立法的被“俘获”与“逃逸”——从“安全带法”看社会科学知识对立法的影响被引量：7

The "Being Captured" and "Escape" of Legislation:On the Influence of Social Science to Legislation from the View of Seat-Belt Law

原文传递

导出

摘要 "安全带法"(驾车时强制要求系安全带的规定)已经是一种全球性的法律,其广泛存在在很大程度上源于对安全带能大幅度降低机动车乘坐人的伤亡率的确信。但"风险补偿"理论论证了安全带法并不能使道路交通更安全,大量的实证研究也证实了这一点。尽管有安全带更安全的神话已经破灭,但各国的立法者对此却无动于衷,或许这可归因于法学的保守性、制度的路径依赖、社会选择的影响以及法学一定程度的不自足性。由此生发开去,立法活动与社会科学知识的关系更加值得人们深思。 Seat-belt law lmandatory seat belt while driving carss nowadays has become a worldwide legislation. Its popularity is largely due to the belief that the seat-belt law could greatly reduce the casualty rate of motor velide thawel. However,the theory of Risk Compensation has proved that the seat-belt law cannot make the road travel safer,so do a large mount of empirical studies. Despite the myth of a safer seat-belt has dashed there has been no response of legislators in all countries,which may be attributed to the conservatism of law,the path dependence of institution,the influence of social choice and some not self-insufficiency of law. More important to mention,the relationship of legislation activity and social science knowledge worths further thinking.

作者郭春镇郭瑰琦

机构地区厦门大学法学院

出处《法制与社会发展》 CSSCI 北大核心 2010年第3期133-140,共8页 Law and Social Development

基金 2008年福建省社会科学规划项目"和谐社会中基于社会正义的政府规制研究"(2008B2077)

关键词安全带法风险补偿理论社会科学知识 seat-belt law risk compensation theory social science knowledge

分类号 D922.14 [政治法律—宪法学与行政法学]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献20

1Sam Pelzman. The Effects of Automobile Safety Regulation [J]. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 83, 1975 (4).
2Sen Anindya and Mizzen Brent. Estimating the Impact of Seat Beh Use on Traffic Fatalities : Empirical Evidence from Canada [J]. Canadian Public Policy, Vol. 33, 2007 (3).
3Alan Woodfield. Car Seat- Belt Regulations, Offsetting Behavior, and Liability Rules [J]. Agenda, Vol. 3, 1996 (4).
4A. C. Harvey and J. Durbin. The Effects of Seat Belt Legislation on British Road Casualties : A Case Study in Structural Time Series Modelling [ J]. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A (General), Vol. 149, 1986 (3).
5Alan Irwin. Technical Expertise and Risk Conflict: An Institutional Study of the British Compulsory Seat Belt Debate [ J ]. Policy Sciences, Vol. 20, 1987 (4).
6William N. Evans and John D, Graham. Risk Reduction or Risk Compensation? The Case of Mandatory Safety - Belt Use Laws [J]. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 4, 1991 (1).
7Christopher Garbacz. Impact of the New Zealand Seat Belt Law [J]. Economic Inquiry, Vol. 29, 1991 (2).
8Christopher Garbacz. Do Front -Seat Beh Laws Put Rear- Seat Passengers at Risk? [ J ]. Population Research and Policy Review, Vol. 11, 1992 (2).
9Alf Erling Risa. Adverse Incentives from Improved Technology : Traffic Safety Regulation in Norway [ J ]. Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 60, 1994 (4).
10Steven Peterson, George Hoffer and Edward Mitlner. Are Drivers of Air- Bag- Equipped Cars More Aggressive? A Test of the Offsetting Behavior Hypothesis [J]. Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 38, 1995 (2).