Luckily nobody applied this logic when thinking about introducing seatbelts and airbags.
“A comprehensive 2003 US study also did "not find any evidence that higher seat belt usage has a significant effect on driving behavior." Their results showed that "overall, mandatory seat belt laws unambiguously reduce traffic fatalities.”
but hey, I’ve only been driving for 40 years and didn’t start wearing a seating until about 20 years ago.
Sure, you can find an extreme person to argue anything but I certainly am not familiar with this difficult to believe argument
I am not here to say it is either correct or incorrect to apply it to this situation.
But it is a commonly studied theory in behavioral science. And I don’t think it is considered an “extreme” theory in general. It is definitely something that is discussed enough to have a variety of studies on the matter.
But that’s not the point I’m arguing. Where do the pedestrians come into all of this?
“killing more pedestrians.”
This hypothesis was tested by researchers at respected institutions: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4791083_Risk_Compen...
It may be wrong, but it isn't some crazy unreasoned hypothesis posed by "extreme" people with "difficult to believe" arguments.
However others could - perhaps ABS brakes and all wheel drive on slippery roads.
One could argue that those folks are incurring a sort of opportunity cost by not learning the limits of vehicles that don't have ABS, and certainly they might be worse off for it, but that's not the same as recklessness.
The number of people who think AWD + ABS means they can ignore snow and ice and continue to do 60+ mph in blizzard conditions, for example.
Helmets are still likely a net positive overall, but there is enough reason to at least consider the second-order effects.