The more security, the more danger

The paradox of why more protection does not always save lives

🏷️ Categories: Mental models, Behavior.

---

The safer we feel, the more at risk we are.

A phrase that sounds contradictory. Illogical. And yet, it repeats itself again and again. If you’ve ever wondered why, despite technological and regulatory improvements, accidents don’t disappear—or even increase—today you’ll understand.

We’ll explore one of the most fascinating paradoxes of human behavior.

Risk compensation.

You’ll see why many safety measures fail to achieve the desired effect. Why better brakes don’t always prevent accidents, why helmets in American football led to more deaths, and why, paradoxically, being safer can actually make us more vulnerable.

Let’s dive in.

Risk compensation

Imagine this: you improve car safety, adding seat belts, airbags, ABS.

The result? Road fatalities... don’t drop as much as expected.

This is what economist Sam Peltzman discovered. When analyzing the effects of traffic safety regulations in the U.S., he found something strange: fatalities inside cars went down, yes, but pedestrian deaths went up. Drivers felt so protected that they drove more aggressively (Peltzman, 1975).

Better braking systems led to more sudden stops.

The same happened with Munich taxi drivers using ABS. They kept less distance from the car in front (2.2 seconds on average compared to 2.8 for those without ABS). And if they weren’t the taxi owners, the distance was even shorter: only 1.92 seconds (Sagberg et al., 1997).

And it’s not just on the road. It happens in sports too.

In American football, better helmets led to more deaths from tackles. Players felt invulnerable... and used their heads as weapons. Deaths only started to decline after the rules of the game were changed (Hagel & Meeuwisse, 2004).

But this is everywhere...

• Child-resistant medicine containers were created so kids couldn’t open them and get poisoned. Unexpected result: parents became more careless with all medicines, and poisoning rates didn’t drop at all (Viscusi, 1993).

• A well-known phenomenon is flooding. The more levees and flood defenses are built, the more people move into flood-prone areas that now appear safe. Just one minor failure or unforeseen event can cause immense damage…

The safer we feel, the more in danger we put ourselves.

Risk homeostasis

Behind this paradox lies a fascinating theory: “risk homeostasis.”

According to psychologist Gerald Wilde, every person has a level of risk they feel comfortable with. If we feel risk decreases (because of a helmet or an airbag), we unconsciously compensate by taking more risks (Wilde, 1982).

Why does this happen?

Because when safety improves, there’s more room to take risks without immediate consequences.

In other words, protection alone isn’t enough. If a person’s motivation doesn’t change, their behavior adjusts... and risk creeps back up.

How can we truly reduce risk?

Here’s the key part.

We can’t eliminate risk just by “adding more protection.” We have to do this:

• Less visible safety measures are more effective: If users don’t know an improvement is there, they don’t change their behavior. This avoids the risk homeostasis effect.

• Give incentives for cautious behavior: It’s not enough to protect; we must motivate people to change. For example, in driving, rewarding those with no accidents through insurance discounts works as an incentive (Wilde, 1982).

• Change the rules, not just the equipment: As in American football—helmets alone weren’t enough. The rules of the game had to change so helmets wouldn’t be misused (Hagel & Meeuwisse, 2004).

• Educate about real risks: Sometimes, making danger more visible leads to greater caution. That’s why when there’s ice on the road, drivers (knowing it’s dangerous) drive more carefully. Recklessness is often linked to a lack of risk awareness—usually because the danger isn’t visible until it’s too late…

We think more protection makes us invincible, so we take greater risks.

Because in the end, safety isn’t just about technology or external measures. It’s about how we perceive danger. About how much risk we’re willing to accept. About how we behave as humans.

So next time you put on some kind of protection, ask yourself:

Am I actually safer... or do I just feel safer?

Maybe that’s the real question to staying safe...

✍️ Your turn: Where have you seen cases of the risk paradox? Near where I live there’s an area that used to flood regularly right by the river. But since levees were built, they’ve started constructing big tourist complexes, supermarkets, and leisure areas. Just one small failure could cause immense damage...

💭 Quote of the day: “The more men have to lose, the less willing are they to venture.” — Thomas Paine, Common Sense

See you next time! 👋

References 📚

1. Hagel, B., & Meeuwisse, W. (2004). Risk compensation. Clinical Journal Of Sport Medicine, 14(4), 193-196. URL

2. Peltzman, S. (1975). The Effects of Automobile Safety Regulation. Journal Of Political Economy, 83(4), 677-725. URL

3. Sagberg, F., Fosser, S., & Sætermo, I. F. (1997). An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 29(3), 293-302. URL

4. Viscusi, W. K. (1993). The Value of Risks to Life and Health. Journal of Economic Literature, 31(4), 1912–1946. URL

5. Wilde, G. J. S. (1982). The Theory of Risk Homeostasis: Implications for Safety and Health. Risk Analysis, 2(4), 209-225. URL