Article lacks logicEditor-Walker et al show convincingly that drivers and other occupants of heavy four wheel drive vehicles are safer in crashes than those in smaller or lighter vehicles and those on foot or cycle.1 They also show that drivers of these vehicles use mobile phones more often and seat belts less often than drivers of other cars.But by conflating mobile phone use (which distracts drivers) and non-use of seat belts (which makes drivers feel less safe) as equally important examples of illegal and dangerous practices they have sown confusion and undermined the prospect of a constructive approach to road safety.Using mobile phones and not using seatbelts have opposing consequences for other road users. The distraction caused by mobile phones increases the threat to others, but the non-use of seat belts decreases it. As the authors note, deaths of pedestrians, cyclists, and rear seat passengers increased (by 8%, 13%, and 28% respectively) after laws mandating the use of seat belts in front seats were introduced in the United Kingdom.
John Adams emeritus professor
No strong support for risk compensationEditor-That the observation by Walker et al of more unsafe behaviour by the drivers of four wheel drive vehicles provides "strong support" for the risk compensation theory is unconvincing.
1This theory implies that because drivers feel intrinsically safer in bigger more robustly built vehicles they can indulge in unsafe behaviours without putting their life unduly at risk.The study provides at best weak support because the authors' observations have a simpler explanation: variation in personality or other traits linked to car choice and behaviour in the car. The study would be convincing if drivers were randomised to cars rather than being allowed to select them themselves. There is a strong chance that traits that affect decisions about which car to buy also affect in-car behaviour.For example, people in their 60s are less likely to own a sports utility vehicle than those in their 30s and to use a mobile phone at any time (whether in the car or not). Sex is another likely confounding factor, as are numerous personality traits. 2 The National Highway Safety Administration asked male drivers of pick-up trucks whether they wore seat belts.
Graeme D Ruxton professor of theoretical ecologyThe men reported that they felt protected by size of vehicle, nature of vehicle use (short, work related trips), being "trapped" after the crash, and anger or resentment over mandatory seat belt laws. They were, however, more likely to wear their safety belts when family or friends were with them, on interstate highways, in large cities, and in bad weather.