开车时会受到怎样的影响?或者在保险杠上装满炸药呢?这简直是丧心病狂，是的，不过这确实提供了一个生动的例子，来说明人们如何根据对风险的判断来调整行为。
日常生活中，风险是不断移动的靶子，而并不像统计数据那样是个固定数字。除了外部因素外，每个人对于冒险都有自己内在的安全尺度。有些人天生大胆而有些人天生谨慎，还有些人是宿命论者，他们会认为，有一种更强大的力量设计了死亡时间表，预先确定了我们的死期。因此，对驾车风险做任何单一的测算所得到的肯定只是最粗略的基准数据。
亚当斯引用了这样的统计事实作例子：青年男子发生严重撞车事故的概率比中年妇女高100倍。同样，在星期天凌晨3点钟驾车的人比同一天上午10点钟驾车的人死亡风险高出100多倍，有人格障碍的人比一般人死亡风险高10倍。亚当斯说，假如这个人还喝醉了，汇总所有这些因素并分别加以考虑，就会得到一个具有统计性的预测：一位心理失常又喝醉酒的青年男子在午夜驾车，7个小时后一位头脑清醒的中年妇女驾车去教堂，前者发生严重交通事故的概率比后者高270万倍。
问题的要点就在于风险并不是孤立存在的，它会受到许多因素的影响，包括承担风险所带来的种种回报——无论是财产方面的、身体方面的，还是情感方面的。这正是风险赖以存在的真实的人类社会。亚当斯说，这才是问题的关键，正如他把近期的一篇博客题目定为《关键的是置人于死地的东西，而不是数字。我们对风险的反应多半取决于它在多大程度上是自发的行为(如戴水肺潜水)、是不可避免的(如公共交通)、还是强加给我们的(如空气质量)；取决于我们认为在多大程度上是我们能控制的(如驾驶)或是由别人控制的(如乘飞机)；还取决于这种潜在危险在多大程度上是出于好意(如医生的指令)、无意的(如自然因素)或恶意的(如谋杀和恐怖活动)。我们每天要做几十遍风险计算，但是可以确信的是，多数时候人们对风险的计算自然而然或者说是出自本能，以至于我们几乎注意不到我们在做计算。
