Is Engineering for Safety a BAD Idea?

Just read an article about safety engineering, and why, when designers try harder to incorporate safety features, people paradoxically act in less-safe ways.

It used to be that even daring kids had some limits to them. Oh, they might try to climb a tree that was too high, or tease a dog behind a fence. But, most often, even the most reckless kids had limits to their daring. They didn't deliberately tempt fate to the fatal, or near-fatal point.

Science is finding that risk-taking may have a genetic component.

However, the average kid had the ability to stop short of stupid. Sure, there were always the kids who played around the tracks, and died at a young age. There were the kids who fell from heights, and suffered severe injuries. And, as teens, those with the reckless gene would drive fast and engage in sex before marriage - with predictable results.

Shooting up schools? In my youth, just didn't happen. Despite the wide availability of guns in homes, that activity was unheard of. It took media to get that going. And, social media is a powerful goad to such over-the-top actions.

One researcher makes a point about risk.

Researchers who study risk-taking, particularly in the context of HIV infection, also struggle to find clear definitions. "You can't put shooting up with drugs and having sex with your husband in the same ballpark," says Mitch Katz, San Francisco's public health director. Many married people use no protection and society does not consider that risky, but if a partner injects drugs, a line gets crossed. "Early in the [AIDS] epidemic, one of the things we learned about women was that they were much more likely to become infected from their steady partners than their casual partners, because they were, from a medical standpoint, taking higher risks," he explains. But Katz does not necessarily put those people in the same category as high risk-takers, such as those who engage in backstreet racing or abuse alcohol.

The pill lead to a much higher level of risk for women. In the past, women with a greater tendency to take risks faced a greater chance of an unwanted pregnancy. Some married their partner. If they did not, very few kept those children. Most went away for a few months, after which time they returned, having learned a sad lesson. Welfare generally would NOT support them. If they kept their baby, they were on their own.

Even today, for women, the men they chose to associate with constitute one of their most important risk factors. If you chose a man who is a risk-taker, you have a much higher chance of being infected with diseases that can cause sterility, lifetime illness, or even death.

Even if a woman escapes that fate, the children that she bear may have a higher likelihood of engaging in similar risky behaviors. In the end, all of the actions for protecting people from the consequences of their actions might be increasing the percentage of risk-takers in our society.

Other findings from that article show that:

Bryan says that twin studies have revealed that impulsivity and high sensation-seeking run in families.

Now, THAT'S a surprise!

/sarc

Some call the consequences associated with risky behaviors "Natural Consequences". In other words, as my Daddy would have said, "You shouldn't oughta done that. Serves you right."