In a recent post from the Shotgun Blog, I question the government’s role in reducing/controlling risk:

“In his book, The Armchair Economist, Steven Landsburg describes a study on the results of seatbelt laws – another risk reducing mandate. What did he find? The more people wore their seatbelts the more car accidents occurred, resulting in an increase in deaths and injuries.

Why? Individuals increased the risk level of their driving to make up for the risk eliminated by wearing a belt. The number of car crashes increased as people drove more recklessly, but the crashes resulted in fewer deaths and injuries because of the belts. So it canceled out, right? Wrong. Guess who doesn’t benefit from a seatbelt in a crash? Pedestrians. Deaths and injuries from accidents involving pedestrians increased, bringing the total number of deaths and injuries up above what it was before the seatbelt law. An outcome lawmakers didn’t predict.

You might find this hard to believe – would people actually drive more recklessly to make up for the risk that was reduced when they buckled up? Humans make detailed risk calculations like this every day. Each of us has a level of risk we are willing to tolerate in each circumstance, no more and no less. You are willing to increase your chance of death by getting in a car just to pick up a candy bar at the gas station. You may even do so if the road is wet. But if it’s icy, it may no longer be a risk you are willing to take. If roads are dry, however, you may increase your risk by driving faster – if doing 55 on a wet road was okay, on a dry road it may fall below your risk threshold.

Landsburg also discussed studies where individuals were given scalding hot coffee in a paper cup. They dropped it immediately so as not to get burned. But given coffee in a ceramic mug they took the burn while they set it down gently. The brain calculated what a burned hand was worth instantly – more than a paper cup, but less than a ceramic mug. We can calculate risk at amazing levels of speed and detail and we make decisions that keep us within our preferred level in each situation.

Human behavior cannot be willed-away at the whim of the legislature. If you pass this law those drivers who would’ve talked on their cell-phones will engage in some other risky behavior to compensate for it and return to their preferred level of risk.

That is the result of human choice and freedom. Risk is what makes decision-making possible. Risk also brings reward. Risk is an integral part of a free-society; it makes life worth living. A world without risk would be little more than a sterile experiment in a padded cell.”