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!

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
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
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





Journalists and researchers: Can one criticize the work of a good guy without being labeled as someone with a grudge?

In a recent paper Dumas‑Mallet et al. (2020) have raised “concerns about the influence of the media on the research communication and dissemination.” In this text, I describe what might happen 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.

The recently established Active Travel Academy’s Media Awards at the University of Westminster “recognises excellent work by journalists and reporters covering issues around active transport and road safety” (Active Travel Academy’s website, 2020). This seems as a noble initiative because news coverage of active travel in UK is often negative: “Sustrans’ Xavier Brice presented his thoughts and mentioned some recent research by the charity that found 60% of news coverage of active travel was negative” (Aldred, 2020).

An expert panel of judges was supposed to select winners in seven categories such as news (written word), news (broadcast), student journalist, etc. Anyone including journalists could nominate their own or others’ work. In addition to these seven categories, there was a separate category “People’s choice award” for best and worse reporting on TV/radio/in print or online; however, it was unclear how the winners would be selected (Active Travel Academy’s website, 2019). Typically, people’s choice awards of any kind include massive (online) voting on a preselected list of choices. Open nominations are also possible if the number of potential voters is expected to considerably outnumber the potential winners. It is unclear to me what the organizers of the awards expected to happen regarding their people’s choice awards, and my repeated questions on Twitter were unanswered.

Regardless of the unclear selection procedure, I nominated a journalist for his, in my view, awful article (Reid, 2018) about bicycle helmets. The journalist interviewed only one researcher involved in a long-term scientific debate and allowed him to question the other party’s motives: “It’s notable that the university research group (which wrote the 2013 paper and others) seem very interested in rebutting [my underline] any suggestions that cycle helmets are not a panacea for safety.” This is an issue that is central to research integrity and it is unusual that researchers openly and publicly question each other. When that happens, an unbiased journalist should give a chance for the criticized party to respond. This journalist has not done that. In my nomination letter, I also list several other problematic issues in this journalist’s article (Radun, 2019).

To my surprise, the “People’s choice awards” have not been awarded. After my repeated questions on Twitter, one of the organizers finally responded. She wrote: “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” (Laker, 2019).


After this answer I started to wonder how many nominations were needed in order to declare it a “People’s choice”? More than two? Ten? Two hundred? If the organizers have overestimated the interest of people in their awards they should in my view have transparently reported this, not delete the “People’s choice awards” from their website and pretend they never existed. They should, I think, have also apologized to those like me who spent some hours writing their nomination letters and were left wondering what had happened. Despite my repeated questions, they have not done any of these things. What I received instead was a somewhat unsubtle impugning of nominator’s (or my?) motives: “Should we run it in future any nominations will need good cause, not just someone with a grudge.”

I don’t know how many nominations were received for the “People’s choice awards”. Perhaps they were unhappy that I nominated one of the most prominent pro-cycling journalists for the worse reporting award. It did, however, come to me as something of a surprise that this should happen with the eminent academics and journalists involved in the Active Travel Academy’s inaugural Media Awards. It is also led me to think about certain questions concerning who are the supposed “good guys” and who are the “bad guys”. Is one a good guy if one votes for the predetermined favourite, and is one a bad guy with a grudge if one dares to criticize these favourites?

The media have always been important for the dissemination of scientific knowledge. Their influence on the formation of the public opinion regarding whatever scientific issue is undisputed; however, the media can also play a significant role in the promotion of particular research fields, researchers and their institutions as Dumas‑Mallet et al. (2020) article suggests. In situations when these compete for research funding, an increased media visibility, at least a positive one, without any doubt improves their public image and perhaps places them in a better position in this fierce competition for funding. Therefore, researchers and institutions aware of the media’s power are interested in maintaining good relationship with them.

In conclusion, I cannot stop wondering whether establishing of the Active Travel Academy’s Media Awards was indeed a good idea. And to whose benefit it was established. Perhaps time will tell. Nevertheless, it is well known that a good cause does not always justify the means.

Studded tyres, climate change, environmental issues and skiing holiday

Today ends the skiing week (hiihtoloma) in the south of Finland. Thousands of Finns are returning home from the northern ski resorts or own winter/summer cottages. Many travel by own car. The most populated southern regions had no snow this year. Actually we had no winter at all.







Source: Finnish Meteorological Institute

In Finland studded tyres are allowed. The new traffic law brings some changes regarding winter tyres usage and gives more responsibility to drivers to decide whether weather conditions require winter tyres.

Studded tyres significantly contribute to springtime dust problems. The flexibility new law brings will make many drivers think when to change tyres. The changing climate will also raise questions whether studded tyres should be forbidden in cities or city centers. I am sure many researchers in Finland will follow what happens with winter tyres usage and crash statistics.

This brings me to a methodological issue I raised following the famous Elvik et al. (2013) paper “Effects on accidents of changes in the use of studded tyres in major cities in Norway: a long-term investigation.” The main issue relates to the fact that many Finns, as well as Norwegians, drive their vehicles in all kind of winter conditions and that any cost-benefit analysis has no sense from the overall traffic safety perspective if it is restricted only to within the cities’ boundaries.

I submitted a letter to the editor to Accident Analysis and Prevention immediately after the paper had been published; however, it was rejected because the journal “doesn’t publish letters to the editor.” Anyway, Rune Elvik wrote me a nice response, which I will not publish here. I will publish only my unpublished letter to the editor.


My unpublished letter to the editor.

Dear Dr. Elvik,

I read with great interest and admiration the recent article by Elvik et al. (2013). The article summarizes the results of two reports (one in Norwegian and one in English) dealing with the effects on accidents of changes in the use of studded tires in major cities in Norway. As studded tires are responsible for a significant proportion of micro-particles torn off of road surfaces, which can cause health problems in humans, including premature death, some cities and municipalities in Nordic countries discourage the usage of such tires. Elvik et al. (2013), consistently with previous studies, reported a negative relationship between the prevalence of studded tires and the number of accidents in several Norwegian cities.

As an addition to this well-done study, I would like to point out the following issue. In the article it is not completely clear why the authors focused on the relationship between the number of accidents and the usage of studded tires only within the cities’ boundaries. Restricting the analysis only to the city area might be understandable from the point of data collection costs, the reliability of the data, and the particular interest of city governments in the health of their fellow citizens; however, from the overall traffic safety perspective, such a decision does not provide a complete enough picture for future cost-benefit analyses regarding decisions on whether to restrict or completely forbid the usage of studded tires. I am not aware what proportions of drivers driving to work in these Norwegian cities come from outside of the cities’ boundaries, and how many of them drive on secondary and even lower classes of roads which are less maintained during the winter time. However, I assume that the number of these drivers is not insignificant and probably has changed over the long period (1991-2009) covered in the study. Therefore, we lack information about how many of such drivers had an accident outside the city borders with non-studded tires, as recommended by the cities. Furthermore, how many of the cities’ inhabitants in vehicles with no studded tires had an accident while driving, for example, to ski resorts outside the cities’ boundaries on weekends and holidays?

An attenuation circumstance for Elvik et al. (2013) is that the effects they found in their study would probably have been even larger had they considered the number of accidents occurring outside the cities’ borders as a result of the decision discouraging the usage of studded tires within the cities. I hope that policy-makers, such as the Swedish Transport Administration, which commissioned one of the reports summarized in Elvik et al. (2013), will consider (or already has considered) the broader implications of the decision whether to allow or forbid the usage of studied tires in Swedish cities.


Elvik, R., Fridstrøm, L., Kaminska, J., Meyer, S.F. (2013). Effects on accidents of changes in the use of studded tyres in major cities in Norway: a long-term investigation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 54, 15-25.

Igor Radun, PhD
Human Factors and Safety Behavior Group, Institute of Behavioural Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland
Vehicle Engineering and Autonomous Systems, Department of Applied Mechanics, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden


On close passes, journalism and awards

The media are often criticized for the way they report on crashes involving cyclists. So-called victim blaming is the central accusation. In this blog post, I discuss the text ‘Motorists Punish Helmet-Wearing Cyclists With Close Passes, Confirms Data Recrunch’ written by Carlton Reid, ‘the Press Gazette Transport Journalist of the Year 2018,’ and the famous Ian Walker ’s study on which Reid’s text is based.

Walker’s 2007 study

One of the most famous studies in cycling research is Ian Walker’s “Drivers overtaking bicyclists: Objective data on the effects of riding position, helmet use, vehicle type and apparent gender ” from 2007. In this study, Walker, the main investigator, was riding a bicycle with a helmet or without it. The study reported that “wearing a bicycle helmet led to traffic getting significantly closer when overtaking.” The difference was “around 8.5cm closer on average.”

This finding received large attention from the research community as well as from the media and general public. It is often cited in support of risk compensation (motorists unknowingly (?) rate cyclists without a helmet as more inexperienced and unpredictable and thus keep greater distances to them). It is also used as an argument against bicycle helmet laws and/or promotion of bicycle helmets as the ‘obvious’ conclusion from this study is that helmets put cyclists at greater risk posed by motor vehicle drivers.

Olivier and Walter (2013) reanalysis of Walker’s data

In 2013, Olivier and Walter reanalyzed Walker’s data, which he had generously posted online. [This is something for which Walker deserves huge credit] Olivier and Walter dichotomized the passing distance by the one meter rule and carried out a logistic regression, while in the original analysis Walker (2007) applied an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the raw data (with a square-root transformation). Olivier and Walter wrote: “The previously observed significant association between passing distance and helmet wearing was not found when dichotomised by the one metre rule.” Their conclusion was that “helmet wearing is not associated with close motor vehicle passing.”

Walker and Robinson (2019) response to Olivier and Walter (2013)

Walker and Robinson published their rebuttal in Accident Analysis and Prevention in 2019, the same journal where the original Walker study had been published (Olivier and Walter, 2013, paper was published in PlosOne). They criticized Olivier and Walter on several accounts: “Their conclusion was based on omitting information about variability in driver behaviour and instead dividing overtakes into two binary categories of ‘close’ and ‘not close’; we demonstrate that they did not justify or address the implications of this choice, did not have sufficient statistical power for their approach, and moreover show that slightly adjusting their definition of ‘close’ would reverse their conclusions.”

My view about Walker (2007) study

1. The experimenter effect. Ian Walker was the single author and experimenter in this study. He had a clear hypothesis and expectations. Furthermore, we could assume he was observing how close the motorists overtake him in the relation to his hypothesis as another single-experimenter reported doing so in another similar Walker’s study (see below). This raises a question whether the behavior of the riders arising from their hypotheses and subjective experiences while the experiment was going on had any effect of the behavior of the naïve participants (i.e., motorists).

We (Radun and Lajunen, 2018) discussed the study design in the context of the experimenter effect. We wrote: “Although drivers were effectively blind to the study, the experimenter was not. Consequently, his hypothesis could have caused him to behave in ways that influenced overtaking distances, for example, by making head movements suggesting an intended turn, which might have prompted drivers to give him a wider berth.”

2. The observer bias. It seems some of the overtaking events were discounted based on the video analysis. However, it is unclear who has performed this selection and how many events were excluded. Typically, two observers should independently analyze all events, compare their results and discuss possible discrepancies. Walker has not thanked anyone for this work in the paper’s Acknowledgements, which makes me wonder whether a fully informed experimenter/author was the only observer making the selection, which of the events should be excluded and which should remain in the data set. Please note that the observer bias as well as the experimenter effect do not imply any deliberate action. Neither do I in this text.

3. Never replicated. To my knowledge, the main finding (i.e., drivers overtake closer when a cyclist wears a helmet) has never been replicated in another setting or country.

4. One meter vs. 1.5m rule. Walker and Robinson criticized Olivier and Walter for their choice to dichotomize the passing distance by the one meter rule. They write: “if we want to use existing legislation as a guide to separating close from not-close events, we should at least use the 1.5m rule mandated in Spain and Germany (, 2009; Spanish News Today, 2014) and place the burden on proof on those who would suggest a closer distance to define safety.”

However, they somehow forgot to cite an old TRRL study that used “the numbers of vehicle coming with 1m” and inspired Walker to reanalyze his data for an US TV interview in 2007 by using the same 1m rule (see below a snapshot from Walker’s old webpage).

It seems somewhat unfair to criticize Olivier and Walter of not justifying their choice of using the 1m rule while ignoring the fact that Walker in 2007 thought that “this is perhaps the clearest way to illustrate the effect of helmet wearing seen in the data.” Furthermore, one would think that the previous study from the same setting (e.g., traffic culture, roads’ width etc.) would be at least as relevant as the German and Spanish 1.5m rule Walker and Robinson cite. I don’t want to speculate about why Walker and Robinson failed to cite this older UK study.

5. Statistical vs. clinical significance (i.e., closer vs. close passes). The main issue of dispute between these researchers is about what is to be considered as a close pass (and methodological and statistical consequences of a particular choice) and whether the observed difference of 8.5 is a reason for concern. Walker and Robinson write “The W7 dataset at least hints that the probability of a trip transitioning from the large pool of un-eventful journeys to the smaller pool of journeys with a collision might increase owing to changes in driver behaviour in response to seeing a helmet. This merits caution until further data can be obtained.”

Below is a figure with the empirical distribution for passing distance (helmet vs. not). They’re nearly identical towards 0 (i.e., a likely crash) and don’t separate until after 1m.


6. In conclusion. Although I don’t dispute the reported 8.5cm difference, Walker’s experimental design was far from perfect because he was a fully informed experimenter interacting with his participants (i.e., motorists) and as it seems the only observer who pre-selected the data for further analysis. Furthermore, to my knowledge this finding has never been replicated (the study was published in 2007). I wonder whether a single never-replicated UK-study with a single fully informed experimenter/observer should be used to scare people around the globe of not wearing a bicycle helmet. I wonder.


Carlton Reid’s ‘Motorists Punish Helmet-Wearing Cyclists With Close Passes, Confirms Data Recrunch’.

Now I describe one of the most scandalous examples of scaring people by an award winning transport journalist in the context of above mentioned studies.

1. The misleading and malicious title (“Motorists Punish Helmet-Wearing Cyclists With Close Passes, Confirms Data Recrunch”). In my view, this represents a scandalous attempt to scare people of using a bicycle helmet. The verb ‘punish’ used in this context implies a deliberate action. Walker (2007) study provides no evidence that motor vehicle drivers deliberately give less space to helmeted cyclists.

Furthermore, it is incorrect that “Motorists Punish Helmet-Wearing Cyclists With Close Passes” because Walker (2007) and Walker and Robinson (2018) do not describe the reported overtaking difference as close passes. As discussed above, they report that motor vehicle drivers overtake cyclists with a helmet closer (!) with an average of 8.5 cm than those without a helmet. This difference of 8.5cm does not necessarily imply any of the overtaking events should be considered as a close pass. As Ian Walker told Carlton Reid “He claims that Olivier and Walter were only able to disprove his study by redefining what was meant by the words ‘close’ and ‘closer.’” Carlton Reid obviously ignores this and insists that closer (i.e., 8.5cm) means “a close pass.”

2. The failure to interview the other party. Carlton Reid has interviewed Ian Walker for this article. As he interviewed Walker after the original study had appeared eleven years ago. To my knowledge, Reid has never attempted to interview Jake Olivier and Scott Walter since their study had been published in 2013.

Ian Walker said in this new interview: “It’s notable that the university research group [which wrote the 2013 paper and others] seem very interested in rebutting any suggestions that cycle helmets are not a panacea for safety,” remarked Walker.”

It is obvious that Ian Walker not only questioned Olivier and Walter, 2013 paper, he also questioned their motives (“seem very interested in rebutting any…”). This is a clear attack on their research integrity. According to good practices of journalism, Carlton Reid should have asked Olivier or Walter for their comments. It is unusual that researchers question each other motives in an interview. When that happens, it is an absolute must to interview the other party and give them an opportunity to respond to such questioning. To my knowledge, Carlton Reid has never done that. Actually, it seems he was so eager to publish his text as it appeared online only a few hours after Walker and Robinson paper had been published online as a preprint.

The preprint was posted online on November 14, 2018
Carlton Reid’s text appeared online Nov 14, 2018, 05:01pm

This clearly shows Carlton Reid had no intention to interview the ‘other party’.

3. “Other academics agree.” Implying that other academics agree (“Other academics agree”) with something Ian Walker said by mentioning only one academic is so wrong that I believe no further comment is necessary.


The Active Travel Academy’s inaugural Media Awards

Because of the above reasons, I nominated Carlton Reid for The Active Travel Academy’s “People’s choice awards: A. Worst reporting on TV/Radio, print or online”

This award “celebrates the work of journalists and reporters covering issues across media outlets around active transport and road safety in the UK.” In addition to my nomination, Carlton Reid was shortlisted for another category (“1. News (written word))” for another of his texts.

I am not sure whether People’s choice awards have been awarded as this category is no longer visible on the Active Travel Academy’s webpage. I have repeatedly asked Active Travel Academy’s “expert panel of judges” about this on Twitter but they have never responded.

It is also interesting that although the awards cover not only active transport issues but also road safety in general, the “expert panel of judges” includes, in addition to several academics, representatives from cycling and pedestrian organizations, however, no one from any motorist organization. To my knowledge, traffic safety issues and how they are represented in media is also of interest to motorist organizations.


There is no doubt that the media has a lot of power when it comes to disseminating scientific knowledge. Given the above discussion surrounding Walker’s 2007 study and subsequent re-analyses, Carlton Reid’s article, in my view, represents an awful piece of journalism. I am not fully familiar with his work but one would expect a more balanced text given that he is after all ‘the Press Gazette Transport Journalist of the Year 2018,’ and obviously respected by the Active Travel Academy’s “expert panel of judges” as they shortlisted his another text for one of their awards.

I have recently proposed an EU project that would gather all interested stakeholders (researchers, journalists, police, advocacy groups etc.) in several workshops in order to produce a guideline for journalists about how to report on crashes including cyclists as this issue produces a lot of discussion. Similar guideline for the media, although for different reasons, exists about suicides (“Suicide Prevention Toolkit for Media Professionals”). Unfortunately, I have not received funding for it. I hope more qualified and suitable researchers will get funding for similar project and that in the near future they will produce a good guideline for the media. Before that happens, we will see more of Reid-like articles. Unfortunately.

A response to the “Executive Director at Finnish Cyclists’ Federation”

Last week I wrote a text “Can advocacy groups replace independent university researchers?” capturing my views about advocacy groups (i.e., Pyöräliitto) entering the research domain in my field. Pyöräliitto’s Executive Director, Matti Koistinen, wrote his response yesterday. Apparently, he wanted to correct mistakes in my blog. As I will show now, he has not corrected any mistake because there were none to be corrected. Matti actually confirmed all of my writings. His explanations and justifications of Pyöräliitto’s research attempts, however, deserve my answer. I thank Matti for his response as it is important to discuss the role of advocacy groups in conducting research and disseminating scientific knowledge.

OK. Let’s see what ‘mistakes’ should be corrected.

I am glad we both agree that more traffic psychology research is needed.

I wrote in my text “They often engage in debates, especially in social media, with traffic safety workers employed by state-sponsored organizations such as Liikenneturva, whose main role is not to conduct research but rather to operate within strict rules set by various laws.”

It is difficult for me to understand why Matti wrote a separate section about Liikenneturva. I mentioned Liikenneturva in the above sentence as an example of state-sponsored organizations, which Liikenneturva is as Matti acknowledges. Everything else Matti wrote in these two paragraphs is unrelated to my text. Btw, “…Liikenneturvan uhreja…” looks like a Freudian slip.

As I understand, Matti says it was difficult to make selection because they received more than 40 submissions. As I wrote on Twitter, perhaps, it is now good time for him to publicly answer my question I asked several times. Did you or did you not ask new presenters after the deadline for submissions had expired?

This is a very important question because there is a difference between “we had too many (good) submissions so we had to leave some out (including Igor’s)” and “we were not satisfied with the (quality of) received submissions (including Igor’s) so we had to invite new presenters despite the fact the submission process had ended.”

Btw, we researchers are used to rejections. All researchers, even the best ones (whatever that means), have papers rejected. The rejection of my submission to Velo Finland represents only one of the several examples in my text describing the way Pyöräliitto entered the research domain.

My intention was not to mock other researchers. My writings (on twitter) are specific (we all know to whom I referred) and I was very clear in my blog:

“This doesn’t mean some excellent researchers will not present their high quality research, it means each submission will not be judged by its quality by qualified researchers, they will be judged based on whether a few people sitting in Pyöräliitto’s board like them nor not. Pyöräliitto will filter what they like and this will be presented to their audience and the Finnish media.”

I understand the difference between a professional and scientific meeting. However, I would like to know how many organizers of professional meetings advertise their seminar as “the place to be if you want to learn about new research” and invite researchers “to present their best research” (!) while not having an independent scientific committee. Submit your best research, but please be aware we will not select presentations based on their quality, we will select them based on… what? This is disrespectful to researchers and their work.

Matti says that although the state decides about the funding model for Liikenneturva, the money is actually collected from motor vehicle owners. Because the state has decided that Liikenneturva’s funding comes from motor vehicle insurance, it is possible, according to Matti, that Liikenneturva is not neutral in their work (”Raduin väittää, että Liikenneturva on valtion rahoittama ja antaa ymmärtää sen olevan neutraali toimija.”)? Similarly, Pyöräliiton puhenjohtaja repeatedly and publicly insinuate that car industry funds my Australian colleagues who then produce bicycle helmet research in support of denialism.

On the other hand, Matti doesn’t see any problem if an advocacy group conducts research, which results will directly (!) support their goals. It must be that advocacy groups are very neutral when it comes to research they carry out, while others are not neutral in their work and/or are funded by the car industry to produce research in support of denialism. It smells of double standards to me, to say the least.

Furthermore, it is irrelevant you have no ambition to publish your results in scientific journals. It is important, as you say yourself, that your results will be used for the development of cycling tourism (and cycling infrastructure) in Finland. Pyöräliitto uses their results to influence policy makers. Policy decisions must be based on evidence. Not based on kind of ‘research.’

Hillman’s publications were from 1992-1994. That’s plenty of time for you (and others) to carefully and critically read them. Unfortunately, you are not an exception. It is unbelievable how often this ratio has been used and abused. Here is my list that is constantly updated. On the other hand, it seems important to hear researchers even before they publish their results in scientific journals. For example, one option could be to allow university researchers to present their preliminary findings at professional meetings organized by advocacy groups.

I have no doubt that your employees and members are highly educated. However, as I clearly explained in my blog, you have not put your hypothesis (i.e., a claim) to the test. Researchers test their hypotheses. That’s what researchers do. That’s how research is done.

And no, it is not absurd to have independent evaluators if you call researchers to submit their best research. And it doesn’t cost anything because researchers are not routinely paid for their participation in a conference committee, but it seems you are unfortunately unaware of that. To repeat again: it is misleading and disrespectful to invite researchers to submit their best research if you don’t have independent and qualified evaluators who care about the research quality instead of the advocacy group’s goals.

You have every right to say whatever you think that might be in the interest of your members and organization, cycling in general, and traffic safety. I really don’t care whether Pyöräliitto will issue a statement about nuclear plants, euthanasia or whatever. I care, however, whether policy makers will accept your statements as a source of a balanced, critical and comprehensive overall review of scientific literature. I was very clear in my blog:

“We should understand and accept that advocacy groups are advocacy groups and not a source of a balanced, critical and comprehensive overall review of scientific literature. The lack of independent traffic psychology researchers at Finnish universities makes it easier for advocacy groups and ‘experts’ to enter the research domain and establish themselves as a credible research source in public policy discussions.”

I also care whether the state and state-funded organizations give you funding for your ‘research’ and support the way you disseminate scientific knowledge.

In conclusion, I have no idea what incorrect things in my original text you supposedly corrected. I might not be the most politically correct or polite person, but I understand the difference between advocacy and research. I hope politicians and public policy makers also understand it.


Note: this time I had no time or interest to edit the text, but I hope my English is understandable enough.

Can advocacy groups replace independent university researchers?

The rise of fake news is a global problem. The Internet and social media in particular are prone to the spreading of such false information. Developing software that would automatically and accurately detect fake news is extremely difficult. Automatically detecting malicious texts ‘professionally’ written and based on cherry-picked and slightly modified information is even more difficult. Exposing them is a real challenge and requires persistent efforts from experts. In many cases communicating scientific facts, such as research on global warming and vaccination, to the general public is as important as obtaining the facts themselves. Unfortunately, medicine as well as climate change sciences are not the only fields that have to fight ignorance and the spread of cherry-picked or false information by various advocacy and interest groups. I am a traffic psychology researcher and here are my views about advocacy groups entering the research domain in my field.

Traffic psychology research in Finland
Traffic safety research including traffic psychology is experiencing hard times in Finland. It seems traffic safety is no longer a hot (research) topic. In my view, there are several reasons for this. The first relates to the general expectations that oncoming autonomous/automated vehicles will solve all traffic safety problems and, therefore, all our efforts should be focused on developing and accommodating such vehicles. The second relates to the poor status of traffic psychology research applications by scientific foundations, which often treat such applications as too applied and, therefore, unsuitable for their funds. The third reason relates to the even worse status of traffic psychology at Finnish universities. How many times have I heard “Igor, why don’t you find a job in Liikenneturva or Traficom” from my colleagues and superiors at my university? Unfortunately, traffic psychology professorships have not continued after their former and internationally well-recognized holders (i.e., Heikki Summala and Esko Keskinen) retired (‘it belongs to us’ other fields say), which contributed to the collapse of their research groups. Traffic psychology courses are taken away from curriculums (on account of profiling), some researchers got fired (the Big Wheel rolled) and all this has led to a serious lack of expertise in this field at Finnish universities.

Traffic safety and advocacy groups
This lack of expertise has created a situation, a certain vacuum, in which various advocacy and interest groups have entered to spread their own truths. They often engage in debates, especially in social media, with traffic safety workers employed by state-sponsored organizations such as Liikenneturva, whose main role is not to conduct research but rather to operate within strict rules set by various laws. And when I say “engaging in debate” I mean rather obsessive and borderline offensive commenting.

I describe here a very personal experience as a traffic psychology researcher (still at university) with one of such advocacy groups, the Finnish Cyclists’ Federation – Pyöräliitto.

Failing to declare one’s own affiliation with an advocacy group.
My first experience with these advocates goes back to September 2016 when I received an email from Marjut Ollitervo, a Pyöräliitto board member, and at that time also a vice chair of Helsinki Cyclists – HePo. Her email surprised me: “Who has funded Jake Olivier’s visit to University of Helsinki?” Professor Olivier, a friend and colleague of mine, has conducted several important studies, including systematic reviews and meta-analyses, regarding bicycle helmets. He is hated by those who oppose bicycle helmet legislation and promotion. When I asked the emailer who she was and why she would like to know that, she replied: “I am a citizen. I ask this because I am interested in it. So just to be clear, are you refusing to tell me who is financing Jake Olivier’s visit to the University of Helsinki? Is it a secret?” She has never mentioned that she was sitting on the boards of two advocacy groups. I am not sure how many researchers get these kinds of inquiry from ‘random’ citizens; however, my wife, who is currently doing research on the effect of wind turbines on people’s well-being at Turun ammattikorkeakoulu has received an email from someone who criticized her work and who also failed to mention her connection with an organization that opposes wind turbines.

Organizing a kind of ‘scientific’ seminars
Another experience is from last year when I submitted an abstract to VeloFinland organized by Pyöräliitto. They advertised their seminar as “the place to be if you want to learn about new research.” Given that Pyöräliitto opposes the current Finnish bicycle helmet law, I thought they would find our systematic review about risk compensation and bicycle helmets interesting. So I submitted a proposal, which they rejected. It seems the first ever systematic review on the topic they are so passionate about by the only active traffic psychology docent at a Finnish university was below their quality threshold. This was my first ever rejection to a conference or seminar in a research career stretching seventeen years. It should tell us something.

Instead, a Pyöräliitto board member, oh yes, the same one who sent me that email and who, to my knowledge, has no traffic safety research education or experience, had a presentation with the very ambitious title, “Rethinking Traffic Safety.” I wrote about this several times on Twitter and in my email to Pyöräliitto board members last year and I thought that they would learn something. At some point Pyöräliitto even blocked me on Twitter (because I was ‘spamming them’). Later they unblocked me, but at least one of their board members is still blocking me.

Unfortunately, they haven’t learned anything. They have organized the same event again this year and there is even a “call for papers,” among other things inviting researchers to share “their best research…” although they don’t have an independent scientific committee. As I wrote on Twitter, “Let’s say the Flat Earth Society organizes a ‘professional meeting’ but ‘calls for papers’ & invites researchers to submit their ‘best research.’ I wonder whether a university researcher showing that the Earth is not flat would pass the selection process by FES people.”

In my view, Pyöräliitto are misleading their audience and Finnish media. This doesn’t mean some excellent researchers will not present their high quality research, it means each submission will not be judged by its quality by qualified researchers, they will be judged based on whether a few people sitting in Pyöräliitto’s board like them or not. Pyöräliitto will filter what they like and this will be presented to their audience and the Finnish media.

Conducting (own) research
Two years ago, Pyöräliitto conducted a survey and asked Finns what would make them cycle more. Although they often claim that the law is a barrier to cycling, they did not include ‘repealing the current helmet law’ as one of the offered answers to the mentioned question. Any decent researchers would put their hypothesis to the test; however, they did not. Furthermore, I find it surprising that the Ministry of Transport and Communications in one of its publications (p. 38 in Kävelyn ja pyöräilyn edistämisohjelma) mentioned the possibility that Pyöräliitto (together with Pyöräilykuntien verkosto) would organize yearly surveys in order to follow the development of cycling in Finland. Does anyone seriously think that an advocacy group should be in charge of conducting research surveys? Would anyone suggest that Autoliitto should organize similar surveys? Unfortunately, it seems Pyöräliitto has established themselves as a research organization as the Finnish Transport and Communications Agency Traficom recently ordered a cycling travel survey from them.

More on research expertise in Pyöräliitto
In their submission to the Ministry of Transport and Communications, when opposing the helmet law, Pyöräliitto wrote, “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 that the benefits of cycling exceed the risks 20 times [Hillman M. “Cycling and the Promotion of Health.” Policy Studies Vol. 14, 49-58, 1993)” [my translation].

However, as we showed in our recent preprint, Hillman had not provided “supporting data or even a description of the methods used to derive this ratio.” We also show several other instances where the alleged 20:1 ratio has been used uncritically. It is worrying that poorly evidenced statistics can be so widely accepted and used even in policy making discussions. Cost-benefit analysis is a complex method and scientific community and policy makers should not accept the final result of an oversimplified and never presented calculation. It is unclear whether Pyöräliitto board members had actually read the article they cited because any qualified and impartial reader would notice Hillman had not provided any evidence about the alleged 20:1 ratio. An impartial reader would not cite it in a policy making discussion.

Given the above, I ask: Is Pyöräliitto a research institute (i) with necessary expertise in understanding research and able to critically and impartially assess their quality regardless of whether a particular study supports or conflicts with Pyöräliitto’s goals; (ii) which conducts research following research ethics and good practices, and (iii) organizes seminars with research presentations selected based on their quality?

By sharing this rather personal experience, my aim is not to take a revenge on Pyöräliitto because they did not accept my proposal for their VeloFinland seminar (although I am sure many would interpret it like that). My aim was to point out that filtering scientific evidence does not happen somewhere else, it happens also here in Finland and is not always recognized by the media and the general public.

It is unfortunate that Pyöräliitto, an advocacy group, in a more or less subtle way has entered a research domain in Finland. Although the promotion of cycling is worthwhile because cycling is associated with environmental and health benefits, it should be stressed that a good cause does not always justify the means. We should understand and accept that advocacy groups are advocacy groups and not a source of a balanced, critical and comprehensive overall review of scientific literature. The lack of independent traffic psychology researchers at Finnish universities makes it easier for advocacy groups and ‘experts’ to enter the research domain and establish themselves as a credible research source in public policy discussions.