

No, entirely incorrect. “bad thing can happen, so it will happen” is essentially a mangling of Murphy’s Law.
In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected [eg: this minor law] because the slippery slope advocate believes it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends [eg: loose claims of a pot getting hotter implying further details will be demanded next].









This was essentially the goal of the study, to demonstrate that more investment is needed in public transport to increase public buy-in, and that even just being forced to try it for a few weeks increases usage and lowers car use longer term - so if there can be incentives to try public transport that could also increase its use long term and reduce cars on the road.
The headline is not what people here (myself included) wanna read, but the study succeeded in its demonstration and will hopefully drive positive govt policy outcomes.