Is research about hypothesis testing or making a point?

(A long) introduction

We have recently published a paper “Victim blaming in police road injury prevention messages? A case of bicycle helmets” in Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.

We were interested to know whether mentioning bicycle helmets in a police preventive message is victim blaming by default. As some of our colleagues repeatedly claim on Twitter. So, we examined the perceived level of victim blaming in six hypothetical scenarios. Three scenarios described traffic situations and three several other crimes.

The results of our study “suggest that if advice on injury or crime prevention measures is delivered carefully, while also acknowledging the guilty party or wider context, people will not perceive such messaging as victim blaming.” So, it appears that mentioning bicycle helmets in a police preventive message is NOT victim blaming by default.

Perhaps our interpretation of the results is wrong. That is always possible, but as we wrote in the paper “The full text of scenarios is presented in the article, which allows readers to critically assess the possible level of victim blaming.” So, please be free to analyze each scenario and provide argumentation about why you disagree with our conclusions.


We have been accused…

Our paper had been rejected twice before being published in TRF. Some of the reviewers’ comments in previous journals were useful and constructive and I believe our paper improved. However, some reviewers were extremely hostile. Here is what one of them wrote: “Fifth, the way that the authors draw conclusions from their findings, gives a strong impression of a goal-oriented study.”

In other words, the reviewer accused us that we “wanted to make a point” rather than honestly testing a hypothesis.


… of something others admit doing

Now we go to a study (“Motonormativity: how social norms hide a major public health hazard”) that became one of the favorite on cycling Twitter. The study showed that we live in a car-centric society (oh yes, I agree 100%) and “provides evidence of how driving automatically receives systematically biased treatment across society so as to favour the needs of a majority – an effect we term motonormality.”

I am not going to criticize the study, at least not now, I will instead point out something else. In a recent presentation, one of the authors of that study, when talking about the motivation for making it said that “…sometimes you do science to make a point.”

So, this author basically says, to borrow the words of our hostile reviewer, that they conducted a goal-oriented study.


Can you see where the problem is?

Our paper gets rejected because an anonymous reviewer accused of conducting a goal-oriented study, while the author who admitted doing exactly that gets praised on cycling Twitter and elsewhere.

And this is the main problem with the active travel community. They are willing to accept, praise, and forgive everything if the results or “results” of a scientific study support and reinforce their beliefs, while on the other hand, they will engage in hostile and unethical behavior toward work (and its authors!) that does not support their beliefs. I have written about such behavior several times before on this blog, but I am afraid things are getting much worse.


“Bike riders…felt that helmets dehumanize bike riders…” Is it really so?

Yes, it happened again. Cycling Twitter has just gotten a new favorite study (“Mandatory helmet legislation and risk perception: A qualitative study in Melbourne, Australia”). The study authored by a single author reports the results of semi-structured interviews with 21 bike riders from Melbourne, Australia. “The survey was advertised on Twitter, Reddit and around Melbourne through print media.” However, “…most interviewees were recruited from Twitter.”

“A topic guide was developed which acted as a starting point for the first interview. … After each interview the transcript was analysed and the topic guide updated with new questions that had arisen from the interview and the subsequent analysis.” These questions are available in the article’s Appendices A and B.

The author identified four themes and offered several quotes for each theme. The themes were:

    1. Judgement and victim blaming
    2. Violence from drivers of motor vehicles
    3. Australian cycling context
    4. Political pressure to individualize risk

Among quotes within the third theme, there was one addressing a possibility that helmet wearing leads to dehumanization.

This helmets-lead-to-dehumanization topic appears to be one of the main results of this paper:

    1. The author writes in discussion: “Interviewees were also concerned about helmets removing the human association from bike riders. This is consistent with previous literature (Delbosc et al., 2019; Limb and Collyer, 2023); if bike riding while wearing helmets contributes to the dehumanisation of bike riders then mandating helmets therefore contribute to violence against bike riders.”
    2. The last sentence in the paper: “Interviewees were concerned that wearing a helmet made them appear less human to drivers of motor vehicles which in turn could beget further violence against them.”
    3. The last point in Highlights: “Interviewees felt that bicycle helmets dehumanise bike riders which could lead to further violence against them.”

For a careful reader it becomes unclear how is it possible that one quote, which is only one example within one of the identified four themes, deserved to be one of the main findings and conclusions of this study. As I see it, there are several problematic issues:

    1. Only one person mentioned it? It is unclear whether only one person mentioned this helmets-lead-to-dehumanization issue. I asked the author on Twitter, but she has not yet responded. If indeed only one person mentioned this issue, it is questionable whether it deserves to be one of the main findings and conclusions of this study.
    2. Who is concerned? If we carefully read the quote, it is unclear whether (i) this person is aware that some people are concerned that helmets dehumanize them or (ii) whether this person explicitly said that she feels that her helmet dehumanizes her in the eyes of motor vehicle drivers. In my view, there is a huge difference as it hopefully becomes clear in my next point.
    3. “Most interviewees were recruited from Twitter.” The author transparently acknowledged limitations of the study regarding participants recruitment: “Selection bias is likely as most interviewees were recruited from Twitter and chose to engage with the study and might hold stronger opinions on the subject than most.” Knowing that another famous Australian study (“Dehumanization of cyclists predicts self-reported aggressive behaviour toward them: A pilot study”) was endlessly shared on cycling Twitter, it is quite possible that “Sheila” has read somewhere on Twitter or cycling blogs (e.g., StreetsBlogUSA) about this study, which speculated that “Mandatory helmet laws in Australia mean that hair and faces are more obscured; this may be contributing to dehumanizing beliefs.” (Please note that another Australian study “The effect of safety attire on perceptions of cyclist dehumanisation” appeared online after the interviews had been performed)


Surprisingly or not, Cycling professor with more than one hundred of thousands of followers on Twitter decided to tell the world that a new study shows that ” ‘Bike riders recognise that mandatory helmet legalisation does not tackle the risk of injury at its root [and] felt that helmets dehumanise bike riders which could lead to further violence against them.’ ”

The irony here, that the cycling professor seems to be unaware of, is that he shared a meme that argues that people on the internet have beliefs that contradict real science, while sharing the study based on interviews with people recruited from the very same internet (i.e., cycling Twitter). This is hilarious in my view. And tragic at the same time.


In conclusion, I ask you to think whether the study provided enough information that “the participants (!) felt (!) that helmets dehumanise bike riders which could lead to further violence against them”? Does this study deserve to be endlessly shared with the message “bike riders feel that helmets dehumanize them”?

Please note that it is possible that each and every one of 21 interviewed bike riders reported that they felt wearing a helmet dehumanize them, but the author failed to mentioned it. Regardless of that, it is once again proven that some people uncritically share scientific studies that support their agenda. I will leave it to you to judge what are the proportions of people who:

    1. …do not read a study and share only the message that supports their preconceptions
    2. …read a study, but are unable to understand it, and share only the message that supports their preconceptions
    3. …read a study, understand the seriousness of methodological limitations and problematic conclusions, but nevertheless knowingly share the message that supports their preconceptions and mislead their followers

Thank you for reading. If you spot a mistake in my understanding of this study or in my argumentation, please let me know. I will correct the text.

An update on 17.11.2023. Below you can see how often the study and the cycling professor’s tweet have been shared.

    • The study is “In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric.”
    • “So far, Altmetric has seen 658 X posts from 600 X users, with an upper bound of 1,234,531 followers.”
    • Most of the activity on Twitter (i.e., X) have been retweets of the cycling professor’s tweet.

This is how the “truth” becomes the truth.

SARTRE 4 data: Personal concern about road safety vs. fatality rate

I read/check Shinar’s book “Traffic Safety and Human Behavior” almost daily. Two figures caught my attention a few weeks ago. Figure 1-12 (page 28) and Figure 1-13 (page 29) were reproduced from SARTRE 4 report. If you compare the proportions in these two figures, you will see they do not match (see my Figure A below). So I ordered SARTRE 4 data and found out that the authors had very likely used a wrong variable in Figure 1-13. I got a perfect match when I used the variable Concern about the rate of crime.

The original SARTRE 4 figures can be found in the final report in Chapter 1.2 Car Drivers’ General Attitudes, Beliefs and Reported Behaviors. Figure 1 is on page 47 and Figure 2 is on page 49. They are also below this paragraph. Please note that for Figure 2 “The medians of the variables were used to establish four quadrants distinguishing low vs. high concern and low vs. high road safety.”


Figure A. A mismatch between two figures in SARTRE 4 report and Shinar’s book

Since I got the data, I made a figure using the correct variable. That is the left figure. The right figure contains road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants in year 2021 according to OECD.

Figure B. A correct figure produced by using SARTRE 4 data (on the left) and a new figure that plots 2021 fatality rate data (on the right).

Given that the authors write in SARTRE 4 report (page 48): “Assuming that a particular amount of concern in the car driver population might be essential for the acceptance and effectiveness of road safety policies and measures…” I made a figure that shows how much traffic safety has improved in terms of fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants between 2009 and 2021 in the relation to reported personal concern about road safety in 2010. You can make your own conclusions whether the concern about road safety in 2010 was a good predictor of the actual road safety in 2021. I will only say Heja Sverige!

Figure C. Road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 vs. 2021 in the relation to reported personal concern about road safety in 2010

Two notes: (i) this data contain personal concern about road safety among drivers only; (ii) perhaps I should have used a three-year average for new data (2019-2021), but this was already too much work for me;-)

And yes, if you find a mistake in my figures please let me know. It seems easier to spot others’ mistakes than one’s own;-)


Traffic safety journals

Below you can find the list of journals that publish the large majority of traffic safety articles. Depending on your topic, you can submit your papers also to more general journals or those which focus on very different fields of science. For example, many studies about driver fatigue/sleepiness have been published in Journal of Sleep Research, and Sleep. Ergonomics and Human Factors could also be relevant journals in some cases.

Please note that the below list includes several university-based journals. They are all open access without publishing fees. This is great so you might consider submitting your papers to such journals. The only problem with these journals is that their editorial boards might not be as diverse as we would expect in 2023 – but that’s something that can be (easily) changed.

Accident Analysis & Prevention (AAP)

Publisher: Elsevier
Years: 1969->
Editor in chief: Helai Huang, PhD, Central South University, Changsha, China
Open access: Hybrid
IF (if you care): 6.376
My (very personal) comments and observations: The most prestigious traffic safety journal. Previous EiCs include big names such as Frank A. Haight and Rune Elvik. Please note that the journal publishes papers dealing with accidental injury. That means that road suicide studies will be immediately desk rejected – as I have unfortunately learned. The history of the journal can be found in the article published in 2020. Acceptance rate: 13%. Personally, I believe the previous EiC had published too many research articles during his editorship. Here you can find our systematic review about self-publishing.

Active Travel Studies

Publisher: the University of Westminster
Years: 2020->
Editor in chief: Tom Cohen, Active Travel Academy, University of Westminster, UK
Open access: Yes. All fees are paid for by the University of Westminster.
IF (if you care):
My (very personal) comments and observations: University-based journal. Run by people from the the Active Travel Academy at the University of Westminster. I had a very bad experience with the journal and with the Active Travel Academy’s Media Awards run by the same people.

IATSS Research

Publisher: Elsevier
Years: 1977->
Editor in chief: S. Kamijo, The University of Tokyo Institute of Industrial Science, Tokyo, Japan
Open access: Hybrid
IF (if you care): ?
My (very personal) comments and observations: The official Journal of the International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences. I was one of associate editors from 2015 to 2023. Large and diverse editorial board. Not a major journal, but don’t think you will easily publish there. Welcomes traffic safety papers.

Injury Prevention (IP)

Publisher: BMJ
Years: 1995->
Editor in chief: Caroline Finch, Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Research and Vice-President at Edith Cowan University in Australia
Open access: Hybrid; open access for 3,090 GBP.
IF (if you care): 3.775
My (very personal) comments and observations: The journal is famous for banning “accidents” in 2001. My colleague and coauthor Barry Pless was the coauthor of that editorial as well as the founding Editor-in-Chief. Acceptance rate: 33%.

International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion (ICSP)

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Years: 1994->
Editor in chief: Geetam Tiwari, Transport Research and Injury Prevention Programme, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi India, and Shrikant Bangdiwala, Professor, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact Director, Statistics Department, Population Health Research Institute McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Open access: Hybrid
IF (if you care): 2.603
My (very personal) comments and observations: Formerly known as Injury Control and Safety Promotion (2000 – 2004) and International Journal for Consumer and Product Safety (1994 – 1999). I had bad experiences with this journal, but cannot remember anymore what happened:) “ICSP encompasses all causes of fatal and non-fatal injury, including injuries related to…transport…” Acceptance rate: 17%.

Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research

Publisher: Elsevier
Years: 2023->
Co Editors in chief: Prof. Dr. Eva Heinen, PhD., TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany and Professor Jeppe Rich, PhD, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs Lyngby, Denmark
Open access: Hybrid; Open access publishing fee: $1800
IF (if you care):
My (very personal) comments and observations: New Elsevier journal. I am very concerned about the way editors will treat papers that do not align with their attitudes and values. One of the co editors-in-chief wrote in their inaugural editorial: “However, in my career as a transport modeler, the smaller projects have most of the time been the better ones. My mission with this journal is to pass this message to those who decide, and to initiate an evidence-based bottom-up process for our infrastructure.”

Journal of Public Transportation

Publisher: Elsevier
Years: 1996->
Editor in chief: Robert Bertini, Ph.D., Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, United States of America
Open access: Open access; publishing fee: $1790
IF (if you care): 37.667 (this is obviously a mistake)
My (very personal) comments and observations: Don’t know anything about this journal. I assume they welcome traffic safety articles dealing with public transportation. The journal operates a single-blind review process.

Journal of Road Safety (JRS)

Publisher: Australasian College of Road Safety (ACRS)
Years: 2005->
Editor in chief: Prof Raphael Grzebieta, Univeristy of New South Wales, and Dr Marilyn Johnson – Victoria, Australia, Australasian College of Road Safety, Senior Researcher, Monash University
Open access: The journal is published as open access. Papers are published free of charge.
IF (if you care): ?
My (very personal) comments and observations: “The JRS accepts papers from all countries and regions around the world and publishes a diverse range of high-quality papers on road safety from researchers, policymakers, program implementers, and other road safety experts.”

Journal of Safety Research (JSR)

Publisher: Elsevier
Years: 1982->
Editor in chief: T. Planek, National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois, USA
Open access: Hybrid
IF (if you care): 4.264
My (very personal) comments and observations: I had bad experiences with this journal. Feels like it is run by a very closed community. The journal uses double-blind peer-review.

Journal of Transport and Health (JTH)

Publisher: Elsevier
Years: 2014->
Editor in chief: Charles B.A. Musselwhite, PhD, PGCert (Distinction), Bsc (Hons) Aberystwyth University, Department of Psychology, Ceredigion, United Kingdom
Open access: Hybrid
IF (if you care): 3.613
My (very personal) comments and observations: Mixed feelings about this journal. I’ve published there, but also had very bad experiences. The journal uses double-blind peer-review. Please note the following: “There are many journals that focus on transport crashes and injuries, any unintentional injuries, and engineering; we do not wish to duplicate these. We are therefore restricting the scope of our journal to those that are more public health-focused, are more cross-disciplinary, and do not have an engineering or laboratory basis.” Acceptance rate: 21%.


Publisher: MDPI
Years: 2015->
Editor in chief: Prof. Dr. Raphael Grzebieta, Transport and Road Safety (TARS), University of New South Wales
Open access: Open access; publishing fee: 1600 CHF (Swiss Francs)
IF (if you care): pending
My (very personal) comments and observations: EiC and editorial board are good, but I mean it is a MDPI journal, what can I say. It has 17 pending special issues.

Safety Science (SS)

Publisher: Elsevier
Years: 1991->
Editor in chief: Georgios Boustras, BEng(Hons), MSc, PhD, European University Cyprus, Nicosia, 1516, Lefkosia, Cyprus
Open access: Hybrid
IF (if you care): 6.392
My (very personal) comments and observations: I had bad experiences with this journal. The EiC also extensively (exclusively) publishes in own journal. The journal uses double-blind peer-review, but that does not help much regarding EiC’s submissions because an AE will know who submits the paper and they can choose to invite more favorable reviewers in such cases. Something about the future of the journal can be found in the article published in 2022.

Traffic Injury Prevention (TIP)

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Years: 1991->
Editor in chief: David C. Viano, ProBiomechanics LLC, Bloomfield Hills, MI, USA
Open access: Hybrid
IF (if you care): 2.183
My (very personal) comments and observations: I had good experiences with this journal including editors and reviewers. Peer-review process is relatively fast, the EiC is a reasonable man. However, it seems the EiC also extensively publishes in own journal. This is the third journal (AAP and SS) with such a practice – very difficult for me to understand why is this happening.

Transactions on Transport Sciences

Publisher: Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, Palacky University Olomouc, Czech Republic
Years: 2008->
Editor in chief: Ralf Risser, Factum, Austria, and Karel Pospíšil, Transport Research Centre, Czech Republic
Open access: The journal is published as open access. Papers are published free of charge.
IF (if you care): ?
My (very personal) comments and observations: Journal is co-financed by Palacky University in Olomouc institutional support, provided by Ministry of Education, Czech Republic. Good and diverse editorial board (Brazil, Ghana, Israel, Japan etc) including David Shinar (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel). I don’t have experience with this journal although it is already 15 years old. “The editors require authors, reviewers and editorial board members to disclose potential conflicts of interest.” Rejection rate 79% (14.9.2023).

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives (TRIP)

Publisher: Elsevier
Years: 2019->
Editor in chief: Karl Kim, PhD, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States of America
Open access: Open access; publishing fee: $1330
IF (if you care): ?
My (very personal) comments and observations: If your paper gets rejected in traditional Elsevier journals (AAP, JSR, SS, TRF) then pay and publish here;-) On the other hand, the journals is open to all kind of submissions so you might consider it if your article does not fit to journals with limited focus. Kim is former AAP co-editor-chief.

Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour (TRF)

Publisher: Elsevier
Years: 1998->
Editor in chief: Samuel G. Charlton, The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
Open access: Hybrid
IF (if you care): 4.349
My (very personal) comments and observations: The main (and only) traffic psychology journal. Previous EiCs include big names such as its founding editors John A Groeger and Talib Rothengatter. Good Editorial Board (includes me!); however, in my view it should be more diverse. I would dare to say that the journal is open to all kind of transport related submission, even those that lack a psychological approach.

Traffic Safety Research (TSR)

Publisher: Technology and Society, Faculty of Engineering, LTH, Lund University
Years: 2021->
Editor in chief: Aliaksei Laureshyn, Department of Technology & Society, Faculty of Engineering, LTH, Lund University, Sweden
Open access: The journal is published as open access. Papers are published free of charge.
IF (if you care): ?
My (very personal) comments and observations: “Jointly founded in 2021 by researchers from Lund University (Sweden), Delft University of Technology (the Netherlands) and the International Co-operation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic safety (ICTCT) association.” Rune Elvik published three papers in 2022 in this journal. The editor-in-chief and several editorial board members have (had?) major roles in both the journal and ICTCT.


Lähempänä tavoitetta kuin aikoihin. Nollavisio – 0 liikennekuolemaa.

Emme ole vielä nollavisio-tavoitteessa, mutta lähempänä kuin aikoihin. Ennakkotietojen mukaan viime vuonna Suomessa kuoli alle 200 ihmistä tieliikenteessä ensimmäistä kertaa vuoden 1935 jälkeen. Aika näyttää edustaako luku uusien parempien liikenneturvallisuusaikojen alkua vai onko kyseessä vain poikkeus, joka saattaa liittyä koronapandemian aikaiseen ajokäyttäytymisen muutokseen tai ehkä johonkin muuhun.

Kaksisataa kuolonuhria on selvästi vähemmän kuin 600, mikä oli liikennekuolemien vuosittainen määrä kolmekymmentä vuotta sitten Suomessa. Mutta mikä on mielestäsi hyväksyttävä vuosittainen liikennekuolemien määrä?

Muutama vuosi sitten Australiassa lanseerattiin liikenneturvallisuuskampanja nollavisiosta. Esittelemme tässä Viktorian osavaltion version. Siellä on noin miljoona asukasta enemmän kuin Suomessa ja viimeisten viiden vuoden aikana 211–266 vuosittaista tieliikennekuolemaa.

Viktorian liikenneturvallisuuskampanjan videossa toimittaja pysäyttää miehen kadulla ja sanoo: ”Viime vuonna 213 ihmistä kuoli teillämme. Minkä sinä arvelet olevan hyväksyttävämpi luku?” Miehellä kestää hetken miettiä vastausta, kunnes hän sanoo: ”Öö, hyväksyttävä? Ehkä 70?” Sitten hän toistaa hieman varmemmin: ”Luultavasti 70.” Tämän jälkeen toimittaja soittaa kollegalleen, joka tuo 70 ihmistä kulman takaa ja sanoo: ”Tältä näyttää oikeasti 70 ihmistä.” Mies lausahtaa nyt huomattavan tunnekuohun vallassa: ”Sehän on perheeni.” Toimittaja toistaa kysymyksen: ”No, minkä nyt arvelet olevan hyväksyttävä luku vuosittaisille tieliikennekuolemille?” Mies vastaa: ”Nolla.”

Saatat muistaa vastaavan videon Liikenneturvan kampanjasta ”Näe ihminen liikenteessä”. Näiden kampanjoiden pääidea on saada ihmiset tiedostamaan, että vuosittainen tieliikennekuolemien määrä ei ole ainoastaan luku. Se kuvaa oikeita ihmisiä, jotka ovat menettäneet henkensä liikenteessä ja siihen lukuun voi sisältyä perhettäsi ja ystäviäsi. Näin ajatellen ilmiselvä vastaus on, ettei meidän pitäisi hyväksyä yhtään kuolemaa teillämme. Tavoitteen pitää olla nolla – nollavisio.

Nollavisio hyväksyttiin ensimmäisenä Ruotsin parlamentissa vuonna 1997, jonka jälkeen se levisi moniin maihin Suomi mukaan lukien. Nollavision pitkän tähtäimen tavoite on, että kenenkään ei pitäisi kuolla tai vakavasti loukkaantua tieliikenneonnettomuuksissa. Tämän tavoitteen pitäisi toteutua suunnittelemalla turvallinen tieliikennejärjestelmä ja suurilta osin siirtää vastuu tieliikenteen käyttäjiltä tieliikennejärjestelmän suunnittelijoille. Nollavisio huomioi, että ihmiset tekevät virheitä ja tavoitteena on luoda järjestelmä, joka sekä minimoi virheiden määrän että niiden seurausten vakavuuden.

Vaikka monet maat ovat omaksuneet nollavision liikenneturvallisuusstrategiaansa, sitä on myös kritisoitu niin tieteellisessä kirjallisuudessa kuin julkisissa keskusteluissa.

Vuonna 2021 kysyimme muutaman kysymyksen nollavisiosta edustavalta otokselta yli 15-vuotiaita suomalaisia Liikenneturvan aineiston keruun yhteydessä. Suurin osa vastaajista (79,8 %) uskoivat nollavision olevan hyvä tavoite samalla, kun lähes vastaava osuus vastaajista (73,5 %) uskoi, ettei sitä koskaan tulla saavuttamaan (kuva 1). Vuonna 2022 Liikenneturva kysyi lähes saman kysymyksen ja jälleen 84 %:n mielestä nollavisio oli hyvä tavoite.

Kuva 1. Pylväät kuvaavat vastausten jakautumista väittämiin nollavisiosta. Kysely tehtiin edustavalle otokselle suomalaisia vuonna 2021 (N=1025). Kuvaajassa olevat luvut esittävät kunkin vastausvaihtoehdon valinneiden prosenttiosuuksia.

”Nollavisio on epärealistinen” on eräs pääkritiikeistä. Joidenkin mielestä emme tule koskaan saavuttamaan yhteiskuntaa, jossa kukaan ei kuole tai vakavasti loukkaannu teillä, vaikka kuinka yrittäisimme. On aina inhimillisiä tekijöitä tai olosuhteita, jotka johtavat kuolemiin tai vakaviin vammoihin.

Miksi meillä on päämäärä, joka on lähes mahdoton saavuttaa? Onko sellainen päämäärä täysin merkityksetön? Yksinkertainen vastaus on, että eettisistä syistä nolla tieliikennekuolemaa on hyvä ja arvokas päämäärä. Yksikään maa ei ole täysin onnistunut eliminoimaan korruptiota, järjestäytynyttä rikollisuutta, ihmiskauppaa, sukupuolten epätasa-arvoa jne. Tämä ei kuitenkaan tarkoita, että meidän pitäisi hylätä tavoitteemme näiden eliminoimiseen. Yhteiskuntien pitää asettaa tavoitteita, jotka voivat näyttää utopistisilta tai epärealistisilta jossain vaiheessa historiaa, mutta voivat myöhemmin tulla saavutettaviksi. Kuten aikaisemmin on mainittu, 30 vuotta sitten meidän teillämme kuoli vuosittain 600 ihmistä. Nyt tieliikennekuolemia on noin 200 vuodessa. 30 vuoden päästä me voimme ja meidän pitäisi olla hyvin lähellä nollaa.

Teksti: Igor Radun, liikennepsykologian dosentti, Helsingin yliopisto ja Jenni Radun, ympäristöpsykologiantutkija, Turun ammattikorkeakoulu


You should pay tuition fees, I sell something which should be free

Not all politicians are the same. True. However, as someone who comes from the corrupt Balkan, I have my reservations. A simple test of politicians’ credibility is to look whether they just preach, or they act according to what they preach, whether they demand something from others while they try to avoid doing the same.

I don’t like writing about politics and politicians. This time I am making an exception as this ‘case’ relates to higher education, open access, and the reputation of my university. The case is about a politician who wants students to pay tuition fees for their basic (!) studies, and at the same time wants to make (whatever small) money on something that should be freely available online. This politician, as many of us, has received enormous support from the University for his postgraduate (!) studies, and yet he wants to make money by selling his doctoral thesis as a book although the thesis should be freely available online.

The Open Access principles of University of Helsinki clearly state that “Also Master´s and licentiate´s dissertations as well as Doctoral dissertations should be published openly.”

And yet, Meri sells his doctoral thesis for 144€. And it seems to be going quite well for him as the thesis is among the most popular law books of his publisher.

This is actually nothing unusual for monographs published by the Faculty of Law.”For well-grounded reasons, doctoral candidates may apply for a special exemption from publishing their doctoral dissertation electronically. “… “Please note that special exemption should only be applied for if absolutely necessary.” I don’t know what was a “well-grounded reason” in this case and why it “was absolutely necessary” not to publish the thesis open access.

A few years ago, one of professors from the same faculty wrote me that because of funding situation and limited number of permanent positions “In my field, we can no longer compete for the most talented young people.” Knowing that PhD students have really low income, much smaller than a lawyer, it is possible that the faculty in this way ‘compensates’ these “talented young people” for the lost income while they were working on their doctoral thesis. I don’t know.

I asked the dean of the faculty about the special exemption in this case. She wrote me (I share this with her permission):

“The Faculty of Law has a tradition of publishing doctoral theses with professional publishers. We believe that it is a good way to publish as this helps people – also legal professionals and other non-academic professionals – to find the research they need.”

Sounds OK, doesn’t it? However, we live in a digital world with Google search, various online databases, including the one maintained by our university.

Meri’s master thesis (“Yksipuolinen koronmuutosehto liike-elämän luottosopimuksissa”), which is freely available online, has been downloaded 1210 times. I’d say that’s quite impressive for a master thesis. Some of other freely available master and doctoral thesis from the same faculty have been downloaded even more. So, if you are interested in a particular topic and know how to use Google search, you will find what you need.

I don’t know how many copies of his book Meri will sell. Ten? Fifty? Hundreds? I also don’t know what Meri will do with the (whatever small) profit acquired by selling of his doctoral thesis. Perhaps it will be shared with the University. Perhaps he plans to donate it to a charity (e.g., supporting poor students).

What I know is this. I find it ethically problematic that a politician  who wants students to pay tuition fees for their basic (!) university studies at the same time wants to make money on something that should be freely available online. Denying others free access to basic university education, while he had used university resources (e.g., room?, access to literature, supervision, probably participated in courses) for free to get a PhD title… I am pretty sure it is in the society’s interest to have educated work force and that every graduated bachelor or master student is an asset to Finland’s future. On the other hand, as I have previously argued, a PhD is not a title to brag about or to use just to get a better job. Getting a PhD should be a first step in a long-lasting research career.

Finally, I understand this text might be perceived as a personal attack on Otto Meri. I don’t know him, I really don’t care how much money he makes and in what way. Obviously he has done nothing wrong considering the practice of his faculty. While I indeed hope he will never get any power to introduce tuition fees for Finnish young generations, my aim is to perhaps initiate a discussion about whether some faculties are too liberal regarding special (!) exemptions from the open access publishing.

Btw, here you can find Finnish doctoral thesis from my field. As you will see, the most recent ones are open access.

Miksi jotkut eivät käytä turvavöitä… vieläkään?

(Teksti ilmestyi eilen (12.10.2022) Rahtari-lehdessä. Koska lehteä ei julkaista verkossa, julkaisen tekstin myös täällä)

Jokin aika sitten toimittaja kysyi kollegaltani, miksi jotkut eivät käytä turvavyötä. Miksiköhän tosiaan? Miksi jotkut eivät vieläkään vuonna 2022 käytä turvavyötä?

Liikenneturvan vuosittainen seurantatutkimus osoittaa, että vuonna 2020 turvavyötä käytti 96 % henkilöautojen etuistuimilla matkustavista sekä taajamien ulkopuolella että taajamissa. Pakettiautojen etuistuimilla vastaavat luvut olivat 78 % taajamissa ja 83 % taajamien ulkopuolella. Taajamissa henkilöautojen takaistuimilla 89 % käytti turvavyötä.

Onnettomuustietoinstituutin mukaan turvavyön käyttö on kuolemaan johtaneissa kolareissa harvinaisempaa kuin yleisesti liikenteessä. Tämä onkin odotettavissa, jos turvavyöt ehkäisevät loukkaantumisia ja siten kuolemaan johtaneita onnettomuuksia. Vuonna 2020 kuolemaan johtaneissa henkilö- ja pakettiautojen onnettomuuksissa mukana olleista turvavyötä käytti 66 % (155/235). Näissä onnettomuuksissa kuolleista henkilöistä turvavyötä käytti 51 % (64/125) ja vammautuneista 70 % (44/63). Näissä kolareissa kuolleista turvavyön käyttö olisi saattanut pelastaa 43 % (26/61) niistä, jotka eivät käyttäneet turvavyötä.

Vuoden 2000 jälkeen julkaistun 24 tutkimuksen perusteella turvavyöt vähentävät kuolemia sekä vammoja jopa 60 % etupenkillä matkustavien keskuudessa ja 44 % takapenkillä matkustavien keskuudessa. Lisäksi kuuden tutkimuksen perusteella havaittiin, että jos takapenkillä oleva matkustaja käyttää turvavyötä, hän puolittaa myös etupenkillä istuvan matkustajan kuolemanriskin.

Kuva: Kuva tehty Liikenneturvan aineiston pohjalta.

Turvavyön käyttö on selvästi hyödyllistä, mutta kuitenkaan kaikki eivät sitä käytä. Miksi näin on?

Tutkimusten mukaan korkea ikä, naissukupuoli, korkea koulutustaso ja hyvä sosioekonominen asema liittyvät todennäköisempään turvavyön käyttöön. Kollegani Özlem Şimşekoğlu teki Suomessa väitöskirjansa turvavöiden käytöstä. Hän totesi nuorten miesmatkustajien turvavöiden käyttämättömyyden liittyvän alhaiseen motivaatioon noudattaa liikennesääntöjä, korkeampaan riskinottoon ja tiettyihin personaalisuuden piirteisiin kuten elämyshakuisuuteen ja vastuuttomuuteen.

Turvavyön käyttämättömyys riskialttiina toimintana liittyy muuhunkin riskialttiiseen käyttäytymiseen. Esimerkiksi ihmiset, jotka eivät polta tupakkaa käyttävät useammin turvavyötä kuin tupakkaa polttavat ihmiset. Toisaalta naimisissa olevat kuljettajat käyttävät useammin turvavyötä kuin naimattomat kuljettajat etenkin, jos heillä on lapsia. Lapsen turvallisuuteen liittyvät huolet voivatkin lisätä kokemusta turvallisuuskäyttäytymisen tärkeydestä näin johtaen myös omaan turvavyön käyttöön. Jotkut vanhemmat saattavat aloittaa turvavyön käytön pelätessään lasten oppivan huonon tavan heiltä. Kyllä, lapset oppivat vanhemmiltaan. Tutkimukset osoittavat, että vanhempien ajotapa vaikuttaa myös heidän lapsiensa ajotapaan. Joten ole hyvä roolimalli heille!

Negatiiviset asenteet ja aatteet turvavyön käytön tehokkuudesta vähentävät turvavyön käyttöä. Jotkut eivät käytä turvavöitä, koska sanovat niiden olevan epämukavia aiheuttaen paineen tunnetta ja rajoittaen liikehdintää. Vaikka ihmiset uskoisivat turvavyön tehokkuuteen, he eivät kuitenkaan aina käytä niitä. Esimerkiksi Kuwaitissa opiskelijoille tehdyssä kyselyssä 99 prosenttia vastaajista uskoi, että turvavyöt vähentävät vammoja, mutta kuitenkin vain 18 prosenttia miehistä ja 64 prosenttia naisista kertoi aina käyttävänsä turvavöitä. Pelkkä tieto ei siis ole aina riittävä motivoija.

Autoon jumiin jäämisen pelko kolarin jälkeen on toinen usein mainittu syy. Hukkuvasta tai tuleen syttyneestä autosta pakenemisen vaikeutta on kauhea ajatella. On kuitenkin olemassa monia välineitä turvavyön katkaisemiseen hätätapauksessa. Turvavyöleikkuri autossa on halpa ja tehokas väline. Kerran sain sellaisen vakuutusyhtiöltämme. Myös Rahtarit ry jakaa leikkureita jäsenistölleen eri tapahtumissa.
Kun jotkut pelkäävät autoon jumiin jäämistä onnettomuudessa, toiset ajattelevat onnettomuuksien tapahtuvan vain muille (niin sanottu haavoittumattomuuden illuusio). Tämän takia heidän ei tarvitse käyttää turvavyötä. Jotkut myös saattavat uskoa liikaa omiin ajotaitoihinsa, jolloin he eivät usko joutuvansa onnettomuuksiin. Toiset uskovat ajoneuvonsa koon suojelevan heitä kolarin tapahtuessa (muistakaa, että pakettiautoa ajavat käyttävät harvemmin turvavyötä).

Tiivistettynä: ei ole yhtä ainoaa syytä miksi ihmiset eivät käytä turvavöitä. Syyt voivat liittyä yleiseen riskinottoon, vääriin näkemyksiin turvavöiden tehokkuudesta, autoon jumiin jäämisen pelkoon, aliarvioon kolarien riskeistä tai omien ajotaitojen yliarviointiin. Myös tilannetekijät vaikuttavat turvavyön käyttöön (esimerkiksi: “En tarvitse sitä niin lyhyen matkan aikana”). Emme saa unohtaa huonoja roolimalleja (vanhemmat, jotka eivät käyttäneet turvavöitään). Kun kerran oppii tavan ja siitä tulee tavallista, sitä on vaikeaa muuttaa.

Käytätkö sinä aina turvavyötä?

Teksti: Igor Radun, liikennepsykologian dosentti, Helsingin yliopisto

Henkilöautot henkeä uhkaavissa hätäkuljetuksissa

Katsoessani karmivia kuvia sodasta Ukrainassa, mieleeni hiipii muistikuvia kokemastani sodasta ex-Jugoslaviassa. Sodissa yksi ensimmäisistä häiriintyvistä asioista on ihmisten vapaa liikkuminen. Julkista liikennettä supistetaan rajusti tai se lakkaa täysin toimimasta. Olemme nähneet tuhansien ukrainalaisten yrittävän päästä juniin, jotka veisivät heitä kauemmas sota-alueilta. Monet ovat jättäneet maansa omilla autoillaan.

Vanhempani eivät koskaan ole omistaneet autoa, eivät edes ajokorttia. Sota alkoi kotikaupungissani Dubrovnikissa päivänä, jolloin viimeisen lukiovuoteni oli tarkoitus alkaa, joten minullakaan ei tuolloin ollut ajokorttia. Asuimme Dubrovnikin lähiössä. Muistaakseni vuosina 1991 ja 1992 julkinen liikenne oli poikki kaksi kertaa useamman kuukauden kerrallaan. Ne onnekkaat auton omistajat, joiden auto ei ollut tuhoutunut pommituksissa, pystyivät liikkumaan huomattavasti omaa perhettäni helpommin.

Monet pakenivat autoillaan, toiset pystyivät vierailemaan sukulaistensa ja ystäviensä luona sekä tuomaan tarvikkeita monista kaupoista tai ihmisiltä, jotka eivät olleet kävelyetäisyydellä, johon perheeni toimet oli rajoitettu. Monesti menin naapurieni kanssa hakemaan vettä heidän autoillaan. Joskus liftasin Dubrovnikiin kuumien kesäpäivien aikana, vaikka tiesin, että pommitukset voivat alkaa minä hetkenä hyvänsä. Yleisesti vältän riskejä, mutta silloin rannalle piti päästä, vaikka oli korkea riski joutua pommitukseen. Olin tuolloin nuori ja tyhmä. Lisäksi Dubrovnikissa uiminen on kuin sauna suomalaisille. Siihen aikaan ajattelin, että henkilöauto olisi ollut hyödyllinen perheelleni. Tietääkseni haavoittuneita kuljetettiin myös sairaaloihin henkilöautoilla.

Nyt liikenneturvallisuustutkijana Suomessa julkaisin juuri kollegojeni kanssa tutkimuksen henkilöauton käytöstä henkeä uhkaavissa hätäkuljetuksissa*. Julkaisulla ei ole mitään tekemistä sodan kanssa, mutta elämien pelastamisen kanssa sillä on.

Kysyimme edustavalta otokselta (yli 15-vuotiaita suomea puhuvia , N=1025) oliko joku heidän taloudessaan käyttänyt henkilöautoa kiireistä hoitoa tarvitsevan henkilön kuljettamiseen sairaalaan tai ensiapuun henkeä uhkaavassa hätätilanteessa. Joka seitsemäs vastasi myöntävästi (14,2 %). Pääsyyt oman auton valitsemiseen olivat: Nopeampaa omalla autolla, koska pääsimme liikkeelle heti (58,6 %); Haja-asutusalueilla avun saamisen tiedetään kestävän kauan (30,3 %); Ambulanssia ei ollut heti saatavilla (17,2 %).

Näistä tapauksista 8,6 % tapahtui viimeisten 12 kuukauden aikana, joten voidaan arvioida, että vastaavia hätäkuljetuksia tapahtuu 1,2 % suomalaistalouksista joka vuosi. Tämä tarkoittaisi noin 33 000 tapausta, koska vuonna 2020 Suomessa oli 2 766 679 taloutta (Tilastokeskus). Koska kysymyksemme ei ottanut huomioon objektiivista tilanteen vakavuutta, eikä sitä olisiko sairastunut henkilö selvinnyt myös ilman autoa, emme voi tästä luvusta suoraan arvioida kuljetusmuodosta johtuvaa säästettyjen henkien määrää. Kuitenkin jo 1 % näistä 33 000 tapauksesta ylittää vuosittaisen tieliikennekuolemien määrän Suomessa, joita on vuosina 2015─2020 ollut 211─270 tapausta (Tilastokeskus). Siten jo pienikin osuus tapauksista on merkittävä.

Johtopäätöksemme oli, että henkilöautoilla saattaa olla rooli henkien pelastamisessa niiden laajan saatavuuden takia, joka mahdollistaa lähes välittömän kuljetuksen ensiapuun lääketieteelliseen hoitoon. Sotaan palatakseni, toivon, että myös haavoittuvimmat, heikot ja itsenäisesti liikkumaan kykenemättömät saisivat kaiken tarvitsemansa hoidon.

*Radun, I., Radun, J., Kaistinen, J., Wedenoja, J., Lajunen, T. (2022). Using personal cars for emergency transport of patients with life-threatening medical conditions: a pilot study. Journal of Transport & Health, 24.

Journal editors and football referees

We have recently submitted a paper “Editors publishing in their own journals – a systematic review of prevalence and a discussion of normative aspects” and here are a few additional thoughts that did not find their place in the article.

First, we concluded in the paper: “According to our findings, the prevalence of editors publishing in their own journals varies greatly among journals. However, except for some clear cases, it is difficult to conclude that compromised peer review for the benefit of editors publishing in their own journal is widespread and therefore would represent a serious threat to the scholarly community.”

So why do some editors in chief, associate editors, and editorial board members submit research papers to their journals? They must know that such practice will be perceived by many as unethical leading to bad reputations for them personally and their journals. Do they indeed expect preferable treatment in own journals and knowingly risk their reputation?

It might be that some (many?) of them do not expect a preferable treatment as such. In a recent Croatian football scandal, a director of one football club gave a lot of money to the main manager of football referees not because he wanted a preferable treatment, but apparently because he only expected a fair treatment;-) If your starting point is that your football club is not among those who indeed receive preferable treatment because of their political, mafia-related or whatever connections, then in order to protect your club, you bribe the main manager of football referees who would then delegate objective referees for the club’s matches. Your team will not suffer on the field because of biased referees; it is then all about your players to show their quality in a fair game without serious interference from biased referees.

I guess you already know what I am about to say. If your starting point is that many journals are run by biased editors who, for example, hate cars, bicycle helmets, or have strong attitudes about “emotionally charged topics” or any controversial issue, why would you then submit your paper to such journal when desk rejection is almost certain? If your paper is miraculously sent out for peer-review, biased editors will make sure they invite reviewers they know would be negative toward your paper. Then you can expect a biased “review” even with personal insults.

So what do you do? You submit your papers to a journal where you will receive a normal treatment without serious negative biases. You don’t expect a preferable treatment; you expect a normal collegial treatment. I am not sure whether some researchers reason in this way. I haven’t although I published in a journal where I am a member of editorial board.

I am increasingly worried that cancel culture has entered a lot of scientific fields and that in future many researchers will face a dilemma: keep submitting to “hostile” journals and getting rejections OR start submitting even more to journals where you serve as editor in order to receive a “fair and collegial” treatment.

Negative psychology: observations by an angry researcher

Inspired by Seinfeld’s series about small daily things and the fact that certain people share many videos of other (!) road users doing something wrong, and driven by my bad personality, I have started a new blog post that will contain things and events that irritate me. Expect many short stories on a daily basis.

Case: 001
Place: Meilahti, Helsinki
Date: 14.10.2021
Topic: Illegal behavior
Irritation level: 7/10
Description: Yesterday, I was walking along Scandic Meilahti parking. A woman was talking on the phone in a huge expensive car that had engine running. I went to a shop and after 10-15 minutes walked again by the same car. The engine was still running. Had that been a man, I would have told him something. Since it was a woman, I did not dare to say anything.

Case: 002
Place: Malmi, Helsinki
Date: 14.10.2021
Topic: Rude behavior
Irritation level: 8/10
Description: Went to a K-Citymarket in Malmi yesterday. It is a big shop with many cash registers. I was waiting my turn to pay. There was one woman in front of me. No one behind me. After waiting for about 3-4 minutes, the cashier gave a sign “cash register closed” to that woman and she put it in front of me. The cashier said nothing to me. How rude is that? Was it difficult to say something to me instead of ignoring me? Normally, cashiers say to those who are waiting “I am sorry, but I have to close the register now…”

Case: 003
Place: Malmi, Helsinki
Date: 15.10.2021
Topic: Bad service
Irritation level: 6/10
Description: Today we went to eat in a Chinese (!) sushi restaurant. We sat by a small table for two. The table was unstable. I mean, you don’t have to be a butler or footman in Downtown Aby, but seriously… Try to eat when a really small table is unstable…

Case: 004
Place: Finland
Date: 15.10.2021
Topic: Natural mutations and spoiled customers
Irritation level: 5/10
Description: I bought grapes today. I like grapes. People from the Mediterranean usually do. But I started to dislike them in Finland. You can buy only seedless grapes in ordinary supermarkets. The quality of seedless grapes is really poor, but it seems customers do not like seeds in grapes. Or do they? I wonder whether there has been any research about this. There is one thing I am sure about: if you have been eating only seedless grapes all your life, you know nothing about grapes…

Case: 005
Place: Finland
Date: Every f*** day since 2019
Topic: Video and audio are out of sync
Irritation level: 10/10
Description: You have a TV hub and internet modem from the same company… but these two devices are almost never in sync. Is there anything more irritating when watching a movie than having video and audio out of sync?

Case: 006
Place: The Central Park, Helsinki
Date: 16.10.2021
Topic: Crime against humanity
Irritation level: 10/10
Description: Our 5-year-old stepped on a dog shit. We didn’t notice until… the flat started to smell. F*** you all dog owners who don’t pick up after your dog. I would suggest the city of Helsinki makes a deal with parking enforcement companies so that their parking enforcement officers start issuing tickets to those f** dog owners who don’t pick up after their dog. I am sure that would be as profitable as issuing parking tickets.

Case: 007
Place: Random school in Porvoo
Date: 16.10.2021
Topic: Disgusting (forced) behavior
Irritation level: 7/10
Description: Many schools in Finland are shoes free. Kids are in their socks or have light inside shoes. I don’t care. However, for the last seven years I have been watching my kids playing basketball in various schools almost every weekend. I have seen dozens of schools in Southern Finland. And I have seen many parents going to toilets in their socks. They don’t have an option. However, I have also seen people doing the same in airplanes and long-distance trains. Socks and public toilets?? No, no, and no!

Case: 008
Place: Random birthday party at home
Date: Some weeks ago
Topic: Silly behavior
Irritation level: 5/10
Description: One of our kids wanted an Oreo Biscuit Cake?? You buy Oreo Biscuits in a grocery shop, “destroy” them in a mixer and then make a cake? What is next, buying a hamburger in a fast-food “restaurant” and then make meatballs??

Case: 009
Place: Helsinki
Date: 10.6.2022
Topic: Bad service
Irritation level: 8/10
Description: Went to a bike repair shop. They left a note: “at lunch, we’ll be back at about 13:00.” It was 12:45 so I decided to wait. At 13:25 I called them and asked whether they will come soon.
The guy: I am still eating; I’ll come after a half an hour.
Me: That’s one hour later than 13:00; I have been waiting here…
The guy: Well, I have to buy some accessories… you know, I can’t work if I don’t have them.
Me: So, you didn’t know before you left the shop that you can’t work without accessories.
The guy:

Why people need to bullshit? Just say “sorry, it took me more than I had expected…” and I’d say OK, things happen… but don’t bullshit me… you just lost a customer, mister.

Peer-review of manuscripts with emotionally charged topics. A case study of a controversial issue of bicycle helmets

This text is an addition to my paper “Nonfinancial conflict of interest in peer-review: some notes for discussion” published in Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance. While the paper was written in a neutral way, here I provide more information about how perceived pro-helmets submissions are treated in journals. I describe the events surrounding 5 of my submissions to 4 different journals.

Case 1. Together with one colleague I submitted a critical commentary on a highly publicized paper to the same journal where this paper had been published. The editor invited three reviews: two from independent researchers and one from the authors of the target paper. This was against the journal’s policy, which stated at the time that the editor might invite the authors of the target paper for comments and reply upon acceptance of a commentary. The editor rejected our paper although two independent reviewers were positive about it. The authors of the target article in their “peer review” questioned our motivation for writing our commentary.

We appealed to the editor on the basis of (i) a breach of the journal policy and (ii) a biased review from the reviewers who had serious conflict of interest. The editor accepted our appeal, ignored the review of the authors of the target paper, allowed us to revise the paper according to suggestions provided by two other reviewers, and the paper was eventually published. Unlike the actions of the authors of the target article who questioned our motivation for writing the commentary, the editor’s actions are to be praised as they admitted the initial mistake and responsibly took a corrective measure.

Case 2. I and three of my colleagues wrote a commentary (Radun et al., 2019) about a widely quoted statistic regarding the health benefits of cycling (BMA, 1992; Hillman 1992, 1993) that we believed is misleading. Our review of the source material identified no supporting data or analysis for this statistic. The main reason for submitting our commentary was the fact that these three publications authored by one author had been influential for almost 30 years despite the absence of data. The disputed statistics are often quoted as a basis for opposing helmet promotion and legislation (Radun, 2021).

We submitted the article to a journal that uses double-blind reviews. The EiC received comments from two reviewers and sent a standard email to the corresponding author: “In the event that I need to seek the opinion of an additional reviewer, you may see the status of your manuscript revert briefly from ‘Ready for Decision’ to ‘Under Review.’” The EiC then sought a third review. After receiving comments from the additional reviewer, the editor rejected the paper. We then discovered the additional reviewer was also a reviewer on the earlier version submitted to another journal. This reviewer informed the editor of JTH that he/she had reviewed the ‘same’ paper previously and offered to send the same review. The editor agreed. That is, although the reviewer was asked to comment on a revised version, the editor allowed the reviewer to comment on a previous version submitted to a different journal. Furthermore, that journal uses “single blind,” so our identities were known to Reviewer 3 before he/she submitted their review. This means the editor accepted the review knowingly acting against the journal’s double-blind policy.

We appealed to the editor on the basis of (i) a breach of the journal double-blind policy, (ii) a biased review in which the reviewer questioned our motivation to write the article we wrote, and (iii) the review of Reviewer 3 was identical although we had revised our paper before submitting it to the new journal. The editor rejected our appeal by saying the third reviewer “made absolutely no difference in practice as I was about to reject the manuscript anyway on the basis of the first two reviews.” This case raises several important questions.

Should one ask for a third, usually a decisive, review if an editorial decision has already been made? Is it ethical to waste the reviewer’s time (even though he/she only copy/pastes an old review) if a decision on the paper has already been made? Is it ethical to keep a paper for a further month if a decision has already been made? Should editors accept a peer review written on an earlier version of the manuscript and not on the submitted version?

Case 3. The same editor (Case 2) latter published an editorial in which they stated that “(t)hose who believe that the evidence is convincing that helmets are beneficial and that legislation is not detrimental…were not willing to submit an article to us” (Mindell, 2019, p. 5).

This statement is incorrect because in addition to the mentioned paper (Case 2) this editor had rejected another paper of ours that also deals with bicycle helmets. We submitted a letter to the editor in direct response to the editor’s editorial by explaining what happens when such researchers submit a paper to their journal. We explained how such papers receive unfair treatment in their journal (Case 2). We also pointed out that the EiC and several other editorial board members belong to Transport and Health Study Group (THSG) where one of the aims is “To promote a more balanced approach to cycle safety and oppose cycle helmet legislation.” [our emphasis]. We concluded that it is unacceptable for editors to knowingly violate their privacy rules, nor should it be permissible to invite a review when an editor has already made a decision.

The new EiC, who also belongs to THSG as the former EiC, rejected our letter to the editor because “we feel the letter is not within the scope of the journal.” I appealed to the EiC, who rejected the appeal. I find it disappointing that a direct response to the incorrect information (i.e., “were not willing to submit an article to us”) published in an editorial is considered to be beyond the scope of the journal.

The EiC defended the actions of the former EiC (Case 2) by saying “it is exceedingly difficult to guarantee total author anonymity’ for a variety of reasons;” however, in our case the situation could not have been simpler. The editor knowingly violated the journal’s privacy rules. There are no attenuating circumstances in this case.

The EiC also wrote that “On occasion we ask for more than 2 reviews, especially if the reviews contradict one another… .” When that happens, as probably occurred in our case, the review submitted by an additional reviewer plays a decisive role. Thus, it is of utmost importance that the journal privacy rules are respected in such a situation and are not knowingly violated. Furthermore, the former EiC should not have accepted a peer review submitted on an earlier version of our manuscript.

I have submitted a formal complaint to the publisher, but despite many attempts by a person responsible for the journal and my repeated reminders, the publisher has failed to respond to the formal complaint. The case is closed as far as I and the responsible person for the journal are concerned.

Case 4. We submitted the same paper about uncritical citations of an alleged statistic to another journal. In the once again revised version, we provided several examples including a blog written on the journal’s webpage. The journal is very influential and the blog is read by millions.

The journal invited two reviewers, one of them being the author of that blog. The author is not a researcher and has only one “publication” (i.e., a blog), and is the founder of a cycling advocacy group which holds views that are not supported by research. For example, the group states that there is evidence that wearing a helmet increases the risk of being involved in an accident and that mandatory helmet laws lead to less cycling and eventually increase morbidity from inactivity. Both assertions have been challenged and remain unproven (Esmaeilikia et al., 2019; Høye, 2018b).

We appealed to the associate editor on the basis of (i) the reviewer has a serious conflict of interest and (ii) because the reviewer used the review to justify uncritical citations of the alleged statistics. Our appeal was rejected and the committee explicitly stated they did not agree that the reviewer has a serious conflict of interest. No further appeals were allowed. Nevertheless, we wrote a formal complaint to the EiC in which, among other things, we wrote “According to one of COPE documents, ‘For example, if a researcher has built a career on a particular view and is ‘famous’ for holding that view, that could be a conflict of interest.’ We contend that the founder of an advocacy group whose publication we criticize has a serious conflict of interest. It seems reasonable to expect bias when a reviewer has an opportunity to prevent the publication of a paper that exposes that reviewer’s careless citation of an alleged finding from a secondary source.” We received no reply from the EiC.

This case raises the question whether a non-researcher, with a single publication (i.e., a blog) read by millions, and the founder of a cycling advocacy group is qualified enough and free of serious bias when allowed to review our paper in which we expose the reviewer’s careless citation of an alleged finding from a secondary source.

Case 5. We submitted the same paper about uncritical citations of an alleged statistic to another, this time a brand new, journal. Before submitting it, I had requested permission from the EiC according to the journal’s guidelines. After EiC granted his permission, I submitted the paper.
After 25 days, I received a rejection letter with a few explanatory paragraphs. I thought it was a standard desk rejection; however, I was puzzled by EiC’s words “We have reviewed and discussed it” knowing that according to the online submission system the paper had not been sent out for review. After several emails, it became apparent that the paper was reviewed by the editorial board members who decided to reject it without external review. Nothing unusual as many journals employ such procedures; however, in this case, this is problematic on at least one account.

However, the journal’s guidelines state that “If suitable experts external to the journal cannot be found then members of the Editorial Board may be asked to complete a review task.” It might be questioned why EiC has decided to perform the peer review ‘in-house’ and not follow the journal’s guidelines which are very clear about this. My submission was probably the first submission the journal has ever received so it is even more puzzling why EiC decided not to follow the rules they set themselves.

“Authorities” in science – can one criticize their work? [not included in my article]
Mayer Hillman, whose specific piece of work we criticize in our still unpublished commentary (Cases 2-5), has been referred to in admiring terms by the EiC (Cases 2 & 3), who handled our submission and knowingly violated the journal’s privacy rules. The EiC refers to Hillman as “one of the founding fathers of our field of study” (Watkins & Mindell, 2011, p. 1-6). The EiC also uncritically cited the alleged Hillman’s statistics (Davis et al., 2011, p. 2-8). The founder and deputy editor of the journal in Case 5 also (somewhat neutrally) cited the Hillman’s statistics (Aldred, 2016, p. 70). The reviewer for the journal in Case 4 had also uncritically cited the Hillman’s statistics. As well as the researcher whose car hate motivated an entire research career.

Furthermore, the fact that the same reviewer was invited to review our commentary for two journals (Case 2) indicates that the research field is rather small. What are the chances that an article will pass the peer-review process if the gatekeepers are admirers of the researcher whose work is criticized in the article being reviewed and/or have themselves uncritically cited the researcher’s alleged statistics?

Lausunto Strategialuonnoksesta

Esitämme seuraavassa kriittiset kommenttimme dokumentista, joka on otsikoitu ”Liikenneturvallisuusstrategia” (8.6.2021). Keskitymme vain dokumentin pääkohtiin lähinnä tieliikenteen osalta ja ilmeisimpiin väärinkäsityksiin tai virheisiin.

Strategia yleisessä merkityksessä tarkoittaa suunnitelmaa, jolla aiotaan päästä haluttuihin tavoitteisiin. Strategiassa on siis kuvattava, mitkä ovat tavoitteet, millä keinoilla niihin aiotaan päästä ja miten voidaan arvioida, onko päästy haluttuihin tavoitteisiin. Tavoitteiden ja keinojen välisen yhteyden tulee olla selvä ja eksplikoitu, ja tavoitteiden on oltava riittävän yksityiskohtaisesti kuvattuja, jotta strategiasta tulee uskottava ja jotta strategian tuloksellisuutta voidaan arvioida. Kaikkiin näihin kohtiin ei luonnoksesta löydy vastauksia.

Laaja-alainen strategia, joka kattaa kaikki liikennemuodot, on perusteltu, mutta uskottava ja tuloksellinen strategia vaatisi analyysin siitä, miten tulevaisuudessa edistetään turvallisimpien liikennemuotojen ja kulku-tapojen käyttöä. Liikkujien tavoitteena on toteuttaa liikenteen avulla erilaisia tarpeitaan ja silloin turvallisuuden kannalta keskiössä on matka ja miten se toteutetaan (tai voidaan olla jopa toteuttamatta). Jos esimerkiksi pitkien matkojen suorittamisessa käytetään enemmän junaa henkilöauton sijasta, sekä altistus että onnettomuusriski vähenevät. Tätä strategista näkökulmaa ei ole hyödynnetty turvallisuuden parantamiskeinona, ja samalla on menetetty yksi merkittävä strategisen tason turvallisuustoimenpide. Yleisemminkin Nilssonin esittämän ”turvallisuuskuution” ottaminen turvallisuusstrategian perustaksi olisi ollut hyödyllistä, koska sen avulla keskitytään olennaisiin turvallisuuteen vaikuttaviin näkökulmiin, eli miten voidaan vähentää (1) onnettomuusriskiä, (2) altistusta ja (3) onnettomuuksien vakavuutta.

Luku 2.1 Tieliikenne
Dokumentissa todetaan, että valtaosa tieliikenteessä kuolleista syntyy yksittäisonnettomuuksista, ohitus- ja kohtaamisonnettomuuksista sekä mopo-, polkupyöräily- ja jalankulkuonnettomuuksista. Strategian tulisi keskittyä ensisijaisesti näihin onnettomuustyyppeihin, mutta näin ei tapahdu. Vaikuttavuutta ei voi syntyä, ellei keskitytä vakavien liikenneonnettomuuksien suurimpiin lukumääriin. Keskittyminen tapauksiin, joissa onnettomuusriski (esimerkiksi onnettomuuksia/ikäluokka) voi olla suuri, mutta tapausten määrät vähäiset, ei johda tehokkaaseen onnettomuuksien määrän vähentämiseen.

Tutkijalautakunta-aineiston pohjalta ei voi tehdä määrällisiä vertailuja (s. 10) ihminen-ajoneuvo-liikenneym-päristö -järjestelmän osien riskeistä, ja tällainen vertailu voi johtaa vakaviin virhepäätelmiin, kuten tässä strategialuonnoksessa tapahtuu. Alalla on jo pitkään tiedetty, että olennaista on näiden osien vuorovaikutus ja että teknisillä toimenpiteillä saavutetaan yleisesti suurimmat ja pitkäkestoisimmat turvallisuusvaikutukset. Tekniset toimenpiteet voivat luonnollisesti kohdistua liikenneympäristöön tai ajoneuvoon ja näiden ja ihmisen välisiin suhteisiin. Olennaista on, että tällaiset tekniset toimenpiteet voidaan kohdistaa kaikkiin liikkujiin ja ne ohjaavat liikkujaa turvalliseen toimintaan.

Ikääntyneiden tarkastelu (s. 10) ei perustu ajankohtaiseen tutkimustietoon. Ikääntyneiden pitäminen liikenteen riskiryhmänä ja lääkärintarkastusten kohdistaminen tähän ikäryhmään on empiiristen tutkimusten perusteella tehotonta ja aiheuttaa pikemminkin onnettomuuksia kuin vähentää niitä.

Ajokyvyn ja ajoterveyden tarkastelu (s. 12) ei myöskään perustu ajankohtaisen tietoon, vaan heijastaa nykyistä lakia. Vaikka ajokyky ja ajoterveys ovat merkittäviä liikenneturvallisuuden kannalta, niin onnettomuuksien vähentäminen lääkärintarkastuksilla on ainakin toistaiseksi osoittautunut toimimattomaksi ratkaisuksi. Syynä ovat mm. ongelmat tarkastusten kohdistamisessa ajamisen kannalta relevantteihin tekijöihin sekä onnettomuuksien multikausaalisuus, jossa yksittäisellä tekijällä harvoin on hallitsevaa merkitystä.

Luku 3 Liikenneturvallisuusviranomaiset ja muut keskeiset toimijat sekä säädöspohja
Eniten huomio kiinnittyy siihen, että liikenneturvallisuusalan tutkimus loistaa kokonaan poissaolollaan. Noin kahden viimeisen vuosikymmenen kuluessa liikenneturvallisuustutkimuksen rahoitus on vähentynyt jyrkästi. Samalla liikenneturvallisuustutkijoiden määrä on vähentynyt ja alalta on hävinnyt kaksi liikennepsykologian yliopistoprofessuuria ja yksi liikenneturvallisuuden tutkimusprofessuuri sekä heidän johtamansa tutkimusryhmät. Tämän kehityksen myötä alan tieteellinen koulutus on myös hävinnyt lähes tyystin.

Luku 5 Kansainväliset esimerkit
Luvussa ei esitetä mitään informatiivista onnettomuustilastovertailua maihin, joissa tieliikenteen turvallisuus on selvästi parempi. Tällainen analyysi (joita on tehtykin) paljastaisi todennäköisesti Suomen keskeisiä ongelmakohtia ja osoittaisi selvästi, kuinka paljon Suomi on jäljessä liikenneturvallisuuden huippumaita. Dokumentissa keskitytään valitettavasti vain pieniin yksityiskohtiin.

Luku 6 Strategiset linjaukset ja tavoitteet vuosille 2022–2026
Luvussa esitetään 116 toimenpidettä. Herää kysymys, onko strategiassa perusteltua listata näin monta toimenpidettä. Vielä vaarallisempaa on se, ettei ainakaan tieliikenteen osalta palata mitenkään em. onnettomuustyyppeihin, jotka tuottavat suurimman osan tieliikenteessä kuolleista (ja vakavasti loukkaantuneista), eikä keskitytä ensisijaisesti juuri noiden onnettomuuksien estämiseen. Yleisempi ongelma on se, etteivät toimenpiteet näytä perustuvan mitenkään tutkittuun tietoon.

Luku 6.2 Päätöksenteon on perustuttava tietoon
Otsikon perusteella on pakko kysyä, keskitytäänkö luvussa strategisiin asioihin, kun luonnoksessa ei puututa mitenkään tieteellisen liikenneturvallisuustutkimuksen ja -koulutuksen kehittämiseen, mutta painotetaan sellaisia yksityiskohtia kuten esimerkiksi ”selvitetään, miten tasoristeysonnettomuuksissa tapahtuneista havainnointivirheistä voidaan kerätä tietoa myös muissa kuin onnettomuustilanteissa, tasoristeyksien turvallisuuden parantamiseksi”. Yksittäisten onnettomuustilastojen pitäminen riittävänä tietona osoittaa vakavaa asiantuntemuksen puutetta. Onnettomuuksia vähentävien keinojen tehokkuuden tunteminen (tieteellinen ja luotettava tutkimustieto) on välttämätöntä tehokkaan turvallisuustyön toteuttamisessa.

Kaikkiaan tutkitun, tieteellisen tiedon merkitys on ohitettu strategialuonnoksessa. Lähteinä lainataan toisten viranomaisten kokoomapapereita, ei tieteellisiä tutkimuksia. (Luonnoksen lähdeluettelossa on mainittu vain kolme tieteellistä tutkimusta.) Analyysit nollavision ja sen vaatiman strategisen päätöksenteon yhteyk-sistä puuttuvat kokonaan.

Luku 6.3 Eri toimijoiden liikenneosaamista on lisättävä
Luvussa todetaan ”on tärkeää, että osaamisesta ja taitojen kehittämisestä huolehditaan myös viranomais-ten ja eri ammattien piirissä”. Miten tämä on mahdollista, kun lähes kaikki alan yliopistotasoinen koulutus on ajettu alas? Eikö yksi olennainen kehityskohde ole lisätä alan yliopistotasoista opetusta, josta hyötyisivät viranomaiset, tutkijat ym. alalla toimivat.

Luku 6.4 Asenteiden on muututtava liikenteessä
Liikenneturvallisuustyössä on jo kauan ollut nyrkkisääntönä, että asenteita muuttamalla järjestelmän muut-taminen turvallisemmaksi on lähes ylivoimaisen haastavaa, mutta asenteet seuraavat perässä, kun kehite-tään järjestelmää. Tästä on näyttöä riittävästi ja tämän ovat todenneet tutkijat omassa raportissaan, jonka pohjalta asennekysymyksiä on käsitelty. Tätä asiaa ei ole otettu asiallisesti huomioon strategialuonnok-sessa.

Luku 7 Liikenneturvallisuusstrategian toteuttaminen ja seuranta
Luvussa on monia puutteita, jotka johtuvat em. asiakohtien puuttumisesta strategiasta, esimerkiksi luotet-tavan ja tieteellisesti perustellun tiedon ja osaamisen kehittämisen osalta.

Luku 8 Vaihtoehtoiset toimenpiteet
Luku esittää jälleen listan yksittäisistä toimenpiteistä. Jos näitä toimenpiteitä pidetään tärkeinä ja ne ovat johdettavissa ongelma-analyysistä, miksi ne eivät ole muiden toimenpiteiden joukossa?

Dokumentissa ei esitetä mitään vaikutusarviota, eli valittujen toimenpiteiden turvallisuusvaikutukset perustuvat ilmeisesti vain hyvään uskoon. Käytettävissä olisi ollut ns. vaikutuskertoimiin perustuvia työkaluja, joiden avulla turvallisuustoimenpiteiden vaikuttavuutta voidaan arvioida määrällisesti. Näin on toimittu useissa maissa ja myös Suomessa monien aikaisempien liikenneturvallisuussuunnitelmien yhteydessä.


Juha Luoma
professori, liikenneturvallisuustutkija

Esko Keskinen
liikennepsykologian professori (emeritus), Turun yliopisto

Timo Lajunen
professori, NTNU, Norja

Igor Radun
liikennepsykologian dosentti, Helsingin yliopisto

Sirpa Ansavuori
liikennepsykologian dosentti, Helsingin yliopisto

Is your hate motivating your academic career?

A well-known journalist (“Press Gazette Transport Journalist of the Year 2018”) Carlton Reid has recently interviewed a well-known researcher John Pucher (“Professor Emeritus in the Urban Planning and Policy Development”).

Of all things Pucher said in that interview, Reid has picked the following when tweeting about the interview: “’I have been a hater of cars for my entire life,’ John Pucher says in the podcast. ’That was what motivated my entire academic career.’”

I was shocked. And still am. There is no doubt we live in a car-centric world. The cars’ negative impact on the environment and health are also well researched and documented. Compared to other modes of transportation (e.g., cycling, public transportation), private car driving almost always comes the last in any cost-benefit analysis. However, there are some problematic issues in how these cost-benefit analyses are performed.

For example, in the well-publicized (e.g., press release by Pyöräliitto) study “The Social Cost of Automobility, Cycling and Walking in the European Union,” only costs were considered, except health benefits, which were zero for car driving and large for cycling. “Quality of life, branding and tourism” were mentioned, but no values were included in the analysis because of the lack of studies on the topic. This means the benefits (e.g., quality of life) of car driving are not very well understood. Further research is needed in order to understand all costs and benefits of different modes of transportation. This requires a balanced approach.

Nevertheless, let’s say that the invention of a motor vehicle has been indeed detrimental for human kind and that a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis would show that the costs for a society have been higher than benefits. Is that good enough reason for a researcher to say ’I have been a hater of cars for my entire life and that motivated my entire academic career’?

There are a few research topics one can say they hate. For example, everyone hates cancer. I do. A researcher can say “I hate cancer and that motivated my entire academic career.”  All will understand that. A researcher could say also “I hate racism and that motivated my entire academic career.” We will understand that. However, such researchers should be conscious about their strong motivation and the negative effects it can have on their work. I will mention here only an observer bias.

On the other hand, how would we react if a researcher would say “I have been a hater of neuroticism/vaccines/Roman law/planes/bicycle helmets for my entire life and that motivated my entire academic career.’ Would we expect a balanced and unbiased approach from that researcher? Probably not. Or perhaps we would agree with them based on our own views about a particular topic?

Hating an object of your research is a sign of serious bias. The hate towards cars was present throughout the entire interview.

“Okay. Um, I have been a hater of cars from my entire life. And that was what I was actually motivated my entire academic career.”

“There’s some people who like cars and I hate them.”

“I hate Trump even more than cars. And that’s a lot.”

We all have values. We all have our hypotheses and expectations. We might struggle with own biases in our research. However, hate is dangerous. It is very difficult to be unbiased if you hate. Hate also leads to discrimination. If you hate cars, do you also hate those who drive them? A few billion people? I wonder how these researchers who hate cars behave behind the scenes, for example, as peer-reviewers. Hate should not motivate your academic career. Please leave academia if you hate the topic of your research.


Update on 15.5.2021

Here is an explanation Pucher gave for his car hate:

As I wrote on Twitter, I think this is a disgrace to science. My friend was equally critical: “A thief thinks everyone else are thieves also. Otherwise the moral dilemma would be too big to handle.” Justifying own hate and consequent bias by saying that other scientists are not even aware of their own biases is not only unethical according to scientific standards, it is also morally wrong according to any standard. This is just like saying “I believe most people are implicitly racist, so that gives me a reason/permission/justification I can be explicitly racist. I am at least honest about my racism; others don’t even know they are racists.” This is shocking to say the least. Nevertheless, the journalist refers to this researcher as one “of the world’s leading cycling-for-all academics.” Once again, shared values and goals have priority over good research ethics and practices.

An anonymous person has commented below that I hate cycling. That can’t be further from the truth; however, I am not going to defend myself. I will just remind a reader about what I write here and on twitter. I write about:

These represent a pattern of dodgy behavior. I sincerely apologize for writing about this pattern.


Uncritical citations of the alleged 20:1 benefit-to-cost ratio of cycling

I and three of my colleagues have written a commentary (Radun et al., 2019) about a widely quoted statistic regarding the health benefits of cycling (BMA, 1992; Hillman 1992, 1993) that we believed is misleading. Our review of the source material identified no supporting data or analysis for this statistic. Our paper still remains a preprint because… more about it in my oncoming text.

In this blog text, I list a number of uncritical citations of the alleged 20:1 ratio. As you will see, not only the ratio was uncritically cited in scientific papers, blogs, Wikipedia, it has also been used in public policy discussions. Please note this is not a shaming list… I make it to strengthen our article.


(Peer-reviewed) articles

de Jong, in an assessment of the societal health benefit of bicycle helmet laws, used the 20:1 ratio as a reference point. We mentioned this citation in our paper because de Jong’s paper has been rather influential.
Dorothy Robinson mentions the 20:1 ratio in the abstract of her paper opposing helmet legislation. Moreover, she cites another Hillman’s paper  in which he refers to the conference proceedings paper as a source for the 20:1 ratio. So this represents the second-hand citation of the alleged finding.
Adams and Hillman in their famous commentary “The risk compensation theory and bicycle helmets.” Please note that this publication is a commentary, not an empirical study as many imply. It is not even a review.
Kay Teschke et al. mentioned the alleged 20:1 ratio in their paper “Bicycling: Health Risk or Benefit?
Rachel Aldred cites the alleged 20:1 ratio in her paper “Cycling near misses: Their frequency, impact, and prevention.” This is somewhat neutral citation because Aldred writes “An oft-quoted, albeit questionable (Woodcock et al., 2014) statistic suggests health benefits outweigh risks to the individual by 20–1 (Hillman, 1993).” However, I was not able to find anything about the alleged ratio in Woodcock et al., 2014.
Colin F Clarke cites the alleged 20:1 ratio in his paper “Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law.” As Robinson, Clarke cites the alleged finding in the abstract.
Thomas J. De Marco in his article “The use of bicycle helmets should not be mandatory.
Joerg Schweizera & Federico Rupia in their paper “Performance evaluation of extreme bicycle scenarios
Lovelace R, Roberts H, and Kellar I in their article “Who, where, when: the demographic and geographic distribution of bicycle crashes in West Yorkshire
Rony Blank-Gomel in
Re-assembling automobility: bicycle helmets and the risks of cycling in the US, 1970-1995
Kathryn Stewart, Transport Research Institute, Edinburgh Napier University, United Kingdom
Adrian McHale, RPS Group, Newark, United Kingdom
Bicycling and Transportation Demand Management
By Todd Litman
Greg Smith in “Cars Crush Cycling: How hegemonic motor culture prevents rational choice in urban transport.”
for Electronic Journal: Social Issues
Colin Clarke in his text “The case against bicycle helmets and legislation
Carwyn Hooper and John Spicer in their “Liberty or death; don’t tread on me” in Journal of Medical Ethics
Annie Elkins in her paper “On your bike!” cites
Cavill N, Davis A. Cycling & Health. What’s the evidence? European Cyclists Federation; 2007.
as the source for the alleged 20:1 ratio.
This one is also very interesting. “The most thorough effort…”
Conor C.O. Reynolds, Meghan Winters, Francis J. Ries, Brian Gouge
David Pimente in “Cycling, Safety, And Victim-Blaming: Toward A Coherent Public Policy For Bicycling In 21st Century America
Dorothy Robinson in another opinion paper about helmet laws.
John Pucher: “The role of public policies in promoting the safety, convenience & popularity of bicycling
Francesca Racioppi, Carlos Dora and Harry Rutter: “Urban Settings and Opportunities for Healthy Lifestyles: Rediscovering Walking and Cycling and Understanding Their Health Benefits
more to come
more to come
more to come
more to come
more to come
more to come
more to come
more to come
more to come
more to come
more to come
more to come
more to come

Public policy discussions

Chris Rissel cited the alleged 20:1 ratio in his response to the Australian Senate Standing Committee on Economics inquiry into Personal Choices and Community Impact regarding bicycle helmet laws.
Mayer Hillman cites himself in his statement submitted to a Northern Ireland Committee for the Environment Report, where the focus was on Cyclists (Protective Headgear).
The Finnish Cyclists’ Federation uses it in their argument to repeal an existing bicycle helmet law. Their text is in Finnish and here is my  unofficial translation: “The helmet use regulation provides an image of cycling as a particularly risky activity, which reduces the attractiveness of cycling. However, cycling is not particularly dangerous compared to, for example, pedestrians, and because of the health benefits as it has been shown the benefits of cycling exceed the risks 20 times [Hillman M. Cycling and the Promotion of Health. Policy Studies Vol. 14, 49-58, 1993).”
Dr Nigel Perry’s submission to Australia’s Senate Economics References Committee.
CTC the national cyclists’ organisation in their submission to the UK Parliament committee.
Jim Pravetz in “Review of Bicycle Policy and Planning Developments in Western Europe and North America” for Office of Transport Policy and Planning
Government of South Australia
The alleged 20:1 ratio found its place even in WHO publication. Transport, environment and health / edited by Carlos Dora and Margaret Phillips
British Medical Association in their “Healthy transport = Healthy lives”
POLIS – European Cities and Regions networking for innovative transport solution and EUROCITIES in their “MANUAL INCLUDING THEMATIC GUIDELINES AND HANDBOOK FOR LOCAL CAMPAIGNERS
Submission to the Western Australian Parliamentary Inquiry on Personal Choice and Community
Safety Topic: mandatory bicycle helmet laws
by Dr. Sundance Bilson-Thompson October 5, 2018
Prof Chris Oliver in his opinion piece submitted to Australian Bicycle Network regarding their Mandatory Helmet Review.
Chris Gillham, owner of
in his opinion piece submitted to Australian Bicycle Network regarding their Mandatory Helmet Review.
James Steward in his opinion piece submitted to Australian Bicycle Network regarding their Mandatory Helmet Review.
European Commission cites ECF’s publication as a source for the 20:1 ratio.
The alleged 20:1 ratio is so widely accepted… that no citation is needed.
Brighton & Hove City council->
Phillip Jacobs to the members of the Slovenian Parliament
The Department of Health and Department for Transport have jointly published a new Active Travel Strategy
“Raising the Profile of Walking and Cycling in New Zealand was produced by the Ministry of Transport in association with Brunton Grant Consulting.”
Somerset Future Transport Plan (FTP). Cycling strategy
Catriona O’Dolan and Kathryn Stewart, Transport Research Institute, Edinburgh Napier University, and Reggie Tricker, Edinburgh City Council in their “Evaluating the Impact of Innovative Cycling Measures in EU cycling cities
This is in Polish. Google translates “Studies show that the years of life gained from cycling outweigh the years lost due to accidents by a ratio of 20: 1.”
MP Józef Lassota to the minister of justice.
Achieving a Cycling-Friendly Ireland
A National Cycling Promotion Policy
Something in Serbo-Croatian language from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Those (Center for Environment) were lobbying for the helmet law repeal:
Trent Piepho during King county board of health meeting proceedings, May 16, 2003, King County Council Chamber
about Bicycle Helmets
Scottish Forum For Public Health Medicine in their “Health Related Physical Activity
Colin Clarke in his Submission to the Parliament of Victoria March 2013 Road Safety Committee – Inquiry into serious injury in motor vehicle accidents
Joyce et al. Best Practices in State Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning: A Guide for Plan Preparation
“Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities” Transportation Research Board, 2003
more to come
more to come
more to come
more to come


Books, master thesis etc.

Chris Rissel in a book chapter “Health benefits of cycling.” The book is “Cycling futures.”
Dave Horton in a book chapter “Fear of Cycling.”
The book is “Cycling and Society” edited by Dave Horton, Paul Rosen, Peter Cox
Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at a Time
By Jeff Speck
“How to Live Dangerously: The Hazards of Helmets, the Benefits of Bacteria, and the Risks of Living Too Safe”
by Warwick Cairns
Richard Burton in MSc thesis “Do cyclists have an exaggerated perception of the effectiveness of cycle helmets and the risks of cycling?
Transport Planning at the University of the West of England, Bristol.
Cecilie Buch Thomsen in her thesis “Can Denmark Teach the World How to Ride a Bike?
The Transportation Research Board in their “Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, Part 16
Ken Spence in a book “Sustainable Transport
edited by R Tolley
A Davis, N Cavill, M Wardlaw, J Mindell
in “Physical Activity, Trends in Walking & Cycling & the Obesity Epidemic.”They are all (except Cavill) from Transport and Health Science Group (“opposes cycle helmet legislation”) & involved as editors/board members in JTH which rejected our paper;-)
Hildegard Resinger and Haritz Ferrando in “Do Cyclists Need Mandatory Helmets?
Everything Under the Sun: Toward a Brighter Future on a Small Blue Planet” By David Suzuki, Ian Hanington
David Suzuki & Ian Hanington in a book “Just Cool It!: The Climate Crisis and What We Can Do – A Post-Paris Agreement Game”
the same text appeared in their book “Everything Under the Sun: Toward a Brighter Future on a Small Blue Planet”
I already cited.
Master thesis “Planning the Last-Mile: Improving urban freight delivery using cyclelogistics
by Dennis Aaron Dixon
Vancouver Island University
Bicycle Crashes in New Zealand” by Kerry Wood
C. Banwell et al., Weight of Modernity: An Intergenerational Study of the Rise of Obesity
Are you a cyclist or do you cycle? The language of promoting cycling” by Glen Koorey
Johnson, M (2011). Cyclist safety: an investigation of how cyclists and drivers interact on the roads. PhD thesis, Monash University.
Paul Tranter & Rodney Tolley in Slow Cities: Conquering our Speed Addiction for Health and Sustainability
Tomorrow’s World: Britain’s Share in a Sustainable Future By Duncan McLaren, Simon Bullock, Nusrat Yousuf
Encyclopedia of Environmental Health
Rony Blank-Gomel copy/paste the text from his article (see above) into his doctoral thesis
more to come
more to come
more to come



Wikipedia, blogs, newspapers etc.


Of course, the ratio has found its place in Wikipedia
Moving Beyond Zero have the alleged 20:1 ration on their front page.
The European Cyclists’ Federation cite the alleged 20:1 ratio in their Helmet factsheet.
Dorothy Robinson for in her paper “Helmet Laws: creating consensus from controversy and contradictions.
Adrian Davis and Nick Antony Cavill in “Cycling and Health; What’s the evidence?
This is tragicomic: anti-helmet (law)? people who were editing Wikipedia pages about bicycle helmets didn’t find Hillman’s 20:1 ratio good enough for Wikipedia, while a number of researchers cite this ratio in their scientific publications.
BMJ published an opinion piece in which the author writes: “Overall, people get an estimated 20:1 life years gained due to the benefits of cycling versus life years lost through injuries.”
& cites Cycling UK brochure as a source
Cycling UK in their “Cycle helmets: An overview of the evidence.
Article “A chain reaction” in the Guardian.
A blog written by a board member of the Finnish Cyclists’ Federation (Pyöräliitto) also cited the alleged 20:1 ratio.
Novonordisk in their “Triple Bottom Line approach to business” magazine.
Here we have something in Swedish. “Den byggda miljöns påverkan på fysisk aktivitet.
C40 (a network of the world’s megacities committed to addressing climate change) in their “Benefits of Climate Action
The ratio appears in so many blogs. This blog of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association uses a second-hand citation.
Luke Turner “Member of Helmet Freedom ( and a former investment banker” in his text “Australia’s helmet law disaster”
“The figure most often quoted is 20:1…”
Cambridge Cycling Campaign are absolutely right about that!
Hillman cites himself in his Keynote address for MAKING CYCLING VIABLE, New Zealand Cycling Symposium 2000: 14-15 July 2000, 24/7/2000
Paul Foster “Misreading hazards” Daily Telegraph Connected 13 March 1998
The official account of British Cycling with 173.8K followers. That’s how “the truth” gets spread.
more to come



“We subconsciously consider cycling more dangerous when we see a cyclist decked out in safety gear.” Is it really so?

Yes, it happened again. Twitter has just gotten a new favorite study. The study “shows” that “we subconsciously consider cycling more dangerous when we see a cyclist decked out in safety gear.” And that of course means we should “forget the hi-vis and helmet argument.”

In this text, I offer my understanding of the study. First I describe the study and the attention it has received, and then I explain why in my view the study provides no support for the above conclusions.

1. The study.  The idea was to “determine whether the clothing a cyclist is shown wearing in an image would affect respondents’ judgement of the safety and social acceptability of cycling, and whether it would affect the likelihood that they will associate the image with exercise or sport.”

The task was to sort five cards (“with a photo of the same model either walking, cycling, on a bus, in a taxi, or driving a car”) in order from the least safe to the most safe. All cards were identical except for the photo of the cyclist.

“Card Set A showed the cyclist in clothing comparable to that worn by the model in the RSA videos: a high visibility jacket, helmet and sports clothes (from here on referred to as RSA Style for convenience). Card Set B showed the cyclist in everyday clothing (Appendix 7).”

The main result is depicted in the figure below. Note that numbers are actually percentages.


2. The text for RTÉ (the website of Raidió Teilifís Éireann, Ireland’s National Public Service Media)

The study was a bachelor thesis ‘published’ in 2017 and it was apparently presented on several conferences/meetings. However, it seems it got the most attention after the author published a text for RTE.

The author has summarized her thesis, offered a few analogies, argued that “The predictable arguments about the merits of cycling safety gear is a red herring” and concluded “Let’s forget the hi-vis and helmet argument.”


3. Twitter. In less than 24 hours, the RTE text has received a lot of attention on Twitter. It is used as an argument against using hi-vis and helmets. I predict this study will be repeatedly used against any promotion of cycling safety gears.


My view about the study.

1. Randomization. The participants were recruited at five different locations:

“The first batch of responses came from a knitting group.
The second batch of responses were from the eating area in the nursing building in DkIT at 11am.
The third batch of responses was from parents waiting for their children to finish a lesson at a martial arts school on a Saturday morning.
The fourth batch of responses came from visitors to the food court in a shopping centre on a Friday morning, again with good variety in ages
The final batch of responses were gathered from students and staff in the main restaurant in DkIT at lunchtime on a Monday.”

I have found no information about how these participants were assigned to one of the two groups. The number of participants was 73 so it would be of interest to know more about the “randomization.”


2. How instructions were administered. I am tired of writing about the experimenter effect, but if you have a fully informed experimenter who recruits people and verbally (?) instructs them how to perform a task…


3. Descriptive data. The author keeps writing that there was a difference between two conditions (i.e., safety gears make cycling look more dangerous); however, this conclusion is based on descriptive statistics only.

I was not able to find the exact number of participants in each condition, but assuming the number was very similar, I  “reproduced” her data and performed a statistical analysis.

Neither of two applied tests showed association between the rating and condition: P-values were 0.5144 (gamma test) and 0.6290 (Cochran-Armitage Trend Test). As a funny observation (if we focus only on percentages and ignore statistical tests), it is actually that the cyclist in ordinary clothes was judged to be less safe: 92% (22+70) vs. 89% (11+78) :)))))



In my view, the study provides no evidence that “We subconsciously consider cycling more dangerous when we see a cyclist decked out in safety gear.” Furthermore, cycling, irrespective of the look of the cyclist, was considered least or next least safe. This accounted for about 90% of both groups, so I think it’s quite misleading what the author and Irish media have claimed. Unfortunately, I predict that anti helmet (law) people will endlessly share this study on Twitter and elsewhere. It has happened before.


I give up…on this

This text (i.e., announcement) is inspired by this tweet.

Anyone who reads Finnish newspapers and is active in social media will know that many people are not happy with the way police and media report on cycling crashes. People are not happy when they read, for example, “the car hit the pedestrian/cyclist.” They would rather like to see “the car driver hit the pedestrian/cyclist with his/her car.” They also don’t like when the media/police report whether a cyclist wore a helmet or not. They call it ‘victim blaming.’ There are also several research papers on this topic (ask me and I will share them with you).

As a traffic safety researcher whose aim is (also) to increase mutual respect between different road users, I believe something could and should be done about this. When I say this, I don’t mean that those who complain are indeed right; I mean that this issue should be addressed because it continues to produce strong emotional reactions. So my idea was to organize a one-day seminar consisting of several presentations and a panel discussion.

I had made a preliminary outline and have been trying to find partners and sponsors – as a one-man research group with limited (read: zero) funding I cannot organize it myself. I had no success. Perhaps I haven’t tried hard enough, perhaps I contacted wrong organizations and people…perhaps I am not the right person to push this. Therefore, I give up. I hope someone more qualified and skillful will take over and organize this. I am out. Good luck.

Please note that I haven’t asked any of these people…this is just what I had in mind.

8:30–9:00 Coffee and registration
9:00–9:15 Opening words, welcome (Igor Radun and XX)
9:15–10:00 Keynote: Katri Saarikivi, empathy researcher, University of Helsinki
10:00–10:15 Someone from Council for Mass Media (Julkisen sanan neuvosto)
10:15–10:30 Pasi Anteroinen, Director, Liikenneturva – Finnish Road Safety Council
10:30–10:45 Matti Koistinen, Pyöräliitto – Finnish Cyclists’ Federation
10:45–11:00 Igor Radun, Docent of traffic psychology, University of Helsinki (in English, traffic safety perspective)
11:00–11:15 Someone from Police
11:15–11:30 Someone from Autoliitto – the Automobile and Touring Club of Finland
11:30–11:45 Someone from professional drivers’ organizations (AKT or Rahtarit)
11:45–12:00 Prosecutor
12:00–12:45 Lunch
12:45–13:30 Keynote talk: a professor about communication
13:30–15:00 Panel discussion (is there a need to make a guideline for media?)


An update on 1.10.2020.

A few days ago, a draft Road Collision Reporting Guidelines has been published in the UK. “The draft guidelines are produced by the University of Westminster’s Active Travel Academy in collaboration with national roads policing, academics and experts in the field, road safety charities, and the National Union of Journalists’ ethics council, and advised by IMPRESS.”

It didn’t take too long that those excluded from these consultations start complaining. Of course they would because they were excluded. And of course a journalist who was involved in preparing of this document got the space in the Guardian… because she works for them.


And there you can see a difference between activism and genuinely trying to solve the problem(s). I wanted to organize a seminar and gather ALL interested parties, which include: cycling activists, journalists and media experts, police and prosecutors, representatives of professional and other driver organizations, researchers with background in communication, empathy and traffic safety ETC. The aim was to reach a consensus before going public with guidelines.

And what we have now? Heated discussion on Twitter accusing the authors of bias. More accusations and blames, more hate… Is that want we want?



Igor Radunin lausunto luonnokseen Koti- ja vapaa-ajan tapaturmien ehkäisyn tavoiteohjelmasta vuosille 2021–2030

Olin mukana kahdessa tieliikenneonnettomuuksien asiantuntijatyöryhmässä (työikäiset ja iäkkäät) ja tässä lausunnossa haluan tarjota näkemykseni yleisesti tieliikenneonnettomuuksien ehkäisyn ja tutkimuksen tilaan. Kuten tämän lausunnon lopusta näkyy (Liite 1), olin Tieliikenneonnettomuudet-asiantuntijatyöryhmissä ainoa yliopistotutkija, jonka työ keskittyy täysin liikenneturvallisuuteen. Muut mukana olleet henkilöt, mukaan lukien muut yliopistotutkijat, olivat myös asiantuntijoita ja heidän panoksensa oli epäilyksettä ehdottoman tärkeä. Haluan tässä kuitenkin keskittyä vähenevään liikenneturvallisuuden asiantuntijuuteen Suomen yliopistoissa, koskien erityisesti liikennepsykologiaa. Nähdäkseni tällainen asiantuntijuus on välttämätöntä tieliikenneonnettomuuksien ehkäisemisohjelmissa sekä liikenneturvallisuuden parantamisessa.

Vielä vähän aikaa sitten Suomessa oli kaksi liikennepsykologian professuuria ja yksi liikennelääketieteen professuuri. Liikennepsykologian professoreiden eläköidyttyä professuurit ovat menneet muille painotuksille, mikä on johtanut heidän ryhmiensä hajoamiseen. Liikennelääketieteen professuurin kohtalo Helsingin yliopistossa on tällä hetkellä avoin Timo Tervon eläköidyttyä. Tämä tarkoittaa, että haasteena on liikenneturvallisuustutkimuksen jatkuvuus ja uusien tutkimusryhmien muodostaminen on erittäin vaikeaa. Koko rahoitus (palkat, yleiskustannukset ja tutkimuskulut) täytyy kattaa ulkopuolisella rahoituksella. Tämä aiheuttaa alalla haastetta erityisesti kahdesta syystä.

Ensimmäinen syy on, että tutkimusrahoitusta jakavat tieteelliset säätiöt käsittävät liikennepsykologisen ja liikenneturvallisuustutkimuksen usein liian soveltavaksi heidän rahoitettavakseen. Tieteellisillä säätiöillä ei yleensä ole kiinnostusta rahoittaa projekteja, jotka koskisivat esimerkiksi kevytautolainsäädännön vaikutuksia liikenneturvallisuuteen. Tämä valitettavasti tarkoittaa sitä, että yliopistotutkijat voivat harvoin suoraan osallistua liikenneturvallisuuden parantamiseen Suomessa, koska heidän tulee ohjata tutkimuskysymyksensä alueille, joita tieteelliset säätiöt rahoittavat. Lisäksi tällainen tieteellinen rahoitus ei kata osallistumista liikenneturvallisuustyöryhmiin, yleisten lausuntojen antamista tai osallistumista yleisten dokumenttien tekoon, kuten luonnokseen Koti- ja vapaa-ajan tapaturmien ehkäisyn tavoiteohjelmasta vuosille 2021–2030. Nämä vievät aikaa, mutta näihin projektityöntekijät (kuten minä) eivät saa rahoitusta. Aika on poissa projekteilta tai vapaa-ajasta.

Toinen syy on, että liikenneturvallisuusprojekteille jaettava rahoitus on selkeästi aiempaa keskitetympää. Traficom on päärahoittaja ja tyypillisesti tilaa projekteja, joiden arvioidaan olevan ministeriön/hallituksen linjausten mukaisia. Yliopiston lisäkustannuskertoimet tilaustutkimukselle ovat erittäin korkeat, mikä tarkoittaa sitä, että yliopistotutkijat eivät pysty kilpailemaan konsulttifirmojen kanssa. Tilatut projektit rajoittavat myös tutkijoiden luovuutta ja vapautta, koska tutkimusaiheet ja usein myös tutkimuskysymykset ovat etukäteen määriteltyjä. Tämä keskitetty ja kohdistettu rahoitus voi myös aiheuttaa tutkijoille taakan toimittaa mitä heiltä on pyydetty. Mieti seuraavaa esimerkkiä: Jos Liikenne ja viestintäministeriö ajaa tiettyä lakialoitetta (esim. kevytautot), mikä on todennäköisyys, että Traficom rahoittaa projektia, joka suhtautuu kevytautoihin epäilevästi. Ja jos (yliopisto)tutkijan ura/rahoitus riippuu Traficomin rahoituksesta, tämä voi olla hänelle dilemma.

Yliopistotutkijoiden työ ei ole seurata vallalla olevaa poliittista agendaa tai muutakaan ideologiaa. Heidän toimenkuvaansa kuuluu yleisön ja tieteen sanelemien tavoitteiden tutkiminen. Heillä on myös velvollisuus viestittää löydöksensä maailmalle. Konsulttien tekemät tilaustutkimukset julkaistaan lähes aina vain suomeksi, eivätkä ne saavuta kansainvälisen tieteellisen yhteisön tietoisuutta, koska konsulttiyrityksillä ei ole kiinnostusta julkaista tieteellisissä vertaisarvioiduissa julkaisuissa. Vaikka lähes kaikki tilaustutkimus koskee vain Suomea, löydökset ovat kuitenkin kansainvälisesti kiinnostavia ja jaettavissa. Omien menetelmien testaaminen kansainvälisessä tieteellisessä yhteisössä on osa tutkimuksen tekemistä.

Rahoitushaasteiden lisäksi liikennepsykologian professuurien katoaminen tarkoittaa, että liikennepsykologian kurssit on poistettu opinto-ohjelmasta. Kuitenkin monet tulevat psykologit ja lääkärit tulevat kohtaamaan liikenneturvallisuuteen liittyviä aiheita urallaan. Esimerkiksi Psykologiliitolla on lista 161 liikennepsykologista (Psykologi-lehti 2/2020 – katso kuva). Monet psykologit myös työskentelevät valtion organisaatioissa tai valtion rahoittamista organisaatioissa kuten Traficom, OTI, Liikenneturva jne. Tämä tarkoittaa, että koulutus vähenee myös näiden tulevaisuuden asiantuntijoiden kohdalla.

Liikennepsykologian professuurin ja virkaan liittyvien tutkimusryhmien puuttuminen tarkoittaa myös, että kun toimittajat kirjoittavat liikenneturvallisuudesta he eivät voi käyttää riippumattomia yliopistotutkijoita tieteellisen taustatiedon kartoittamiseen ja he tyypillisesti haastattelevat virkamiehiä sekä erilaisten etujärjestöjen edustajia. Usein toimittajat antavat enemmän tilaa sosiaalisessa mediassa esillä oleville ihmisille kuin yliopistotutkijoille (koska heitä ei juuri ole). Tämä voi mielestäni vaikuttaa huomattavasti liikenneturvallisuuteen, erityisesti lisääntyneeseen vihamielisyyteen eri tienkäyttäjäryhmien välillä.

Yhteenvetona, yliopistotutkijat ovat tärkeitä riippumattomia asiantuntijoita, kun ajatellaan tutkimusideoiden luomista, tutkimuksen tekemistä, liikenneturvallisuusmääräysten muovaamista sekä tiettyjen vastatoimien ehdottamista, sekä näiden seurausten tarkastelua. He pystyvät toimimaan lähteinä tasapainoiselle, kriittiselle ja kattavalle katsaukselle ajantasaiseen tieteelliseen kirjallisuuteen. Heidän riippumattomuutensa takaaminen mahdollistaa laadukkaan ja luovan tutkimuksen myös kansainvälisellä tasolla, joka ei riipu sen hetkisistä poliittisista päämääristä tai liikenneturvallisuusmääräyksistä. Kriittinen ajattelu on ensisijaista ja sitä pitäisi varjella yliopistoissa. Tieliikenneonnettomuuksien vaikutus yhteiskunnassa on valtava ja tämän merkityksen tulisi heijastua aiheelle annettuun painoarvoon Suomen yliopistoissa.

Edellä mainituista syistä ehdotan, että ministeriö (joko yksin tai yhteistyössä muiden ministeriöiden kanssa) harkitsee seuraavia ehdotuksia tärkeänä toimena liikenneturvallisuuden parantamisessa Suomessa (esimerkiksi Koti- ja vapaa-ajan tapaturmien ehkäisyn tavoiteohjelmassa):

– Perustaisi riippumattoman, mutta valtion rahoittaman, liikenneturvallisuuden tutkimusinstituutin.
– Lahjoittaisi rahoitusta yliopistoille liikennepsykologian professuureihin tai apulaisprofessuureihin.
– Perustaisi rahoitusohjelman liikenneturvallisuustutkimukselle Suomessa. Puolet rahoituksesta tulisi osoittaa projekteille, joiden aiheet on määritelty suoraan liikenneturvallisuuspolitiikan mukaisesti ja puolet rahoituksesta tutkijoiden itsensä ehdottamille projekteille (vrt. entinen Lintu-ohjelma).


Liite 1.

Koti- ja vapaa-ajan tapaturmien ehkäisyn tavoiteohjelma vuosille 2021–2030 raportin toimittajat sekä asiantuntijaryhmien jäsenet:

Ulla Korpilahti, THL
Riitta Koivula, THL
Persephone Doupi, THL
Pirjo Lillsunde, STM

Lapset ja nuoret
Mikko Karhunen, yli-insinööri, LVM,
Pia Kola-Torvinen, opetusneuvos, OPH,
Pirjo Lillsunde, neuvotteleva virkamies, STM,
Laura Loikkanen, suunnittelija, Liikenneturva,
Kati Mikkola, opetusneuvos, OPH,
Inkeri Parkkari, johtava asiantuntija, Trafi,
Riikka Rajamäki, erityisasiantuntija, Traficom,
Petteri Tuominen, insinöörimajuri, Puolustusvoimat.

Mia Koski, suunnittelija, Liikenneturva,
Matti Koistinen, toiminnanjohtaja, Pyöräliitto,
Jyrki Kaistinen, suunnittelija, Liikenneturva,
Helena Suomela, asiantuntija, Motiva,
Kalle Parkkari, liikenneturvallisuusjohtaja, OTI,
Inkeri Parkkari, johtava asiantuntija, Traficom,
Riikka Rajamäki, erityisasiantuntija, Traficom,
Anne Silla, tutkimuspäällikkö, VTT,
Eija Pyyhtiä, asiantuntija, Helsingin kaupunki,
Heikki Kallio, poliisitarkastaja, Poliisihallitus,
Kristiina Juntunen, lehtori, Jamk,
Henna Nikumaa, vanhuusoikeuden yliopisto-opettaja, UEF,
Jari Lepistö, pelastusylitarkastaja, SM,
Kai Valonen, johtava tutkija, OTKES,
Igor Radun, yliopistotutkija, HY,
Noora Airaksinen, apulaisosastopäällikkö, Sitowise,
Maija Rekola, erikoisasiantuntija, LVM, Mirjami Silvennoinen, asiantuntija, Helsingin kaupunki.

Mia Koski, suunnittelija, Liikenneturva,
Matti Koistinen, toiminnanjohtaja, Pyöräliitto,
Jyrki Kaistinen, suunnittelija, Liikenneturva,
Helena Suomela, asiantuntija, Motiva,
Kalle Parkkari, liikenneturvallisuusjohtaja, OTI,
Inkeri Parkkari, johtava asiantuntija, Traficom,
Riikka Rajamäki, erityisasiantuntija, Traficom,
Anne Silla, tutkimuspäällikkö, VTT,
Eija Pyyhtiä, asiantuntija, Helsingin kaupunki,
Heikki Kallio, poliisitarkastaja, Poliisihallitus,
Kristiina Juntunen, lehtori, Jamk,
Henna Nikumaa, vanhuusoikeuden yliopisto-opettaja, UEF,
Jari Lepistö, pelastusylitarkastaja, SM,
Kai Valonen, johtava tutkija, OTKES,
Igor Radun, yliopistotutkija, HY,
Noora Airaksinen, apulaisosastopäällikkö, Sitowise,
Maija Rekola, erikoisasiantuntija, LVM,
Mirjami Silvennoinen, asiantuntija, Helsingin kaupunki.

Own awards and own journals: what could possibly go wrong?

I have already written about what happens when “a small group of academics decides to reward or ‘shame’ journalists for their reporting on the same issues these academics cover in their research.” Now I describe what happens when a small group (of the same) academics establishes an ‘own’ scientific journal.

The old case: In short, I nominated a journalist for his, in my view, awful article (Reid, 2018) about bicycle helmets for the Active Travel Academy’s Media “People’s choice awards (worst reporting).” However, the “People’s choice awards” have not been awarded and they disappeared from the Active Travel Academy’s webpage as if they had never existed. After my repeated questions, I received a somewhat unsubtle impugning of nominator’s (or my?) motives: “Thanks for your interest. We decided not to run it, due to a lack of nominations. Two of us organised the whole thing over a short time, but perhaps we’ll be able to do more next year. Should we run it in future any nominations will need good cause, not just someone with a grudge.”

The new case. People at the Active Travel Academy have recently established a new journal. It’s called Active Travel Studies. We submitted a commentary paper that shows how a single report, despite the absence of supporting data, has been repeatedly cited as if it were proven and how this may have influenced public policy regarding cycling safety. Before submitting it, I had requested permission from the EiC according to the journal’s guidelines. After EiC granted his permission, I submitted the paper.

After 25 days, I received a rejection letter with a few explanatory paragraphs. I thought it was a standard desk-rejection; however, I was puzzled by EiC’s words “We have reviewed and discussed it” knowing that according to the online submission system the paper had not been sent out for review. After several emails, it became apparent that the paper was reviewed by the editorial board members who decided to reject it without external review. Nothing unusual as many journals employ such procedures; however, in this case, this is problematic on at least two accounts.

The journal’s guidelines state that “If suitable experts external to the journal cannot be found then members of the Editorial Board may be asked to complete a review task.” I am clueless about why EiC has decided to perform the peer-review ‘in-house’ and not follow the journal’s guidelines which are very clear about this. Was there any specific reason why EiC was unable to make a decision on his own and desk-reject the paper or seek outside peer-review? My submission was probably the first submission the journal has ever received so it is even more puzzling why EiC decided not to follow the rules they set themselves. A nice start for the new journal.

Another problematic issue with the ‘in-house’ peer-review is another rule to which the journal and its editorial board have pledged to: “The journal operates a double-blind peer review process, meaning that authors and reviewers remain anonymous for the review process.” The journal has an Editor, Deputy Editor, Editorial Assistant and four members of the editorial board. I have written many times on twitter about the target study of our commentary. I have also several (read: too many) times tagged Deputy Editor as she had also cited (though more neutral than others) the target paper in one of her papers. One of the editorial board members follows me on twitter so I am pretty sure he has noticed at some point one of my many writings about the target study of our commentary. I understand that is not always easy to guarantee total author anonymity and that is my fault that I wrote publicly about our paper, but perhaps it would have been wise to exclude these two editors from the ‘in-house’ ‘peer-reviewing’ process.


There are difficult authors/people and I am certainly one of those. I like to argue. If I don’t agree with peer-reviewers’ comments that led to the rejection of my paper, I typically write a reply to the editor and give them a permission to share it with reviewers if they want to. Sometimes I write rebuttals if reviewers question our motivation for writing papers, if they personally insult me and my co-authors (new blog is coming about insults) or if they just write silly things. I try to be as polite as possible and focus on arguments rather than people. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, but I tend to think editors are also humans and they might appreciate an honest and constructive feedback from authors. As we know, feedback is essential for the learning process.

I hope people from the Active Travel Academy will appreciate my critical feedback and that they will learn something from their mistakes. Mistakes that unfortunately show a pattern. I hope I am not the only one who thinks that set rules should be followed.

Finally, here are some general questions to think about. Do rules exist to be followed always or only when that suits us? Do we just delete the rules from the internet and pretend they have never existed or should we perhaps transparently report about the change? Do we set the journal guidelines and follow them only when it suits us? Do we let our attitudes to guide us instead of the transparent rules we have set? Do activism and ideology come before methods and good scientific practices?

An update on 17.2.2021

I noticed today that the journal has changed their guidelines regarding peer-review. This is direct evidence that the editors had not followed their rules when dealing with my submission. SHAMELESS!

Turvallisuuden tunne ja riskien ottaminen: turvavöistä kasvomaskeihin

(Kirjoitin tätä tekstiä vaimoni/kollegani kanssa. Se ilmestyi tänään (3.6.2020) Rahtari-lehdessä. Koska lehteä ei julkaista verkossa, sovittiin Rahtareiden kanssa, että julkaisen tekstin myös täällä.)

Elämme todella ennen näkemättömässä tilanteessa maailmanlaajuisen koronaviruspandemian kourissa. Yritämme vähentää (ja kontrolloida) viruksen leviämistä. Tässä taistelussa yksi kiistellyimmistä vastatoimista on kasvomaskien käytön pakollisuus tai yleensäkin niiden käytön suositteleminen.

On osoitettu, että kasvomaskit vähentävät tartunnan saavien ihmisten määrää tartunnan saaneen ihmisen käyttäessä maskia, koska maski vähentää tehokkaasti mm. puhuessa, yskiessä ja aivastaessa leviäviä pisaroita. Maskit luultavasti myös hieman vähentävät tartunnan saamisen mahdollisuutta, vaikka se on tähän vähemmän tehokas, koska pisarat ovat aluksi isoja, mutta pian haihtuvat pieniksi pisaroiksi, joiden leviämistä on vaikea estää.

Miksi maskit sitten aiheuttavat kuumia väittelyitä? Syynä on riskikompensaatio. Tämän olettamuksen mukaan ihmisten kokiessa olonsa turvalliseksi, he saattavat ottaa enemmän riskejä. Maskien tapauksessa voidaan väittää, että maskit tuottavat väärää turvallisuuden tunnetta. Maskeja käyttäessään ihmiset voivat esim. hakeutua enemmän kontaktiin muiden ihmisten kanssa ja tulla lähemmäs heitä siten lisäten mahdollisuutta viruksen leviämiselle. Likainen maski saattaa myös olla viruksen levittäjä. Siten lisääntynyt turvallisuuden tunne, maskien väärä käyttö ja huonolaatuiset maskit saattavat johtaa viruksen leviämiseen.

Mistä tämä riskikompensaatio-olettamus tulee? Olettamus on lähtöisin 1970-luvulta liikennesäännösten kontekstista. Tällöin väitettiin, että kaikki liikenneturvallisuutta parantamaan tarkoitetut säännökset eivät tuottaneetkaan haluttuja tuloksia. Esimerkiksi turvavöiden ja turvatyynyjen asettaminen pakolliseksi ei välttämättä aina paranna yleistä turvallisuutta halutulla tavalla, koska osa kuljettajista saattaa ajaa kovempaa ja holtittomammin asettaen vaaraan itsensä sekä myös muut tienkäyttäjät, erityisesti polkupyöräilijät ja jalankulkijat. Riskikompensaatiota käytetään myös yhtenä pääperusteluna pyöräilykypäröiden suosittelemista ja lainsäädäntöä vastaan. Näitä väitteitä tukevaa tietoa on kuitenkin vain vähän.

Suurin osa riskikompensaatiota tukevasta tutkimuksesta tulee lajeista, jotka ovat itsessään vaarallisia, kuten amerikkalainen jalkapallo tai laskuvarjohyppääminen. Näissä lajeissa turvavarusteiden parantaminen ei tuottanut ennakoituja hyötyjä. Amerikkalaisessa jalkapallossa pään lyöminen kovaa on osa voittamista, joten jos kypärä mahdollistaa pään lyömisen entistä kovempaa niin myös saatetaan tehdä. Toisaalta laskuvarjohyppäämisellä haetaan jännitystä, joten joissain tapauksissa sen turvallisemmaksi tekeminen voi johtaa joillain hyppääjillä vielä hurjempien stunttien tekemiseen ja riskien ottamiseen, jotta he kokisivat saman jännityksen kuin aiemmin. Sama koskee laskettelua, joka, toisin kuin murtomaahiihto, on monissa tapauksissa myös jännityksen hakemista. Siten näiden tutkimusten tuloksia voidaan tuskin soveltaa normaaliin ajamiseen tai pyöräilyyn, jossa ihmiset eivät yleensä koe ottavansa riskejä, koska heillä ei ole motivaatiota hakea omia rajojaan tai voittaa vastapuolen joukkuetta.

Palataan takaisin maskeihin. Maskit suojaavat enemmän muita ihmisiä meiltä kuin meitä muilta, joten on vaikea uskoa maskien käyttäjien tuntevan oloaan turvallisemmaksi ja valmiiksi asettamaan itsensä tarpeettomaan vaaraan. Tämä pätee, jos he tuntevat maskien päätarkoituksen ja rajoitukset. Tässä saattaakin olla avain maskien ja muiden turvallisuus-välineiden käyttöön: ohjeet ja valistus. Nämä osoittavat yhden toimenpiteen rajoitukset ja painottavat tarvetta useiden toimenpiteiden samanaikaiselle käytölle. Esimerkiksi maskin käyttäminen ei tarkoita, että sinun pitäisi lopettaa käsien pesu tai että voit hengittää jonkun niskaan ruokakaupan jonossa. Epidemian alusta lähtien meitä on kehotettu pesemään kätemme usein ja kunnolla. On hauska huomata, että riskikompensaatioon uskovat eivät ole väittäneet, että jos monet pesevät huonosti käsiään, se johtaa väärään turvallisuuden tunteeseen ja he saattavat levittää virusta. Pitää selkeästi viestiä, että maskit ja käsien pesu ovat vain yksi monista turvallisuutta lisäävistä toimista.

Mitään turvallisuustoimenpidettä ei pitäisi käyttää yksin, ei liikenteessä eikä kansanterveystyössä, kuten nyt koronapandemiassa. Liikenneturvallisuuden nollavisio on kokonaisvaltainen lähestymistapa, johon kuuluu monia toimenpiteitä. Turvavyöt ovat vain yksi ajoneuvon matkustajia suojaava toimenpide. Pyöräilykypärän ei myöskään koskaan pitäisi olla ainoa pyöräilyn turvallisuutta parantava keino.

Toinen turvavälineisiin ja riskien poistamiseen liittyvä tekijä on niistä saamamme palaute. Palautteen saaminen muistuttaa käyttäjää laitteesta ja voi johtaa käyttäytymisen muuttamiseen. Esimerkiksi turvatyynyt harvoin antavat mitään palautetta toimivuudestaan ja useat ihmiset eivät koskaan koe turvatyynyjen aktivoitumista. Toisaalta aktiivisten turvavälineiden, kuten kuljettajia avustavien järjestelmien, jatkuvat palautteet voivat helpommin johtaa kuljettajan käytöksen muutokseen. Esimerkiksi ABS-jarrut antavat meille jatkuvasti palautetta tehokkaasta jarruttamisesta, joten jotkut kuljettajat saattavat lykätä jarrutuksen aloittamista. Saatamme oppia luottamaan näihin järjestelmiin liian paljon testatessamme niitä joka päivä.

Kun luemme keskusteluja riskikompensaatiosta ja maskeista (tai turvatyynyistä, kypäristä jne.) etenkin sosiaalisessa mediassa saamme käsityksen, että riskikompensaatio edustaa yhtä vahvinta ihmisen käyttäytymisen ”lakia”. Todellisuus on kaukana siitä. Joka tapauksessa kaikki keskustelut muistuttavat, että ihmiset ovat harvoin passiivisia vastaanottajia oli sitten kyse pienen tai suuren mittakaavan kansanterveydellisistä tai teknologisista toimenpiteistä; ihmiset reagoivat ja sopeutuvat. Myös mahdolliset epäsuorat seuraukset pitäisi aina pitää mielessä ja ennustaa. Joten seuraavan kerran, kun istut ratin taakse ja käytät kaikkia autosi tarjoamia aktiivisia turvallisuusjärjestelmiä muista, että teknologian on tarkoitus auttaa sinua, muttei korvata sinua. Ei ainakaan vielä. Mutta tästä aiheesta enemmän toisella kertaa.

Igor Radun, liikennepsykologian dosentti, Helsingin yliopisto ja Jenni Radun, ympäristöpsykologian tutkija, Turun ammattikorkeakoulu

PS. Artikkelimme painoon menon jälkeen, julkaistiin uusi kansainvälinen meta-analyysi kasvomaskeista. Lisää tästä:

Traffic safety related doctoral theses from Finland

Here you can find traffic safety related doctoral theses from Finland. The list will be constantly updated. Some information (and theses) are missing because several older theses have been in our basement since August when we moved. If you can help (with missing information/theses, not with unpacking), please send me an email.

Since this is my blog, it is natural that my thesis is in the top row of the table:) Sorry, as always I am shamelessly promoting my own work. On the other hand, if you wonder why you cannot find my name among supervisors, please read this interview with me.

Name Year Title University Supervisor(s) Opponent(s)
Igor Radun 2009 Fatigued driving: prevalence, risk factors and groups, and the law University of Helsinki Heikki Summala Mikael Sallinen Göran Kecklund, Stockholm University
Juhani Kalsi 2023 Health-related risks in road traffic University of Eastern Finland Timo Tervo, Markku Partinen, Kai Kaarniranta Alpo Vuorio, University of Helsinki
Fanny Malin 2023 How do conditionally automated cars relate to current traffic safety challenges in Finland?  Aalto University Miloš Mladenović, Anne Silla Eirin Olaussen Ryeng, NTNU
Hilkka Grahn 2021 On the Measurement of Visual Distraction Potential of In-Car Activities University of Jyväskylä Tuomo Kujala, Pertti Saariluoma Donald L. Fisher, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Roni Utriainen 2021 The Potential of Key Driver Assistance Systems to Improve Road Safety and Automated Driving Systems to Improve Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Tampere University Heikki Liimatainen Risto Kulmala
Ida Maasalo 2021 Drivers with child passengers in fatal crashes: cautious but distracted University of Helsinki Heikki Summala, Otto Lappi, Esko Lehtonen Timo Lajunen, NTNU Trondheim
Markus Mattsson 2020 Psychometrics of driver behavior University of Helsinki Heikki Summala, Kimmo Vehkalahti,  Otto Lappi Anders af Wåhlberg, Cranfield University
Tapio Koisaari 2019 How Passenger Cars Protect their Drivers and Should Cars be Protected from their Drivers: from Airbags to Automated Driving Aalto University Kari Tammi    Timo Tervo Robert Thomson, Chalmers University of Technology
Jami Pekkanen 2019 Perception, action and attention in locomotor control An experimental and computational investigation of driving University of Helsinki Heikki Summala Otto Lappi        Risto Näätänen Ben Tatler, University of Aberdeen
Noora Airaksinen 2018 Polkupyöräilijöiden, mopoilijoiden ja moottoripyöräilijöiden tapaturmat: vammojen vakavuus ja tapaturmien tilastointi University of Eastern Finland Heikki Kröger
Peter Lüthje
Jari Parkkari, Tampere University
Mika Sutela 2016 Arbitrium an decisio: oikeudellisen päätöksenteon yhtenäisyys yleisissä tuomioistuimissa University of Eastern Finland Matti Tolvanen Anssi Keinänen Jussi Pajuoja (Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman) and Mikko Aaltonen (Uni of Helsinki)
Pirkko Kriikku 2015 Toxicological abuse profile of new recreational drugs in driving-under-the-influence and post-mortem cases in Finland University of Helsinki Ilkka Ojanperä Alain Verstraete, Ghent University
Esko Lehtonen 2014 Anticipatory look-ahead fixations in real curve driving University of Helsinki Heikki Summala Otto Lappi Juha Luoma, VTT
Otto Lappi 2013 Eyes on the Road – Eye movements and the visual control of locomotion in curve driving University of Helsinki Heikki Summala Richard M. Wilkie, University of Leeds
Anne Silla 2012 Improving safety on Finnish railways by prevention of trespassing Aalto University Tapio Luttinen Andras Varhelyi, Lund University
Antti Impinen 2011 Arrested Drunk Drivers: Trends, social background, recidivism and mortality National Institute for Health and Welfare and University of Helsinki Aini Ostamo    Ossi Rahkonen Kaija Seppä, Tampere University
Karoliina Karjalainen 2011 Huumerattijuopumus Suomessa 1977–2007 National Institute for Health and Tampere University Aini Ostamo    Tomi Lintonen Erkki Vuori, University of Helsinki
Bahar Öz 2011 Professional Driving: An Emphasis on Organizational Safety Climate University of Helsinki Timo Lajunen Türker Özkan Esko Keskinen, University of Turku
Sami Mynttinen 2010 Finnish novice drivers’ competences – compared to the Swedish, Dutch and Austrian novices University of Turku Esko Keskinen Nils-Petter Gregersen and Lars Åberg
Tuomo Kujala 2010 Capacity, Workload and Mental Contents Exploring the Foundations of Driver Distraction University of Jyväskylä Pertti Saariluoma Mikael Sallinen Heikki Lyytinen Geoffrey Underwood, University of Nottingham
Özlem Şimşekoğlu 2009 Factors related to seat belt use: A Turkish case University of Helsinki Timo Lajunen Göte Nyman Esko Keskinen, University of Turku
Pia Forsman 2008 Quantifying Time Awake Posturographically University of Helsinki Edward Hæggström     Esko Toppila  Ilmari Pyykkö Hannes Petersen, Landspítali University Hospital
Veli Matti Heikkilä 2008 Evaluation of driving ability of the disabled persons in the context of the psychological activity theory University of Helsinki Heikki Summala Esko Keskinen, University of Turku
Türker Özkan 2006 The regional differences between countries in traffic safety: A cross-cultural study and Turkish Case University of Helsinki Heikki Summala Timo Lajunen Lars Åberg, Uppsala University
Dave Lamble 2005 Safety aspects of drivers using interactive in-vehicle systems during car following situations University of Helsinki Heikki Summala Juha Luoma? VTT
Anu Siren 2005 OLDER WOMEN’S MOBILITY AND TRANSPORTATION ISSUES Restraints and regulations, lust and splendour University of Helsinki Liisa Hakamies-Blomqvist Sandra Rosenbloom, Univ.Arizona
Sirkku Laapotti 2003 What are young female drivers made of? : differences in attitudes, exposure, offences and accidents between young female and male drivers University of Turku Esko Keskinen
Martin Backman 2001 Driving skill : the role of car control behavior University of Turku
Pirkko Rämä 2001 Effects of weather-controlled variable message signing on driver behaviour Aalto University
Reima Lehtimäki 2000 The conceptions of traffic safety among young male drivers University of Helsinki Seppo Kontiainen & Kari E. Nurmi
Helinä Häkkänen 2000 Professional driving, driver fatigue and traffic safety University of Helsinki Heikki Summala
Mikko Räsänen 2000 Liikenneympäristö, väistämissäännöt ja käyttäytyminen polkupyöräonnettomuuksissa pyörätienja ajoradan risteämiskohdissa University of Helsinki Heikki Summala Valde Mikkonen & Markku Löytönen
Matti Roine 1999 Accident risks of car drivers in wintertime traffic Helsinki University of Technology Oliver Carsten, University of Leeds Tapio Luttinen
Mika Hatakka 1998 Novice drivers’ risk- and self-evaluations. Use of questionnaires in traffic psychological research. Method development, general trends in four sample materials, and connections with behaviour. University of Turku Esko Keskinen Frank McKenna, University of Reading
Sirpa Rajalin 1998 Deviant Speed Behaviour as a Safety Problem in Road Traffic University of Helsinki Heikki Summala Matti Syvänen, University of Tampere
Timo Lajunen 1997 Personality factors, driving style and traffic safety University of Helsinki Heikki Summala Stephen Stradling, Edinburgh Napier University
Simo Salminen 1997 Risk taking, attributions and serious occupational accidents
Risto Kulmala 1995 Safety at rural three- and four-arm junctions: Development and application of accident prediction models Helsinki University of Technology Ekholm, A.
Liisa Hakamies-Blomqvist 1994 Older drivers in Finland University of Helsinki
Seppo Olkkonen 1993 Bicycle injuries : incidence, risk factors and consequences University of Kuopio
Eero Pasanen 1991 Ajonopeudet ja jalankulkijan turvallisuus Teknillinen korkeakoulu
Tapani Mäkinen 1990 Liikennerikkomusten subjektiivinen kiinnijäämisriski ja sen lisäämisen vaikutukset kuljettajien toimintaan
Eero Arajärvi 1989 Maxillofacial, Chest and Abdominal Injuries Sustained in Severe Traffic Accidents
Juha Luoma 1984 Autonkuljettajan visuaalisen informaation hankinta: merkityksellisen ja merkityksettoman informaation vuorovaikutus
Jarmo Tolonen 1984 Profile of Injuries in Traffic Accidents, and Effects of Seat Belt Use, Speed and Mass Ratio of Vehicles University of Kuopio
Esko Keskinen 1982 Inhimillinen tekijä liikenteessä University of Turku
Martti Mäki 1981 Alkoholijuomien käyttö tieliikenteen turvallisuusongelmana University of Helsinki Paavo Seppänen Matti Syvänen, University of Tampere
Heikki Summala 1981 Latencies in vehicle steering University of Helsinki
Esko Ehrola 1981 Henkilöautojen tieltäsuistuminen ja tieolosuhteet : tutkimus Suomessa 1971-75 tapahtuneista suistumisonnettomuuksista University of Oulu
Markku Salusjärvi 1980 Nopeusrajoituskokeilut Suomen yleisillä teillä
Matti Syvänen 1971 Valvonnan vaikutus kuljettajan ajotapaan University of Tampere
Sauli Häkkinen 1958 Traffic accidents and driver characteristics Suomen Teknillinen Korkeakoulu