Assumptions necessary and unnecessary to risk homoeostasis

Abstract

This paper discusses recent criticisms of the theory of risk homoeostasis which has been put forward to explain the spatial, temporal and per capita traffic accident risk in a given jurisdiction, as well as their pattern of interrelation. Four assumptions have recently been proposed in the literature as being necessary for the theory to be valid. These were viewed as wanting and, therefore, presented as a challenge to the theory in question. In the present discussion, these four assumptions are examined on their conceptual pertinence. It is concluded that, without some major and some seemingly minor-yet theoretically crucial—modifications, none of these assumptions appear to be essential to the validity of the theory under debate.