The theory grew largely out of investigations of road safety interventions. It was noted that most interventions had failed to achieve the forecast savings in lives and injuries. Theorists speculated that while the studies demonstrated that the probability of injury given a crash had reduced, the fact that the overall probability of injury was unchanged indicated that there must have been some change in the probability of crashing.
This controversial view was at first strongly resisted but detailed investigation, particularly of the case of compulsory seat belts, caused the theory to become more widely accepted, although it is still resisted by many who support an interventionist approach.
The logical conclusion of this theory has been reached with the shared space initiatives piloted first in Denmark and the Netherlands, and now being copied elsewhere in Europe and North America. Significant safety benefits have been claimed from the complete removal of street furniture and signage from urban environments, requiring all users to take more care.
Grant and Smiley, "Driver response to antilock brakes: a demonstration on behavioural adaptation" from Proceedings, Canadian Multidisciplinary Road Safety Conference VIII, June 14-16, Saskatchewan 1993.
Sagberg, Fosser, and Saetermo, "An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers" Accident Analysis and Prevention #29 pp 293-302 1997.
Aschenbrenner and Biehl, "Improved safety through improved technical measures? empirical studies regarding risk compensation processes in relation to anti-lock braking systems". In Trimpop and Wilde, Challenges to Accident Prevention: The issue of risk compensation behaviour (Groningen, NL, Styx Publications, 1994).
This showed that in the countries studied, which included states with and without seat belt laws, there was no correlation between the passing of seat belt legislation and reductions in injuries or fatalities.This paper was published at a time when Britain was considering a seat belt law, so the Department of Transport commissioned a report into the issue. In the event the report's author, Isles, agreed with Adams' conclusions. The Isles Report was never published officially but a copy was leaked to the Press some years later. The law was duly passed and subsequent investigation showed some reduction in fatalities, the cause of which could not be conclusively stated, due to the simultaneous introduction of evidential breath testing.
Other research has taken groups of drivers, including those who did and did not habitually wear seat-belts, and measured the effect on driving style in the habitually unbelted. The drivers were found to drive faster and less carefully when belted.
This can largely be attributed to an increase in the popularity of high performance canopies, which fly much faster than traditional parachutes. High speed manoeuvres close to the ground have increased the number of landing fatalities in recent years,
even though these jumpers have perfectly functioning parachutes over their heads.
At least two experimental studies have suggested that children who wear protective equipment are likely to take more risks.
Professor Gerald J. S. Wilde illustrates this by reference to the Swedish experience when they changed from left- to right-hand drive in 1967.
This was followed by a marked reduction in the traffic fatality rate, but the trend returned to its previous values after about 18 months. Drivers had responded to increased perceived danger by taking more care; as they became accustomed to the new regime, the additional care evaporated.
Risk compensation is now widely accepted, but risk homeostasis, which goes much further, has a much smaller following.