unintended consequences thread

[Alpha12]

This is a thread to highlight unintended consequences of laws/policy. I'll start:

http://liberty.i2i.org/1999/02/10/ma...nvade-privacy/

A survey of seat belt use among the fatally injured suggests that seat belt use in that group was 15 percent higher in states with primary offense enforcement laws. In 1996, states that treated seat belt use as a primary offense reported that seat belts were used 74 percent of the time. States that treated seat belt use as a secondary offense reported usage rates of 61 percent.

Unfortunately, data like these fail to show that making seat belt usage a primary offense decreases traffic injuries and fatalities. In fact, no jurisdiction that has passed a seat belt law has shown evidence of a reduction in road accident deaths. To explore this odd but highly robust finding, experimenters asked volunteers to drive five horsepower go-karts with and without seat belts. They found that those wearing seat belts drove their karts faster. While this does not prove that car drivers do the same, it points in that direction.

I used to be more on the it's my decision, I'll do what I want. It's nice to have data to counter the nanny-state. For the record, I wear my seatbelt about 50% of the time in town.

[Standtall]

I have never driven a car without wearing my seatbelt.

[llcooljabe]

when my kid graduated to a booster seat, I did some reading and discovered there was a correct way to wear a seatbelt--not across the stomach, but over the lap. news to me.

Anyway, been trying to do this for me too (not just the kid). It's far more comfortable. It seems obviously intuitive now...

[Guerilla poster]

In fact, no jurisdiction that has passed a seat belt law has shown evidence of a reduction in road accident deaths.

I am a bit curious on how this was tested?

Road accident deaths have gone down, I believe in the last 20 years, have they not?

But how did the isolate the effects and exclude seat belt use. Just running a regression on states with tougher seat belt laws vs. not.

[MathinTucson]

Outlawing products results in more violent crime and powerful criminals.
Prohibition and drugs come to mind.

[BigBen]

How about Sam Brownback's staff tattling to the principal on a teenage girl who submitted a rude tweet about him. The girl's followers on twitter have gone from 65 to 4,000 since the incident.
Streisand effect?

I guess this is just unintended consequences of actions, not necessarily law/policy.

[LifeIsAPoissonProcess]

Okay, I must be blind... can someone point out the unintended consequence here? I don't see any statistics in the quote in the OP that don't make sense.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

It would fit more cromulently in the "innumeracy" thread or the "damned lies" thread.

[Alpha12]

Originally Posted by LifeIsAPoissonProcess

Okay, I must be blind... can someone point out the unintended consequence here? I don't see any statistics in the quote in the OP that don't make sense.

I think the intended consequence of making seatbelts manditory was to reduce fatalities/injuries. The unintended was that people who wore seatbelts drove faster and/or more recklessly.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Originally Posted by MathinTucson

Outlawing products results in more violent crime and powerful criminals.
Prohibition and drugs come to mind.

Subsidization of the price of a product or a service for some members of society leads to that product or service being more expensive to the non-subsidized members of society.
Not a major problem when 10% are being subsidized. Major problem when 85% are being subsidized.