Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Learn More Shop now Shop Women's Shop Men's
Customer Review

16 of 26 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Simply wrong on two fundamental points, 22 April 2007
This review is from: Risk (Paperback)
I read "Risk" a couple of weeks ago and quickly realised that it had a lot to say about the author's personal battles down the decades with people who disagreed with him. The endless point scoring and flowery language irritated me.

Having said that, he has two interesting points to make that everyone should know about. One is that people respond to perceived risk changes by becoming more or less careful in response. The other is that this can lead to risk compensation, where a reduction in risk leads to more risky behaviour.

Where I think he has gone fundamentally wrong is on two points.

The first is his insistence that risk cannot be measured. Certainly, behaviour changes in response to perceived risk do make measurement in some situations impossible. However, in other situations, such as the behaviour of a roulette wheel, an inanimate object that does not perceive risk, risk can be measured. Adams infers from the practical impossibility of risk measurement in some important situations that all risk measurement is impossible, which is an over-generalisation. (Perhaps he was thinking of attempts to make the public safer, where his general point would be a reasonable one.) It would have been helpful if he outlined where risk measurement was futile and where helpful measurement was possible rather than just writing off much of the risk management activity going on in the world. Better still, how about suggesting a way to measure whatever it is that people respond to?

The second mistake is to conclude from the risk compensation phenomenon that people have a risk thermostat and seek their favourite level of risk. Not necessarily. Adams shows that when drivers were made to wear seat belts they drove faster. This could also be because they revisited the "cost benefit" analysis that led them to the balance they struck between getting to their destination quickly and being safe. Now they have a seat belt to protect them in a crash they feel that a new balance can be struck, driving a little faster. If they were offered a way to get to their destination that was identical to driving in every respect except that it was both faster and safer they would take it. No need to increase their risk in some way to satisfy the risk thermostat and get that buzz of danger. This could happen when someone chooses between two driving routes, one both inherently safer and quicker than the other, such as choosing between the nearly empty by-pass and going through the busy centre of town.

This obvious alternative explanation gets no attention in the book, which I think is a major weakness. In later publications I understand that Adams shifts his stated position, towards the idea of revising the cost benefit balance, but he retains the phrase 'risk thermostat.'

Overall, better to look for a more balanced and less crusading discussion of the difficulties of making the general public safer.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking on the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
  [Cancel]

Comments

Track comments by e-mail

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-5 of 5 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 21 Sep 2008, 23:58:22 BST
Bowen says:
Your first point contains the obvious admission of Adams's general point. Of course he knows about the uses of probability in modeling real life situations.

Your second argument doesn't appeal to me either. It's clear that the effects of a risk thermostat wouldn't appear in every circumstance but the evidence shows that it does with seat belts and speed. People with different risk thermostats can't find ways of taking more or less risks in everything.

Posted on 1 Sep 2009, 20:59:02 BST
drumcrazy says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 24 Aug 2016, 12:01:33 BST
Jackson says:
"they revisited the "cost benefit" analysis that led them to the balance they struck between getting to their destination quickly and being safe. Now they have a seat belt to protect them in a crash they feel that a new balance can be struck, driving a little faster."

That's exactly the point that Adams is making. The benefits of a safety device will be taken as an improvement in performance rather than a reduction in risk because people return to the same level of risk that they were previously happy with. You are trying to contradict him with his own argument.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Aug 2016, 21:37:43 BST
"people return to the same level of risk"

Actually, not necessarily. With some plausible guesstimates it seemed to me perfectly possible for the adjustment to risk level to be very small and therefore not discernible from the somewhat noisy road deaths timeline. The point I went on to make about choosing a route that was both quicker and safer is the killer argument.

In the decision-revision alternative to Adams's original risk thermostat theory there is no reason to expect that the risk level will be held constant, but you can have situations where the adjustment to risk level turns out to be quite small.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Aug 2016, 13:42:20 BST
Jackson says:
"a route that was both quicker and safer"

...and then having found that route, they can make it quicker still by returning the risk closer to the level they had previously been satisfied with.

The question is: if I were to confiscate your seat belt or crash helmet, why wouldn't you drive more carefully?
‹ Previous 1 Next ›

Review Details

Item

Reviewer


Location: Epsom, Surrey, England

Top Reviewer Ranking: 56,352