Notes on the Interpretation of Traffic Accident Data and of Risk Homeostasis Theory: A Reply to L. Evans
A quick and summary comment is made on a paper by Evans,(1) who set out to “definitively answer” the question “whether there is any validity” in risk homeostasis theory (RHT), and who arrives at the conclusion that the “theory should be rejected” because the data “provide the clearest evidence refut...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Wilde, Gerald J. S. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erschienen: |
Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd ; 1986 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Umfang: |
Online-Ressource |
|---|
| Reproduktion: |
2006 ; Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: Risk analysis - Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1981, 6(1986), 1, Seite 0 |
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:6 ; year:1986 ; number:1 ; pages:0 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1111/j.1539-6924.1986.tb00197.x |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
NLEJ242011373 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLEJ242011373 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20210707144936.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 120427s1986 xx |||||o 00| ||und c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1986.tb00197.x |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLEJ242011373 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Wilde, Gerald J. S. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Notes on the Interpretation of Traffic Accident Data and of Risk Homeostasis Theory: A Reply to L. Evans |
| 264 | 1 | |a Oxford, UK |b Blackwell Publishing Ltd |c 1986 | |
| 300 | |a Online-Ressource | ||
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b z |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zu |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a A quick and summary comment is made on a paper by Evans,(1) who set out to “definitively answer” the question “whether there is any validity” in risk homeostasis theory (RHT), and who arrives at the conclusion that the “theory should be rejected” because the data “provide the clearest evidence refuting the theory.” It will be argued here that the seven cases Evans puts forward against RHT do not justify such a rather boldly-worded conclusion. On the contrary, the data presented by Evans can be seen to be either not inconsistent with RHT (Case 1), in error (Case 2), or fail to take account of relevant economic changes (Case 3) and of pertinent exposure variables (Case 5), incomplete or the product of guesswork (Case 4), irrelevant (Case 6), nonrepresentative (Case 7) and in all cases open to alternative interpretations that do not conflict with the theory under debate. Moreover, Evans’reasoning seems to betray not only careless reading of what RHT does in fact say, but also a fundamental misunderstanding of the notion of target risk in particular. Refuting a “refutation” does not, of course, imply that RHT is valid, or valid at least within as yet to be defined limits. Attempts to address the validity question should preferably take the form of well-controlled field experiments, instead of retrospective analyses of multünterpretable archival data that can be debated ad infinitum. | ||
| 533 | |d 2006 |f Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |7 |2006|||||||||| | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a traffic accidents | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t Risk analysis |d Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1981 |g 6(1986), 1, Seite 0 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)NLEJ243926847 |w (DE-600)2001458-2 |x 1539-6924 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:6 |g year:1986 |g number:1 |g pages:0 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1986.tb00197.x |q text/html |x Verlag |z Deutschlandweit zugänglich |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a ZDB-1-DJB | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NL_ARTICLE | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 6 |j 1986 |e 1 |h 0 | ||
| author_variant |
g j s w gjs gjsw |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:15396924:1986----::oeotenepeainfrfiacdndtadfikoesa |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
1986 |
| publishDate |
1986 |
| allfields |
10.1111/j.1539-6924.1986.tb00197.x doi (DE-627)NLEJ242011373 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Wilde, Gerald J. S. verfasserin aut Notes on the Interpretation of Traffic Accident Data and of Risk Homeostasis Theory: A Reply to L. Evans Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 1986 Online-Ressource nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier A quick and summary comment is made on a paper by Evans,(1) who set out to “definitively answer” the question “whether there is any validity” in risk homeostasis theory (RHT), and who arrives at the conclusion that the “theory should be rejected” because the data “provide the clearest evidence refuting the theory.” It will be argued here that the seven cases Evans puts forward against RHT do not justify such a rather boldly-worded conclusion. On the contrary, the data presented by Evans can be seen to be either not inconsistent with RHT (Case 1), in error (Case 2), or fail to take account of relevant economic changes (Case 3) and of pertinent exposure variables (Case 5), incomplete or the product of guesswork (Case 4), irrelevant (Case 6), nonrepresentative (Case 7) and in all cases open to alternative interpretations that do not conflict with the theory under debate. Moreover, Evans’reasoning seems to betray not only careless reading of what RHT does in fact say, but also a fundamental misunderstanding of the notion of target risk in particular. Refuting a “refutation” does not, of course, imply that RHT is valid, or valid at least within as yet to be defined limits. Attempts to address the validity question should preferably take the form of well-controlled field experiments, instead of retrospective analyses of multünterpretable archival data that can be debated ad infinitum. 2006 Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |2006|||||||||| traffic accidents In Risk analysis Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1981 6(1986), 1, Seite 0 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ243926847 (DE-600)2001458-2 1539-6924 nnns volume:6 year:1986 number:1 pages:0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1986.tb00197.x text/html Verlag Deutschlandweit zugänglich Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DJB GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 6 1986 1 0 |
| spelling |
10.1111/j.1539-6924.1986.tb00197.x doi (DE-627)NLEJ242011373 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Wilde, Gerald J. S. verfasserin aut Notes on the Interpretation of Traffic Accident Data and of Risk Homeostasis Theory: A Reply to L. Evans Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 1986 Online-Ressource nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier A quick and summary comment is made on a paper by Evans,(1) who set out to “definitively answer” the question “whether there is any validity” in risk homeostasis theory (RHT), and who arrives at the conclusion that the “theory should be rejected” because the data “provide the clearest evidence refuting the theory.” It will be argued here that the seven cases Evans puts forward against RHT do not justify such a rather boldly-worded conclusion. On the contrary, the data presented by Evans can be seen to be either not inconsistent with RHT (Case 1), in error (Case 2), or fail to take account of relevant economic changes (Case 3) and of pertinent exposure variables (Case 5), incomplete or the product of guesswork (Case 4), irrelevant (Case 6), nonrepresentative (Case 7) and in all cases open to alternative interpretations that do not conflict with the theory under debate. Moreover, Evans’reasoning seems to betray not only careless reading of what RHT does in fact say, but also a fundamental misunderstanding of the notion of target risk in particular. Refuting a “refutation” does not, of course, imply that RHT is valid, or valid at least within as yet to be defined limits. Attempts to address the validity question should preferably take the form of well-controlled field experiments, instead of retrospective analyses of multünterpretable archival data that can be debated ad infinitum. 2006 Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |2006|||||||||| traffic accidents In Risk analysis Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1981 6(1986), 1, Seite 0 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ243926847 (DE-600)2001458-2 1539-6924 nnns volume:6 year:1986 number:1 pages:0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1986.tb00197.x text/html Verlag Deutschlandweit zugänglich Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DJB GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 6 1986 1 0 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1111/j.1539-6924.1986.tb00197.x doi (DE-627)NLEJ242011373 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Wilde, Gerald J. S. verfasserin aut Notes on the Interpretation of Traffic Accident Data and of Risk Homeostasis Theory: A Reply to L. Evans Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 1986 Online-Ressource nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier A quick and summary comment is made on a paper by Evans,(1) who set out to “definitively answer” the question “whether there is any validity” in risk homeostasis theory (RHT), and who arrives at the conclusion that the “theory should be rejected” because the data “provide the clearest evidence refuting the theory.” It will be argued here that the seven cases Evans puts forward against RHT do not justify such a rather boldly-worded conclusion. On the contrary, the data presented by Evans can be seen to be either not inconsistent with RHT (Case 1), in error (Case 2), or fail to take account of relevant economic changes (Case 3) and of pertinent exposure variables (Case 5), incomplete or the product of guesswork (Case 4), irrelevant (Case 6), nonrepresentative (Case 7) and in all cases open to alternative interpretations that do not conflict with the theory under debate. Moreover, Evans’reasoning seems to betray not only careless reading of what RHT does in fact say, but also a fundamental misunderstanding of the notion of target risk in particular. Refuting a “refutation” does not, of course, imply that RHT is valid, or valid at least within as yet to be defined limits. Attempts to address the validity question should preferably take the form of well-controlled field experiments, instead of retrospective analyses of multünterpretable archival data that can be debated ad infinitum. 2006 Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |2006|||||||||| traffic accidents In Risk analysis Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1981 6(1986), 1, Seite 0 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ243926847 (DE-600)2001458-2 1539-6924 nnns volume:6 year:1986 number:1 pages:0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1986.tb00197.x text/html Verlag Deutschlandweit zugänglich Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DJB GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 6 1986 1 0 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1111/j.1539-6924.1986.tb00197.x doi (DE-627)NLEJ242011373 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Wilde, Gerald J. S. verfasserin aut Notes on the Interpretation of Traffic Accident Data and of Risk Homeostasis Theory: A Reply to L. Evans Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 1986 Online-Ressource nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier A quick and summary comment is made on a paper by Evans,(1) who set out to “definitively answer” the question “whether there is any validity” in risk homeostasis theory (RHT), and who arrives at the conclusion that the “theory should be rejected” because the data “provide the clearest evidence refuting the theory.” It will be argued here that the seven cases Evans puts forward against RHT do not justify such a rather boldly-worded conclusion. On the contrary, the data presented by Evans can be seen to be either not inconsistent with RHT (Case 1), in error (Case 2), or fail to take account of relevant economic changes (Case 3) and of pertinent exposure variables (Case 5), incomplete or the product of guesswork (Case 4), irrelevant (Case 6), nonrepresentative (Case 7) and in all cases open to alternative interpretations that do not conflict with the theory under debate. Moreover, Evans’reasoning seems to betray not only careless reading of what RHT does in fact say, but also a fundamental misunderstanding of the notion of target risk in particular. Refuting a “refutation” does not, of course, imply that RHT is valid, or valid at least within as yet to be defined limits. Attempts to address the validity question should preferably take the form of well-controlled field experiments, instead of retrospective analyses of multünterpretable archival data that can be debated ad infinitum. 2006 Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |2006|||||||||| traffic accidents In Risk analysis Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1981 6(1986), 1, Seite 0 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ243926847 (DE-600)2001458-2 1539-6924 nnns volume:6 year:1986 number:1 pages:0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1986.tb00197.x text/html Verlag Deutschlandweit zugänglich Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DJB GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 6 1986 1 0 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1111/j.1539-6924.1986.tb00197.x doi (DE-627)NLEJ242011373 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Wilde, Gerald J. S. verfasserin aut Notes on the Interpretation of Traffic Accident Data and of Risk Homeostasis Theory: A Reply to L. Evans Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 1986 Online-Ressource nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier A quick and summary comment is made on a paper by Evans,(1) who set out to “definitively answer” the question “whether there is any validity” in risk homeostasis theory (RHT), and who arrives at the conclusion that the “theory should be rejected” because the data “provide the clearest evidence refuting the theory.” It will be argued here that the seven cases Evans puts forward against RHT do not justify such a rather boldly-worded conclusion. On the contrary, the data presented by Evans can be seen to be either not inconsistent with RHT (Case 1), in error (Case 2), or fail to take account of relevant economic changes (Case 3) and of pertinent exposure variables (Case 5), incomplete or the product of guesswork (Case 4), irrelevant (Case 6), nonrepresentative (Case 7) and in all cases open to alternative interpretations that do not conflict with the theory under debate. Moreover, Evans’reasoning seems to betray not only careless reading of what RHT does in fact say, but also a fundamental misunderstanding of the notion of target risk in particular. Refuting a “refutation” does not, of course, imply that RHT is valid, or valid at least within as yet to be defined limits. Attempts to address the validity question should preferably take the form of well-controlled field experiments, instead of retrospective analyses of multünterpretable archival data that can be debated ad infinitum. 2006 Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |2006|||||||||| traffic accidents In Risk analysis Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1981 6(1986), 1, Seite 0 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ243926847 (DE-600)2001458-2 1539-6924 nnns volume:6 year:1986 number:1 pages:0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1986.tb00197.x text/html Verlag Deutschlandweit zugänglich Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DJB GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 6 1986 1 0 |
| source |
In Risk analysis 6(1986), 1, Seite 0 volume:6 year:1986 number:1 pages:0 |
| sourceStr |
In Risk analysis 6(1986), 1, Seite 0 volume:6 year:1986 number:1 pages:0 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
traffic accidents |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Risk analysis |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Wilde, Gerald J. S. @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
1986-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
NLEJ243926847 |
| id |
NLEJ242011373 |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">NLEJ242011373</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20210707144936.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">120427s1986 xx |||||o 00| ||und c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1111/j.1539-6924.1986.tb00197.x</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)NLEJ242011373</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wilde, Gerald J. S.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Notes on the Interpretation of Traffic Accident Data and of Risk Homeostasis Theory: A Reply to L. Evans</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Oxford, UK</subfield><subfield code="b">Blackwell Publishing Ltd</subfield><subfield code="c">1986</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">A quick and summary comment is made on a paper by Evans,(1) who set out to “definitively answer” the question “whether there is any validity” in risk homeostasis theory (RHT), and who arrives at the conclusion that the “theory should be rejected” because the data “provide the clearest evidence refuting the theory.” It will be argued here that the seven cases Evans puts forward against RHT do not justify such a rather boldly-worded conclusion. On the contrary, the data presented by Evans can be seen to be either not inconsistent with RHT (Case 1), in error (Case 2), or fail to take account of relevant economic changes (Case 3) and of pertinent exposure variables (Case 5), incomplete or the product of guesswork (Case 4), irrelevant (Case 6), nonrepresentative (Case 7) and in all cases open to alternative interpretations that do not conflict with the theory under debate. Moreover, Evans’reasoning seems to betray not only careless reading of what RHT does in fact say, but also a fundamental misunderstanding of the notion of target risk in particular. Refuting a “refutation” does not, of course, imply that RHT is valid, or valid at least within as yet to be defined limits. Attempts to address the validity question should preferably take the form of well-controlled field experiments, instead of retrospective analyses of multünterpretable archival data that can be debated ad infinitum.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="533" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">2006</subfield><subfield code="f">Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005</subfield><subfield code="7">|2006||||||||||</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">traffic accidents</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Risk analysis</subfield><subfield code="d">Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1981</subfield><subfield code="g">6(1986), 1, Seite 0</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)NLEJ243926847</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2001458-2</subfield><subfield code="x">1539-6924</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:6</subfield><subfield code="g">year:1986</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1986.tb00197.x</subfield><subfield code="q">text/html</subfield><subfield code="x">Verlag</subfield><subfield code="z">Deutschlandweit zugänglich</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-1-DJB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_NL_ARTICLE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">6</subfield><subfield code="j">1986</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">0</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| series2 |
Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |
| author |
Wilde, Gerald J. S. |
| spellingShingle |
Wilde, Gerald J. S. misc traffic accidents Notes on the Interpretation of Traffic Accident Data and of Risk Homeostasis Theory: A Reply to L. Evans |
| authorStr |
Wilde, Gerald J. S. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)NLEJ243926847 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
NL |
| publishPlace |
Oxford, UK |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1539-6924 |
| topic_title |
Notes on the Interpretation of Traffic Accident Data and of Risk Homeostasis Theory: A Reply to L. Evans traffic accidents |
| publisher |
Blackwell Publishing Ltd |
| publisherStr |
Blackwell Publishing Ltd |
| topic |
misc traffic accidents |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc traffic accidents |
| topic_browse |
misc traffic accidents |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
zu |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Risk analysis |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
NLEJ243926847 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Risk analysis |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)NLEJ243926847 (DE-600)2001458-2 |
| title |
Notes on the Interpretation of Traffic Accident Data and of Risk Homeostasis Theory: A Reply to L. Evans |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)NLEJ242011373 |
| title_full |
Notes on the Interpretation of Traffic Accident Data and of Risk Homeostasis Theory: A Reply to L. Evans |
| author_sort |
Wilde, Gerald J. S. |
| journal |
Risk analysis |
| journalStr |
Risk analysis |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
1986 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
0 |
| author_browse |
Wilde, Gerald J. S. |
| container_volume |
6 |
| physical |
Online-Ressource |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Wilde, Gerald J. S. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1111/j.1539-6924.1986.tb00197.x |
| title_sort |
notes on the interpretation of traffic accident data and of risk homeostasis theory: a reply to l. evans |
| title_auth |
Notes on the Interpretation of Traffic Accident Data and of Risk Homeostasis Theory: A Reply to L. Evans |
| abstract |
A quick and summary comment is made on a paper by Evans,(1) who set out to “definitively answer” the question “whether there is any validity” in risk homeostasis theory (RHT), and who arrives at the conclusion that the “theory should be rejected” because the data “provide the clearest evidence refuting the theory.” It will be argued here that the seven cases Evans puts forward against RHT do not justify such a rather boldly-worded conclusion. On the contrary, the data presented by Evans can be seen to be either not inconsistent with RHT (Case 1), in error (Case 2), or fail to take account of relevant economic changes (Case 3) and of pertinent exposure variables (Case 5), incomplete or the product of guesswork (Case 4), irrelevant (Case 6), nonrepresentative (Case 7) and in all cases open to alternative interpretations that do not conflict with the theory under debate. Moreover, Evans’reasoning seems to betray not only careless reading of what RHT does in fact say, but also a fundamental misunderstanding of the notion of target risk in particular. Refuting a “refutation” does not, of course, imply that RHT is valid, or valid at least within as yet to be defined limits. Attempts to address the validity question should preferably take the form of well-controlled field experiments, instead of retrospective analyses of multünterpretable archival data that can be debated ad infinitum. |
| abstractGer |
A quick and summary comment is made on a paper by Evans,(1) who set out to “definitively answer” the question “whether there is any validity” in risk homeostasis theory (RHT), and who arrives at the conclusion that the “theory should be rejected” because the data “provide the clearest evidence refuting the theory.” It will be argued here that the seven cases Evans puts forward against RHT do not justify such a rather boldly-worded conclusion. On the contrary, the data presented by Evans can be seen to be either not inconsistent with RHT (Case 1), in error (Case 2), or fail to take account of relevant economic changes (Case 3) and of pertinent exposure variables (Case 5), incomplete or the product of guesswork (Case 4), irrelevant (Case 6), nonrepresentative (Case 7) and in all cases open to alternative interpretations that do not conflict with the theory under debate. Moreover, Evans’reasoning seems to betray not only careless reading of what RHT does in fact say, but also a fundamental misunderstanding of the notion of target risk in particular. Refuting a “refutation” does not, of course, imply that RHT is valid, or valid at least within as yet to be defined limits. Attempts to address the validity question should preferably take the form of well-controlled field experiments, instead of retrospective analyses of multünterpretable archival data that can be debated ad infinitum. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
A quick and summary comment is made on a paper by Evans,(1) who set out to “definitively answer” the question “whether there is any validity” in risk homeostasis theory (RHT), and who arrives at the conclusion that the “theory should be rejected” because the data “provide the clearest evidence refuting the theory.” It will be argued here that the seven cases Evans puts forward against RHT do not justify such a rather boldly-worded conclusion. On the contrary, the data presented by Evans can be seen to be either not inconsistent with RHT (Case 1), in error (Case 2), or fail to take account of relevant economic changes (Case 3) and of pertinent exposure variables (Case 5), incomplete or the product of guesswork (Case 4), irrelevant (Case 6), nonrepresentative (Case 7) and in all cases open to alternative interpretations that do not conflict with the theory under debate. Moreover, Evans’reasoning seems to betray not only careless reading of what RHT does in fact say, but also a fundamental misunderstanding of the notion of target risk in particular. Refuting a “refutation” does not, of course, imply that RHT is valid, or valid at least within as yet to be defined limits. Attempts to address the validity question should preferably take the form of well-controlled field experiments, instead of retrospective analyses of multünterpretable archival data that can be debated ad infinitum. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DJB GBV_NL_ARTICLE |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
Notes on the Interpretation of Traffic Accident Data and of Risk Homeostasis Theory: A Reply to L. Evans |
| url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1986.tb00197.x |
| remote_bool |
true |
| ppnlink |
NLEJ243926847 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
z |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1111/j.1539-6924.1986.tb00197.x |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T00:33:43.940Z |
| _version_ |
1803787723279958016 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">NLEJ242011373</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20210707144936.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">120427s1986 xx |||||o 00| ||und c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1111/j.1539-6924.1986.tb00197.x</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)NLEJ242011373</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wilde, Gerald J. S.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Notes on the Interpretation of Traffic Accident Data and of Risk Homeostasis Theory: A Reply to L. Evans</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Oxford, UK</subfield><subfield code="b">Blackwell Publishing Ltd</subfield><subfield code="c">1986</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">A quick and summary comment is made on a paper by Evans,(1) who set out to “definitively answer” the question “whether there is any validity” in risk homeostasis theory (RHT), and who arrives at the conclusion that the “theory should be rejected” because the data “provide the clearest evidence refuting the theory.” It will be argued here that the seven cases Evans puts forward against RHT do not justify such a rather boldly-worded conclusion. On the contrary, the data presented by Evans can be seen to be either not inconsistent with RHT (Case 1), in error (Case 2), or fail to take account of relevant economic changes (Case 3) and of pertinent exposure variables (Case 5), incomplete or the product of guesswork (Case 4), irrelevant (Case 6), nonrepresentative (Case 7) and in all cases open to alternative interpretations that do not conflict with the theory under debate. Moreover, Evans’reasoning seems to betray not only careless reading of what RHT does in fact say, but also a fundamental misunderstanding of the notion of target risk in particular. Refuting a “refutation” does not, of course, imply that RHT is valid, or valid at least within as yet to be defined limits. Attempts to address the validity question should preferably take the form of well-controlled field experiments, instead of retrospective analyses of multünterpretable archival data that can be debated ad infinitum.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="533" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">2006</subfield><subfield code="f">Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005</subfield><subfield code="7">|2006||||||||||</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">traffic accidents</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Risk analysis</subfield><subfield code="d">Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1981</subfield><subfield code="g">6(1986), 1, Seite 0</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)NLEJ243926847</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2001458-2</subfield><subfield code="x">1539-6924</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:6</subfield><subfield code="g">year:1986</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1986.tb00197.x</subfield><subfield code="q">text/html</subfield><subfield code="x">Verlag</subfield><subfield code="z">Deutschlandweit zugänglich</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-1-DJB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_NL_ARTICLE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">6</subfield><subfield code="j">1986</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">0</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4028063 |