Highway Code investigative paper 2020

For all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmet usage will be moved here.
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Highway Code investigative paper 2020

Post by Steady rider »

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... tive_paper
Provides a link to a recent paper considering the advice in the Code and what is needed.

A case for reconsidering Highway Code advice on cycle helmets
An investigative paper by Colin Clarke

Introduction

A recent consultation on the Highway Code raises concerns regarding the advice on cycle helmets. The concerns relate to three main aspects:

• the advice in the Code being used to reduce fair accident compensation
• evidence showing helmet use may not improve overall safety
• in not helping to promote public health cycling policy

In a 2013 BMJ editorial by Ben Goldacre and David Spiegelhalter, they stated:

"With regard to the use of bicycle helmets, science broadly tries to answer two main questions. At a societal level, “what is the effect of a public health policy that requires or promotes helmets?” and at an individual level, “what is the effect of wearing a helmet?” Both questions are methodologically challenging and contentious.
Continues---
Last edited by Steady rider on 30 Nov 2020, 8:52pm, edited 2 times in total.
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Highway Code investigative paper 2020

Post by Jdsk »

That essay by Clarke has received a lot of attention in this forum. What's the reference for the new HC paper, please?

Thanks

Jonathan
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Highway Code investigative paper 2020

Post by Steady rider »

The 2020 paper is new and details concerns about the existing advice in the Highway Code and the proposed changes in regards to cycle helmets.
A case for reconsidering Highway Code advice on cycle helmets
An investigative paper by Colin Clarke

Copying in the first concern listed, in case access is a problem.
Advice in the Code being used to reduce fair accident compensation

The Highway Code"s current advice on cycle helmets state:
Cyclists rule 59
Clothing
“You should wear a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened”

The consultation suggests changing to:

You should wear a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations and is the correct size and securely fastened. Evidence suggests that it will reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances.

No other part of the Highway Code states "Evidence suggests that it will reduce your risk" and no reference is provided to support the claim. The Code spells out the legal requirements and advice. It does not provide proof of evidence or in general refer to supporting evidence.

The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Act (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as "should/should not" or "do/do not".

In accident compensation cases the Highway Code is quoted and used to effectively reduce compensation for a non-helmeted cyclist compared to helmeted ones, pedestrians or other road users. The advice in the Code has made it routine for insurers representing drivers involved in collisions where a cyclist has suffered a head injury to counter the cyclist’s claims for injury damages by mounting a "contributory negligence" counter-claim - see http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/c ... cent-cases.

In the most serious cases (i.e. those involving death or permanent disablement), this can cause a traumatised cyclist or their family (who may have suffered bereavement or become life-long carers) to have to spend years of their lives and tens of thousands of pounds in legal costs, countering these unjust "contributory negligence" claims. Changing the wording to "Consider wearing a helmet" could avert the huge and wholly unjust financial cost and emotional trauma which is so often borne by the victims of cycling injuries. Both Cycling UK(CTC) and Cycling Scotland in their submissions to the consultation have requested using "Consider" rather than "Should".

The Highway Code provides no safeguards to ensure cyclists or pedestrians wearing normal clothing are not subject to "contributory negligence" counter-claims and this could infringe their human rights of being equal before the law and their right to wear normal clothing without extra safety aids such as helmets and hi vis vests, and in obtaining full compensation.
Last edited by Steady rider on 30 Nov 2020, 8:50pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Highway Code investigative paper 2020

Post by Jdsk »

Where's the 2020 paper, please?

Thanks

Jonathan
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Highway Code investigative paper 2020

Post by Jdsk »

Thanks.

It's another nonsystematic review. Has it been submitted anywhere for publication as a scientific paper? Was it sent as a response to this year's consultation on the Highway Code?

Jonathan
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Highway Code investigative paper 2020

Post by Steady rider »

It is not designed to be a systemic review, it tries to explain the problems with the Highway Codes advice on cycle helmets. It may be submitted for peer review and publication during 2021.
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Highway Code investigative paper 2020

Post by Jdsk »

That would be a very good idea.

In case anyone doesn't understand why a systematic review is needed: the new paper makes no mention of why the included studies were chosen and others weren't. In a review this runs an unacceptable risk of selection bias.

It's a bit more work to carry out a systematic review, but it's well worthwhile:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review

Jonathan
tim-b
Posts: 2091
Joined: 10 Oct 2009, 8:20am

Re: Highway Code investigative paper 2020

Post by tim-b »

Hi
Colin Clarke has faced criticism for his methodologies before... https://injurystats.wordpress.com/2015/05/15/colin-clarkes-assessment-of-australian-helmet-laws/
I understand his wish to amend potentially contentious aspects of the Highway Code, but it needs to be done with rigour
Regards
tim-b
~~~~¯\(ツ)/¯~~~~
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Highway Code investigative paper 2020

Post by Jdsk »

It certainly does. I don't think that I've seen that piece of criticism before but it's exactly what you should expect if you don't use systematic methods in reviews.

As well as the risk of cherrypicking the studies to include and exclude I found one major omission of data in his review from a study that he had cited. That's in this forum from July 2020 discussing the helmet law in New Zealand:
https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=139099&start=30#p1510852
with the key image below.

That response also includes "... not a shred of statistical/analytic rigor.". I've also commented on this: there's a striking absence of hypothesis testing and error analysis in what I've read from Clarke.

This is too important not to be studied properly.

Jonathan

Image
Stevek76
Posts: 2085
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Highway Code investigative paper 2020

Post by Stevek76 »

tim-b wrote:I understand his wish to amend potentially contentious aspects of the Highway Code, but it needs to be done with rigour


I cannot see much rigour was applied when any of the victim blaming rubbish that presently exists in the code was first included. Rigour is not required to remove it, it should be* required to justify its continuing existence.
Last edited by Stevek76 on 1 Dec 2020, 4:39pm, edited 1 time in total.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 5470
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Highway Code investigative paper 2020

Post by pjclinch »

Stevek76 wrote:
tim-b wrote:I understand his wish to amend potentially contentious aspects of the Highway Code, but it needs to be done with rigour


I cannot see much rigour was applied when any of the victim blaming rubbish that presently exists in the code was first included. Rigour is not required to remove it, it should required to justify its continuing existence.


Yes, this is pretty much my take.

In the early 2000s I wrote to DfT asking why Rule 59 pushed helmets and received a copy of the Towner Review in reply. That concludes it's been shown that helmets are a clear win... but it does it on a very limited range of references dominated by hospital studies (i.e., they looked at the Cochrane List and erroneously assumed that was a good job). Since their justification for Rule 59 isn't really much good they actually need to come up with an alternative justification to keep it in, not say that now it is in it needs special efforts to get it out.

In my submission to the Highway Code Review I also noted the disparity between cycle safety advice and that for motor vehicles. While there is a widespread belief that riding with a helmet is a Good Idea for safety, the same can be said for e.g. driving with airbags and ABS brakes, but the Code doesn't seek to patronise drivers by telling them they should ideally choose vehicles so fitted.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
axel_knutt
Posts: 2881
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 12:20pm

Re: Highway Code investigative paper 2020

Post by axel_knutt »

I don't see much rigour in the helmet research itself. They selectively investigate the effect of helmets on the survivability of an impact, whilst all but neglecting the effect of a helmet on the probability of that impact occurring in the first place. Risk to the rider derives from a combination of both.
“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56359
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Highway Code investigative paper 2020

Post by Mick F »

That chart (above).
What do the colours signify?
Mick F. Cornwall
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Highway Code investigative paper 2020

Post by Jdsk »

I suggest clicking on the link to the previous discussion in this forum. There's some inline explanation there and a link to the original paper. And how Clarke doesn't refer to the relevant findings despite citing the paper in which they occur.

See you over there to discuss further?

Jonathan
Post Reply