Something like the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article would do fine for me:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
Why is "homeostasis" better?
But whatever the definition if you want to see if it's happening it's still necessary to go and look for it rather than assume it.
That seems a fair definition.
Risk compensation is a theory which suggests that people typically adjust their behavior in response to the perceived level of risk, becoming more careful where they sense greater risk and less careful if they feel more protected.
I think risk compensation is often seen as the first part: that people adjust for increased risk, and not for decreased risk. Using risk homeostasis as the term makes this a bit more apparent.
This risk adjustment is an internal brain process and very difficult to observe. Adams discusses this.
The failure of many measures intended to achieve more safety is suggestive.
The increase in pedestrian and cyclist casualties which accompanied seat belt legislation is telling.
Drivers who feel safer take less care.
An article in the journal of the Royal Statistical Society showed this.
As Adams comments,
Significantly the Significance article did not make it into the Review’s list of key references on seat belts. A significant omission because the authors, all defenders of the seat belt law, acknowledge an effect of the law of important consequence to vulnerable road users. They say “the clear reduction in death and injury to car occupants is appreciably offset by extra deaths among pedestrians and cyclists.”
Really, I find that the case for risk homeostasis needs a larger space. I have suggested that a reading of Adams and Wilde to might help.
Not all worthwhile knowledge is amenable to the scientific method, especially when it concerns the human brain.