Very good. So why are you getting it wrong? Risk compensation depends on the un-subconscious to work - although that may not be in the strict freudian sense.
(where did you do your degree? I've a mate who's a experimental psychology lecturer - I wonder if you ever met)
I think you worked it out by the end of the post. (BTW how did your brother get in the situation where the seatbelt was required to save his life? Again, no blame implied by this question)
Not "just" that. Where did those bad habits and slackness come from? Were they exasperated by the presence of the DRLs? Remember, you won't be able to engineer out bad habits and slackness.
What advantage does having DRLs give you which couldn't be gained by not having bad habits and slackness?
Hmm. The Norwegian implementation is dipped headlamps, which if you're going to introduce law is what you're going to have to use.
Good. Now use it!
Yes. DRLs will do the same - they'll make cars more visible at the expense of the visibility of others, but because the majority of traffic is cars, people will think that they are safer because they can see the problems, and you know where that will lead. It may be clbuttifiable as DWDCA, but the mechanism is risk compensation.
cheers, clive
