Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

[Jdsk]

Equating traffic violations to risky behaviour as in "Bicycle helmets and risky behaviour: A systematic review" seems dodgy to me. Many safety improvements — including advanced stop lines, "except cycles" plates (and associated legal relaxations) and the Netherlands cycleway network — are at least partly due to massive breaking of motorist-centred laws by safety-concerned cyclists.

The recurrent problem kicks in here... have you got access to the whole paper?

Thanks

Jonathan

[mjr]

Equating traffic violations to risky behaviour as in "Bicycle helmets and risky behaviour: A systematic review" seems dodgy to me. Many safety improvements — including advanced stop lines, "except cycles" plates (and associated legal relaxations) and the Netherlands cycleway network — are at least partly due to massive breaking of motorist-centred laws by safety-concerned cyclists.

The recurrent problem kicks in here... have you got access to the whole paper?

I don't know yet, but the false equation is in the abstract you posted.

Do you mean the paywalling is the recurrent problem? Or researchers studying the wrong questions?

[pjclinch]

I've just been looking at the SR from Olivier and pals (yes, I get the whole thing) and I don't see the methodology (in searching through a pile of papers dominated by case/control which we know is very poorly suited to this business) gives me any great confidence that it isn't yet another case of only looking where you'll find lots of what you like.
Risk compensation is primarily psychological but the search terms are, I strongly suspect, going to mainly pull back stuff which tends to be... medics doing case/control on helmets which... give the results Olivier and co. like. If you want to find out about risk compensation in helmet use you get some psychologists to design you a set of experiments, not leave it to medics who have form in misusing case/control on self-selecting cohorts.

Systematic is great... if it's done properly, and doing it properly requires a quality threshold that I do not trust Olivier and his associates to set (he still likes to quote TRT!). I f I had time I ought to go through it more thoroughly, but the man has form and any time I've bothered doing that in the past it has been a waste of my time. Just because it says its systematic doesn't make it good.

[Steady rider]

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... 553abdffc6

This provides extra details.

[drossall]

... committing a traffic violation was positively associated with a lower frequency of helmet use...

Surely this doesn't make any sense? Risk compensation is about how the behaviour of individuals changes in response to changes in perceived risk. They'd need to show whether people who had formerly gone bare-headed, and now had helmets, committed more traffic violations than before. It's largely irrelevant ro risk compensation whether people who like to take chances in traffic are also less likely to wear helmets.

[Mike Sales]

... committing a traffic violation was positively associated with a lower frequency of helmet use...

Surely this doesn't make any sense? Risk compensation is about how the behaviour of individuals changes in response to changes in perceived risk. They'd need to show whether people who had formerly gone bare-headed, and now had helmets, committed more traffic violations than before. It's largely irrelevant ro risk compensation whether people who like to take chances in traffic are also less likely to wear helmets.

Precisely.
Risk Compensation does not suggest that we all have the same setting to our risk thermostat. That would be obvious nonsense.
It does suggest that we all have an individual setting which is altered by the balance of risk and rewards we perceive.

[pjclinch]

And of course there are far more factors than risk in how fast we go. Like "am I knackered?", or "do I want to need a shower at my destination?" or simply "does the route and my reason for travelling it reward more speed?" And so on.
Part of the reason these approaches don't really work is they fail to address the underlying complexity of the system, usually even before you bring different psychologies and cultural outlooks in, let alone once you do.

The BMJ editorial suggests to us that our current epidemiological tools don't really cut the mustard on investigating helmet efficacy out on the street. Having read a lot of work over ~ 20 years I like that editorial because it chimes with what I've seen. I don't see the tools being deployed on risk compensation to be any better suited, and work like Olivier's comes across as an exercise in turd polishing.

Pete.

[Vorpal]

Equating traffic violations to risky behaviour as in "Bicycle helmets and risky behaviour: A systematic review" seems dodgy to me. Many safety improvements — including advanced stop lines, "except cycles" plates (and associated legal relaxations) and the Netherlands cycleway network — are at least partly due to massive breaking of motorist-centred laws by safety-concerned cyclists.

The recurrent problem kicks in here... have you got access to the whole paper?

Thanks

Jonathan

For those who are interested, it is available from ResearchGate. No paywall, but you do have to sign up. It's worthwhile doing for those who want to read such things. The authors often post them for free there, and even if they are linked to a paywalled publisher, you can often get them from the authors by messaging them on ResearchGate.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... tic_review

I have read the study, and while I think it is reasonable to conclude that the folks who voluntarily wear cycle helmets are also somewhat more likely to engage in other conforming behaviour, such as stopping at red lights, the conclusion that not doing so is risky behaviour is tenuous, at best. I certainly have not seen any studies that adequately correlate cyclist traffic violations with risk. Traffic violations are a result of law designed for motor vehicles, and I am not aware of any definitive evidence that cyclists violating traffic laws also engage in 'other' risky behaviour.

The majority of the studies included are either self-reported surveys (i.e. a person surveyed doesn't associate use of a helmet with increased risk) and crash data. Only one of the studies accounts for journey length. None account for journey type or cyclist population differences. The discussions note where the authors think that the results can /might not be applicable to the general population of cyclists, but they ignore that the population is not homogeneous.

One of the biggest problems with any of the studies relating to helmets, is there is a significant minority of cyclists who are poor or very poor, cannot afford a helmet nor professional cycle maintenance. These folks are more likely to cycle for transport, more likely to have equipment failures, and more likely to take risks, if only for purely economic reasons (e.g. need to get to work & cannot afford bus fare nor winter tyres).

Often, when population differences like this are taken into account, they are found to influence the results.

[Stevek76]

But that wasn't what I was referring to in the weakening of evidence. It was this sort of thing:

"Bicycle helmets and risky behaviour: A systematic review"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7818305941
Might be paywalled, so abstract in full:

Is not paywalled. I was specifically referring to the contents of that SR, hence my discussion on the way it wrongly classifies the Phillips 2011 study (which also happens to be the study that's probably the least bad at getting some kind of grasp on the issue)

Most of the other studies it considers are garbage. Not only are things like traffic violations poor indicators of risk but the same studies are largely case controlled and therefore totally flawed because the actions of those who choose to wear helmets and those who do not are very likely to be inherently different**

The question they're actually answering is "Do people who choose to wear a helmet demonstrate more or less risky* behaviours than those who do not?". That's nothing to do with risk compensation.

The question they should be trying to answer is "Do people cycle in a manner that exposes them to greater risk when wearing a helmet than when not?"

You can't let people self-select their helmet wearing it you're trying to estimate risk compensation. Olivier either doesn't understand this, and is therefore an idiot, or he does, but his bias on the matter means he's happy to let it slide.

*For a usually rather arbitrary definition of risk

**And very likely different in multiple ways. Helmetted riders will likely include both lower risk (conforming transport cyclists - though even there this will include inexperienced ones lacking in defensive riding techniques) but also obviously higher risk groups such as mtbers & high speed bunched road riders. Meanwhile, non helmetted can be everything from relatively safe groups like experienced utility cyclists/pootlers, tourers & audaxers to 'youths' pulling wheelies down the road.

[Steady rider]

If sufficient MP objected, it could go to an EDM (early day motion) or perhaps debate. It should be widely discussed so that MP were informed of any concerns.

Such as, Cycling UK has concerns with the wording ‘should wear’’ in the Highway Code, stating,
This wording 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 www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycle-he ... 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.

[Jdsk]

Such as, Cycling UK has concerns with the wording ‘should wear’’ in the Highway Code, stating,
This wording 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 www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycle-he ... 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.

Why would that change of wording have any effect on settlements? The claim for contributory negligence could be made in the same way.

Every party should have the ability to present their best case. Why is doing this "unjust"?

Thanks

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

The difference from presumed liability, from upthread:

... and where no legal requirement exits contributory negligence claims should not apply to what is not worn by a cyclist or pedestrian regarding extra safety aids.

I'd be very wary of removing anyone's right to present their own case. Even where liability is presumed (which I would favour for vulnerable road users) that right should be *maintained.

* And apparently is maintained in the jurisdictions where this has been introduced, according to previous discussion in this forum:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=145062&hilit=negligence+presumed

Jonathan

[Steady rider]

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.

The Code sets the ground rules in that it states

The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (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’.

By the Code saying 'should' it adds weight to establishing liability and weakens the cyclist case for fair compensation.
If a pedestrian or motorists incurred a head injury due to driver error, the Code could not be used in the same way as it can be used against cyclists.
MPs should reject the Code and hear evidence from such as Cycling Uk to explain why 'should' is the wrong word to apply with regards to cycle helmets.

[Jdsk]

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.

The Code sets the ground rules in that it states

The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (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’.

By the Code saying 'should' it adds weight to establishing liability and weakens the cyclist case for fair compensation.
If a pedestrian or motorists incurred a head injury due to driver error, the Code could not be used in the same way as it can be used against cyclists.
MPs should reject the Code and hear evidence from such as Cycling Uk to explain why 'should' is the wrong word to apply with regards to cycle helmets.

Does your argument rely on "the Traffic Acts" being the relevant legislation in civil claims for compensation?

Thanks

Jonathan

[Steady rider]

The Highway Code say

Rule 59
Clothing. You should wear

a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened

This can be used to establish liability.
I am not aware of any Road Traffic Acts for cycle helmets