Is [http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/1988/Attit_Safety_2.aspx this] the "1989" AGB McNair survey that is currently tagged as requiring a full citation? - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 09:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Is [http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/1988/Attit_Safety_2.aspx this] the "1989" AGB McNair survey that is currently tagged as requiring a full citation? - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 09:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
== Suggested addition- The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons ==
Currently the section headed "20 years on" says "Australian academics at a number of Australian universities have published research with conclusions both supportive and unsupportive of the laws" which may be true but doesn't adequately represent the situation with regards to the established medical position on helmet legislation. The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons has made their support for helmet legislation clear and explicit. http://www.surgeons.org/media/14490/POS_2009-06-25_Road_Trauma_Cycling_Position_Paper.pdf I propose adding this information to the "20 years on section" with a brief one sentence summary of their position which I'm happy to have approved in this talk section before it's included. To my mind this would be an essential addition to this article. The RACS are an independent authority who are talking about the issue at a national level. Their position is explicit, unequivocal and clearly stated so can be easily summarised without any of the accompanying editorialising and bloated clarification that blighted this article before it was revised. We should make it clear where the highest medical authority in the country stands on this contentious issue. [[User:Dsnmi|Dsnmi]] ([[User talk:Dsnmi|talk]]) 11:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Bicycle helmets in Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Dihn's Letter to the Editor
I watched as one POV added Dihn's recent Letter to the Editor, followed by the other POV adding balancing material (from their POV), etc. yet nobody mentioned it was actually a Letter to the Editor, not a peer-reviewed published study... Am I wrong, are Letters to the MJA peer-reviewed? And then one side edited a reference adding during this time to make it clear it was a Letter, yet still restraint from the other size and Dihn's remains a "study" with the clear implication it is a peer-review publication in the MJA. Maybe I am wrong, but as far as I can see the Dihn reference is just a letter. Frankly I think this article is going (or has gone) the way of the main Bicycle Helmets one - far too long and unreadable - and all the stuff added by both POV's around the Dihn Letter could just go and the article would probably be better. However as a compromise I announce my intention to go in and make sure it is clear this is a Letter to the Editor, pending the response to this Talk item - unless of course whoever added (I can't remember) it would like to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwikiped (talk • contribs) 03:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are wrong. Please see the section titled "Letter" at https://www.mja.com.au/journal/mja-instructions-authors-types-articles-published-mja It clearly says: "Research letters are peer reviewed." The Dinh et al. article is clearly a research letter, because it describes and reports on original research. A "letter" in older established medical journals such as the MJA is the equivalent of a "brief communication" or "short paper" in other journals. It is just a quaint tradition to refer to them as "letters". Tim C (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspected this might be the case, but when I looked missed that. But still not sure I posted here first, thanks for the reference Tim. Probably be clearer in the article to refer to it as a Letter, as that is what it is, and in the reference to comma separate the two pages numbers (if it was 3 pages long it wouldn't be a Letter), but that's just my POV :-) Kiwikiped (talk) 11:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is referred to in the article as a study, which is what it is. The page numbers given in the reference are correct as they are. Tim C (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, that was my POV, which was my way of saying that I wasn't going to make those edits. But I am a little curious (or mischievous :-)), how many non-article intervening pages are required before a page range becomes a list of pages? (Take that as rhetorical.) Kiwikiped (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of some material from the section "Health implications of bicycle helmets legislation"
User:Drmies has deleted some material from the section "Health implications of bicycle helmets legislation", with the edit note of "none of this content pertains to the content. if you wish to argue that helmet laws lead to more bicycle use and thus more health--well, that's probably OR [original research])"
This post to Talk is not to take issue with the edit made - it is a useful pruning of the article, in my view. Rather it is just to note that I don't think any researcher or anyone else has ever suggested that bicycle helmet laws lead to more bicycle use. There is quite a lot of contention over whether bicycle helmet laws reduce cycling levels long-term, and if so, by how much, and the degree of any short- or long-term effects on various age groups etc. Unfortunately the available data on these questions is far from conclusive either way and the real picture is probably quite complex, and almost certainly varies from country to country. Related questions are: if helmet laws and/or helmet promotion do in fact reduce cycling, is the reduction in health (remembering that cycling is not the only form of exercise possible) significant and does it outweigh benefits due to reduced head injuries etc? Almost every aspect of these questions is contended, and for some aspects, there is a complete lack of research at the moment. Tim C (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the matter is quite simple. There are two possible health benefits. a. wearing helmets makes people ride bikers and bikers live longer or something like that. b. wearing helmets makes you live longer if you have a crash. (or, just as bad, c. mandating helmets will make people ride bikes less and thus kills them sooner since non-bikers are unhealthier than bikers.) The first one strikes me as trivial--it would suggest a section "Health implications of X" for almost every article X, possibly including The Man in the Moone The second is...well, duh, to be handled in a few sentences. As for that research, or its lack--I don't see how that is a matter that needs to concern us here. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP is supposed to reflect current knowledge, and research, or in some cases a lack of it, is of central concern to us here. I agree, that research does not need to be described in excruciating detail in the article, but editors of the article MUST be familiar with it, or how else will they determine current knowledge and scientific thinking on the subject? Tim C (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. If a reliable source is available that summarises the studies then we should use that. We do not have to be bang up to date and the level of detail is indeed excruciating. This is bike helmets we're talking of here, so a sense of proportion might be applicable. - Sitush (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just clarifying something here, and it is most definitely an opinion. WP is intended to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit but I see the other side of that coin as being an encyclopedia that anyone can read. It should be possible to make articles such as this accessible to the average reader but as things are at present it is mostly statistical gibberish. I was fortunate enough to undertake a post-grad course in statistical methods etc but I'm struggling with the detail that we are showing here. I'm pretty sure that most of it is unnecessary and unhelpful to the average reader. Maybe I am misunderstanding our purpose but I suspect not. - Sitush (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My prune
I've just removed a lot of content from the History section. This entire article needs to be trimmed by about 80-90% and probably merged with another article. In its present state, it is absolutely ridiculous content for an encyclopaedia: far too detailed, and in particular far too reliant on contested studies and indeed studies, period. If people want to have an in-depth about the merits or otherwise of various studies and pieces of legislation then please go do it somewhere else. - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree that this article needs massive pruning but I don't think it needs to be merged with another article. The laws and situation in Australia are unique and I believe worthy of an article of their own. It's especially relevant since there isn't any other place on the internet which attempts to provide a fair and unbiased view of this contentious subject.
I think in fairness all studies probably need to be included (even though there are a lot of them) but I agree entirely that they don't need to be debated and discussed on this page. I think a study should be included with its findings and conclusion quoted directly and then all further discussion about that study's flaws, omissions and issues taken somewhere else. We run into problems if we start getting selective with which studies we include. Some studies back up one side of the argument and others back up the other and if we choose which ones we think are valid and which ones aren't we abandon the neutral point of view and start giving unequal weighting to one side.
It would be great if this was a quick and concise summary of the situation but if we're going to preserve the neutrality it has to be complicated by its very nature. Not as complicated as it is currently but it will definitely be a large and unwieldy article if it's going to fairly address both sides of the debate Dsnmi (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely. As Einstein's Razor notes: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." It is important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But yes, there is a lot of very dirty bathwater in this article that can safely go down the plughole. Tim C (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Helmet law and the situation is unique to Australia? Really? Why is that not in the lead section? All studies should not be included: we are not qualified to assess them and the devil is in their detail, not their conclusions. Since most of the studies currently mentioned are not even studying within the same parameters, we are asking the reader to compare chalk with cheese. It is pointless. As I said before, if someone wants to write an precise of the studies etc then they should do so elsewhere and maybe see if an academic journal will publish the thing. Here, people should be able to see more of the wood and less of the trees. - Sitush (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Australia is one of only two nations in the world to have compulsory helmet laws throughout (so I believe). America is one of many countries that has capital punishment but it has a unique page for US capital punishment laws because the specific legislation and it's impact is worth discussing. The same thing applies here. If we decide not to discuss all studies and instead focus on a selection then I'd like to know how we determine which are the relevant studies and which are not. How do you determine which are the necessary studies to make this article worthwhile and which aren't? As soon as you delete a study that supports helmets you've taken sides in the debate and this article has lost it's neutrality. It would be futile anyway because there is no way to prevent one person from adding detail that another decides shouldn't be included. We'd be adding and deleting studies on a daily basis. Dsnmi (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so Australia is not unique and, of course, helmets are very noticeable in countries where they are not compulsory. We can always show no studies at all, or just provide a table listing the things - List of studies examining the impact of bicycle helmet legislation or some such. If people start disruptively adding/deleting studies without consensus then we get the article protected.
Since you are familiar with the article subject and seem to accept that it has excessive detail, perhaps you could start to remove it? Be bold. - Sitush (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unique but it is one of two countries in which helmets have been made mandatory. It is also (as this article notes) the main reference point for other nation's discussions about mandatory helmet legislation. It's an area in which the rest of the world looks to Australia and it needs to be discussed. If this page was deleted then the page on helmet laws would become so bloated with information on Australia there would be people suggesting it became a separate page within a month.
I've considered jumping in and being bold but this page has a very contentious history and I don't want to step on anyone else's toes. I have actually done quite major edit to clean this up a long time ago and deleted all editorial comments about studies. That didn't last long at all.
I don't know how we would make this article in any way relevant without focusing in some way on studies that have been conducted on the subject. This page would need to talk about the legislation, it's effectiveness at preventing injuries and it's impact on riding numbers. We can't ignore the work of scientists who have studied exactly this and published their findings. I'm all for simplifying the page by listing studies, quoting their findings and removing any editorial comments and criticisms from the site altogether and letting every study stand on its own merits. Dsnmi (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I agree with User:Dsnmi. All relevant studies and papers that have been published in recognised peer-reviewed journals should be included, otherwise there is potential for bias, and the allegations of non-NPOV editing will start. I propose the following criteria and rules:
Only studies and papers published in recognised peer-reviewed journals. "Recognised" means the journal or publication is indexed in Medline/PubMed, or Scopus, or one of the other scholarly indexing databases (as opposed to search engines such as Google Scholar or CiteSeer or similar).
Only studies and papers about cycling helmets in Australia to be included
Critiques of papers and studies which are not peer-reviewed content of recognised journals or publications should be excluded, in the interests of brevity and readability.
Each study or paper should only be referenced in the article a few times at most, ideally just once, to avoid the situation in which certain papers are cited repeatedly throughout the article.
Authors or research groups who have published several papers should be named as the author in the text, so that the reader is aware whose published views are being quoted, and avoiding or mitigating the undue-influence problem.
If we stick to those rules, the article will be a lot more readable, and avoid bias. In essence, journal editors and peer-reviewers will have decided what facts and views are worthy of inclusion, not random WP editors. Tim C (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. These strike me as workable guidelines and if adhered to will produce a much more reliable page that will strike a balance between neutrality and readability. Dsnmi (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Robinson source
Can someone please give me the page numbers from the Robinson study that have caused us to write Before the law was enforced in Queensland, bicycle travel represented about 2.3% of total vehicle kilometres; after the helmet law was enforced in 1993, bicycle offence notices increased to 7.9% of traffic offence notices, implying that per kilometre, bicycle offence notices were about four times higher than all other traffic offences put together - speeding, drink-driving, not wearing seatbelts, careless driving or riding, etc. It is 13 pages of pretty dense statistics but at first glance what I am seeing is someone drawing their own conclusions from a source. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The one that is used as a source for that statement. It is 13 pages of stuff rather similar to our own article, ie: stats galore. - Sitush (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second paragraph, right-hand column, page 472 of the paper. However, I would seriously question the utility of comparisons of "traffic offences per kilometre" between different modes of travel - I suspect that "jaywalking" infringements for pedestrians might also be rather high using that metric, simply because pedestrians tend to travel less far by foot than drivers do by car, or cyclists by bike etc. I've never seen the "infringements per kilometre" which Robinson calculates used anywhere else. Also, these data are from 1988 and 1993 in Queensland - that's over two decades ago. Do they really deserve space in an encyclopedia article? Tim C (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lies and statisics
The first paragraph of the section titled Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia#Surveys_of_helmet_use_and_cycling_participation_before_and_after_the_introduction_of_helmet_laws seems to be a waste of space. Some guys conducted a study, came up with some numbers and said that there was a statistical problem because of a rally that was taking place but that excluding the rally element from the results would itself create a statistical problem (presumably, one related to size of the poopulation, chi-square tests etc). The figures that we show are for 1991 but at the end of the paragraph we show a re-analysis of that study, done by someone else and excluding the very thing that the original researchers said could not be excluded for statistical reasons. The figure given there is for 1992. So, we are comparing chalk and cheese (different years) and we are also getting involved in an academic argument regarding statistical viability. If the figures are not viable then we should not be showing them at all. The gist of it all seems to be that the number of cyclists in this small-scale study fell by maybe 27% or maybe a bit more, so surely it is acceptable for us to cut that entire paragraph, replacing with something like Analysis of data collected over the years 1990-1992 in Melbourne suggests that the number of cyclists fell by somewhere between 27% and XX%., where XX is whatever Finch's 1992 figure may be. We don't need all the numbers that are presently shown. - Sitush (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, pretty much the entire article can be summarised as "Studies of cycling at various places and times in Australia, both before and after the introduction of helmet legislation, vary widely in their conclusions. There are ongoing academic debates regarding the various statistical methods selected, the effect that natural events such as weather conditions have on the results and the impact of such considerations on the conclusions drawn with regard to levels of participation in cycling and the nature of injuries arising from it." If anyone thinks this saga will end in the next ten years, and maybe more, then they know noting about statistics.
Crikey indeed! Is that a reliable source? Most blogs are not and I have no idea of the reputation of The Urbanist. - Sitush (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can see a bit more about Alan Davies here: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/about/ Crikey is a well-respected media outlet in Australia - despite its name, it contains serious content and analysis of Australian politics, the economy, social issues etc written by professional journalists and professionally edited. The Urbanist is one of several blogs hosted by Crikey - they aren't personal blogs, they are part of the Crikey masthead and under Crikey editorial oversight. If you look at the material covered in Davies blog, you can see that it is all serious stuff, covering a wide range of urban issues, not just cycling, and definitely not just helmets. In summary, Davies is a professional, post-doctoral geographer who publishes carefully written commentaries in a professionally edited blog under the masthead of a respected commercial media outlet in Australia. His summaries of the available Victorian and NSW surveys are the best I've found, and make it clear that the message to be drawn is more complex and nuanced that just "helmet laws caused a 30% drop in cycling participation" as is asserted in so many places, nor can the message be that introduction of cycling laws had no effect on cycling participation. Tim C (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actions on 31 May
On 31 May a number of changes were made, mainly deletions. The process seems inappropriate in that to undue would probably require some time.
(cur | prev) 18:59, 31 May 2013 Sitush (talk | contribs) . . (75,349 bytes) (-232) . . (→Injury rates: pedestrians/motorists are not relevant) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 18:15, 31 May 2013 Sitush (talk | contribs) . . (75,581 bytes) (-596) . . (→Bicycle usage: changes without concurrent control groups around the time of helmet compulsion: this is inference again - you have no idea whether helmets impacted on these figures) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 18:03, 31 May 2013 Sitush (talk | contribs) . . (76,177 bytes) (-112) . . (→Enforcement, fines and legal aspects of compulsory helmet use: fix repetition) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 18:00, 31 May 2013 Sitush (talk | contribs) . . (76,289 bytes) (-577) . . (→Enforcement, fines and legal aspects of compulsory helmet use: what the heck has New Zealand got to do with this?) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 17:35, 31 May 2013 LadyofShalott (talk | contribs) m . . (76,866 bytes) (-12) . . (→Public attitude to helmets: Quotes should not be italicized.) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 17:32, 31 May 2013 LadyofShalott (talk | contribs) . . (76,878 bytes) (-61) . . (→Enforcement, fines and legal aspects of compulsory helmet use: minor cleanup/copyedit) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 13:29, 31 May 2013 Sitush (talk | contribs) . . (76,905 bytes) (-5,354) . . (→Injury rates: no! this is about helmets in *Australia*, not issues relating to helmets generally - wrong article) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 13:25, 31 May 2013 Sitush (talk | contribs) . . (82,259 bytes) (-747) . . (→Injury rates: this article is not about head injuries related to road accidents: focus, please) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 13:24, 31 May 2013 Sitush (talk | contribs) . . (83,006 bytes) (-1,336) . . (→Surveys of helmet use and cycling participation before and after the introduction of helmet laws: am sure they have, but so what? we do our own summarising) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 13:22, 31 May 2013 Sitush (talk | contribs) . . (84,342 bytes) (-5,504) . . (→Bicycle usage: trends before and after helmet compulsion: remove: article is not about cycling in Australia & tying these stats into it amounts to an inference relating to helmets) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 13:18, 31 May 2013 AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) . . (89,846 bytes) (+378) . . (Rescuing orphaned refs ("RobinsonDL1996" from rev 557627921; "ReferenceB" from rev 557627921)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 13:03, 31 May 2013 Sitush (talk | contribs) . . (89,468 bytes) (-759) . . (→History: remove: the article is problematic enough without having unsourced claims in it) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 12:56, 31 May 2013 Sitush (talk | contribs) . . (90,227 bytes) (-10,034) . . (→History: big pruning: I am aware of concerns about this article, which is in a ridiculous state at present) (undo | thank)
~~Colin at cycling~~
It would take little time at all to undo what has gone on. But it would be a poor decision to do so. This article is very poor and it is not just the people you list who have said so. - Sitush (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Richard Keatinge, User:Harvey4931 and others have expressed concerns many times that this and related articles on bicycle helmets contain far too much detail, and have become unreadable and unencyclopaedic as a result. I share these concerns, although as User:Dsnmi has said, the whole issue of bicycle helmets (anywhere) is complex and messy, and contentious, and thus a very succinct article that is still accurate and unbiassed is probably unachievable. But it should be possible to go a long way towards that goal. Anyway, it would appear that the wished-for process of pruning the article and removing unnecessary detail has begun. I intend to let the process take its course, and when finished, if any really vital material has been removed, then it can be judiciously restored. But so far, the pruning seems useful and has improved the article. Tim C (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, I am doing some pruning but I can't resolve all of the seemingly-obvious issues without input from others. I know nothing about the subject matter and am approaching it as a "regular reader" who just happens to be familiar with quite a few of en-Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and is, well, not stupid but not a professional statistician either. And the major problems with this article seem to revolve around its treatment of statistical issues. Over the last 24 hours or so there have been two people commenting here who seem to agree that there is a problem and that various unnamed things could be omitted. Perhaps they should either be bold and make those cuts but if they are not so inclined then they should at least give some specific examples.
My understanding via a recent report at WP:ANI is that this article may also be subject to conflicts of interest etc - it might be best if the regular contributors at least declare their position if there is any possibility of a COI. To that end, I will say that I am a Brit, have never been to Australia and, although I once cycled extensively and thoroughly enjoyed it, I'm long since past even being able to get on a bike - too many screws, plates and pins in my leg (due to a non-cycling incident). - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The report at ANI - see details here - was about ongoing personal attacks on an editor (me) alleging bias and undeclared COIs, when all my potential COIs with respect to this and other related bicycle helmet pages were set out explicitly on my profile page at User:Tim.churches soon after I began editing these articles a few months ago (and in any case, I use my real name here, so COIs with respect to papers and article I have co-authored are obvious). Obviously personal attacks, or even comments, about editors are against WP policy - you can only discuss the merits of edits, and of content, but not the merits or otherwise of editors (well, you can praise editors, but you are not allowed to attack them, criticise them as persons, impugn their integrity etc). I have urged several other frequent editors of this and related pages to also declare any COIs they might have with respect to papers and articles cited here (COIs such as being the author of those cited papers), but with nil or evasive responses. I find that frustrating, but apparently it is not WP policy to require such COIs to be declared - it is purely voluntary. Anyway, I have declared mine, and I urge others to do likewise, even if purely in the negative, as in "I have no COIs with respect to this article nor any of the papers or other material discussed or cited in it." Tim C (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to User:Sitush for braving the swamp and taking the time to remove so much noxious over-growth, and inspiring others to do the same. There is still more weed removal to be done, but the prunings of the the past few days (by various editors) have already transformed the article into a MUCH better quality product than it has ever been before.
I have made a number of additions to the helmet article/s, I wish to declare that I have no COIs with respect to this article, nor any of the papers or other material discussed or cited in it (as noted on my user page, I am a biostatistician at a health research organisation that does not engage in any helmet-related activities). Linda.m.ward (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Graphs
I removed a couple of graphs, which had also received a bit of flak in the recent ANI report. They are, in my opinion, confusing rather than helpful. Furthermore, they are the work of one study (which makes them undue weight) and I remain concerned that we do not have the correct permissions to reproduce them here. - Sitush (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the first graph is confusing, but the second one is fairly simple - reporting percentages cycling to work in states with and without helmet laws at the 1991 census. There is no problem with permissions to reproduce them here and I disagree that census data can be interpreted as the results of a "study". It is simply a report of the percentage of the workforce who cycled there. In the spirit of compromise, I'll remove the first graph that could be confusing, but the second one certainly is not. I believe is provides an extremely relevant picture of the effect of helmet laws on the entire country, so should not be removed. Dorre (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding permissions, the underlying Census data is released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) under a CC-SA-BY license, but it would seem that the ABS is not clearly identified as the source of the data. With respect to the actual graph, as opposed to the data it is presenting, it resides on WikiMedia with a note stating it is the work of User:Dorre. However, the reference given for the graph points to a page on the Bicycle Helmets Research Foundation web site, where a copy of the same graph also appears - see http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1194.htmlTim C (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was aware that it has been published in the same form elsewhere. I'm also aware that the census is a study of a single day and if this data itself relates to a single day then it is useless, per the various comments about state of the weather affecting participation etc. Commons will accept all sorts of stuff that we simply do not use on en-Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually all studies of cycle use cover either small areas and involve a few thousand cyclists counted over a couple of weeks (so are subject to high sampling errors as well as significant variation in weather) or involve many thousands of cycle trips to work over the whole country. Because of the large distances involved, the variation in weather usually averages itself out over the whole country. The graphs show smooth trends, not the random fluctuations you'd expect from from the effects of variable weather. Many studies and official reports make considerable use of census data, even comparing the cycling trends for a single city or regions within a city - e.g. https://theconversation.com/more-cyclists-that-depends-on-where-you-live-11154 If Australian Bureau of Stats census data on cycling to work was useless, why would so much effort have been expended by many people on analyzing it? Dorre (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be deflecting, sorry. This is not about other studies etc but rather about that study, ie: the census, and the weight of showing an image derived from it that may or may not have permission for use here. I'm am not going to be drawn into side-issues: there seems to have been a lot of unverified waffle/almost-filibustering going on at this talk page without starting another session of it in this thread. Census data is, in any event, a primary source and we should not be analysing it in any form on Wikipedia. The image needs to go. - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again I'm sorry to disagree on this point, but their relevance seems obvious. Indeed the only reason I can imagine for removing this image is precisely that it is a relevant presentation of reliable and Reliable facts with an appropriate licence. What people infer from this is of course up to them, but a picture is worth a thousand words, we have a need to reduce the verbiage and a very good image. I respect your opinion and that of others, but it seems clear to me that this image is smiled upon by policy and essential for a good encyclopaedic article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Richard said, there is no implication in the Wiki text that the effect is due to legislation. All the graph does is split census data in percentages for Australian States with and without enforced helmet laws on census day 1991. There is a similar graph for walking to work split by States without enforced helmet laws, though it isn't divided into into capital cities vs other area. Initially, the cycling to work wasn't either. I have just uploaded both to Wiki commons. Australian census data on walking to work, averaged over states with and without enforced bicycle helmet laws in the 1991 census and Australian census data on cycling to work, averaged over states with and without enforced bicycle helmet laws in the 1991 census as you can see, there is no hint of a difference in walking to work in states with and without enforced helmet laws. Simple tabulations of cycling and walking to work are not, however, the only source of information. Governments and other authorities asked about cycling in several questionnaires and surveys - e.g. 51% of NSW schoolchildren who hadn't cycled said it was because of helmet laws, the equivalent of 64% of current adult cyclists in WA also stated in a telephone survey that they would cycle more if not legally required to wear a helmet. So yes, we cannot imply anything about whether the trends were caused by the laws, but simply report the facts on cycling to work, the pre and post-law observational data and the questionnaires of what people reported about how the law affected their cycling. Dorre (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll take a read of the prior discussions here and at RSN and then I'll probably take the issue elsewhere. Unless the graph has a point in relation to bicycle helmets in Australia, it is useless here; and if it does have a point then no-one seems prepared to acknowledge it. Saying that the relevance is "obvious" but not stating why it is obvious is a clear case of insinuating information into the article. It is subliminal and it is wrong: for all everyone here knows, usage could have altered due a combination of the retail cost of new bicycles rising, the weather, a fad for skateboarding and all sorts of other weird things. Likely? No, of course not but certainly possible.
As for a picture being worth a thousand words, well, I'm not great at creating graphs but one thing I had drummed into me was that the choice of style can affect the viewer's perception of the data. So, which thousand words? - Sitush (talk) 05:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you are suggesting that trends in cycle use over time before and after helmet laws are not relevant. Nor, I suppose, are changes in head injury rates. By your logic, that too, could be coincidence, just like the coincidence of rising retail costs or fads for skateboarding for some reason having a much greater influence in states with enforced helmet laws. There are peer-reviewed journals that include information on the census data, but I see no point in adding unnecessary words, when all most people want to know are the trends over time. Dorre (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not what I am saying. My point is that unless we have a reliable, independent source that notes the national change in cycle use over time/head injury rates/whatever is directly and proportionately related to the helmet laws and uses the data presented in the graph(s) then mentioning the change here is inappropriate. It is not for us to decide what "most people want to know" but rather to reflect the sources. I am becoming increasingly concerned, Dorre, that you are Dorre Robinson and that you are attempting to push a POV here. I can't be bothered trying to work it all out right now & I may be wrong but this is likely to end badly for you if I am correct and you have not declared it. Consider, for example, the recent case of Qworty (talk·contribs). - Sitush (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, So yes, we cannot imply anything about whether the trends were caused by the laws, but simply report the facts on cycling to work, the pre and post-law observational data and the questionnaires of what people reported about how the law affected their cycling is synthesis by inference. - Sitush (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As User:Sitush correctly points out, there are many possible causes for variation in cycling-to-work as recorded at each Census, of which bicycle helmets is just one possible influence (and the degree of that influence is currently unestimated from the Census data, as far as I am aware). In other words, cycling-to-work levels are multi-factorial, and any analysis (including a graphical analysis) which presents this variation in the context of just one possible cause is inadequate at best and misleading at worst. To illustrate this, here is some work-in-progress, not for citation or further distribution or inclusion in any WP article at this stage (it will form part of a peer-reviewed article in due course), which puts variation in cycling-to-work at each Census in the context of variation in other modes of travel to work (the vertical dashed lines in the bike panels show when mandatory helmet laws were introduced in each jurisdiction): https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BykuVdPr-by8N1dRMEQwTVI5QTg/edit?usp=sharing (you may need to zoom in and pan around to view the graphic adequately, depending on your computer's screen resolution). Tim C (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Finch (Vic), Williams (NSW), and Marshall (SA) studies all showed that there was no reduction in adult cycling as a result of the helmet law. Povey et al. noted that, contrary to a claim by Robinson that the helmet law reduced cycling in Australia, therere was no evidence of any such reduction in NZ. The Victorian, NSW and SA studies also found that there was a reduction in cycling to school. The SA study also found that there was no reduction in overall child cycling, and that the reduction in cycling to school, which comprised only about 20% of cycling in that age group, was accompanied by an increase in cycling to/around other venues.
Re the (big) post-law drop in cycling to work in WA/Qld/SA, between 1991 and 1996
in the ACT cycling to work increased by 22% (from 1.9% to 2.3%)
in WA
cycling to work decreased by 35% (from 1.9% to 1.2%)
bus travel to work decreased by 35% (from 6.1% to 3.9%)
in Queensland
cycling to work decreased by 74% (from 4.7% to 1.2%)
train travel to work decreased by 69% (from 5.2% to 1.6%)
(Survey questions such as 'Would you cycle more if not legally required to wear a helmet' produce notoriously unreliable/inaccurate results, research design courses teach students to avoid leading OR hypothetical questions like the plague, this example is BOTH.)
User:Sitush has already noted that the graphs copped flak in the recent ANI report, User:Itsmejudith noted that material pertaining to long-term cycling trends does not belong in this article. Those 3 sections have no place in this article. Linda.m.ward (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the author of the graph, and numerous references to work by the same author, that have been added by User:Colin at cycling?
the petition that was presented to the Victorian parliament in 1991 (a reference that was recently removed by another editor, and re-instated by User:Colin at cycling)?
Colin Clarke does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article as far as I know. People can be opposed to helmet laws because of a range of values and may not believe that helmets are a useful safety product or a reliable product. From what I can see the graph provided useful information and is easy to follow. I do not agree with removing it. Issues of concern about bicycle helmets are being avoided in trying to provide a simple approach. The Wiki process, many changes in one day, poor reasons given for deleting material and people deleting material that questions the benefits of imposing helmet legislation, it adds up to quite a poor process without real agreement.
Colin at cycling (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Despited numerous previous requests to declare any interest, specifically with respect to Colin F Clarke (the author of many, many references that have been added by User:Colin at cycling), User:Colin at cycling has yet again failed to provide a satisfactory response.
Re the (Clarke) graph, if any of my students were to produce such a graph, they would cop a big fat fail for it. Partly because it does not state which year/s 'post-law' refers to, presumably 1991. In which case the graph is grossly misleading (hence ***FAIL***) because it ignores the fact that Finch et al. noted that one site, which was part of a popular recreation area, and defined bike track, HAD RAIN DURING ALL THE 1991 OBSERVATIONS (and very few cyclist were observed).
Linda.m.ward (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weekend weather conditions suggest 1992 had the
driest survey periods, followed by 1990 and 1991.
The Velo link provided to the report has been deleted by the reverting process.
Finch et al. found that after taking the weather conditions and riding patterns into account, there was no reduction in adult cycling as a result of the helmet law. This finding is consistent with adults cyclist counts in both NSW and SA.
The SA study also found that there was no reduction in overall cycling, and that a reduction in cycling to school, which comprised only 20% of cycling in that age group prior to the law, was accompanied by a equivalent-sized increase in cycling to/around other venues after the helmet law.
Cyclist non-head hospital admission data in Vic, NSW and SA also indicate that there was no (overall) reduction in cycling as a result of the helmet law. (This is consistent with an observatoin by Povey et al. that there was no evidence of any reduction in cycling as a result of the helmet law in NZ.)
One of the first things taught in health research courses is not to attach too much weight to just one study. Numerous data sources from multiple (Australian) jurisdictions all point to (little or) no reduction in (overall) cycling.
Finch et al. anlaysed various factors that could have affected cyclist counts, the Clarke graph is a crudely simplistic 'analysis' that ignores critical factors such as the weather. It gives a message that is inconsistent the the original (actual) analysis by Finch et al., and wildly inconsistent with numerous data sources reported in other Vic, NSW and SA studies.
Linda says
“Finch et al. found that after taking the weather conditions and riding patterns into account, there was no reduction in adult cycling as a result of the helmet law. This finding is consistent with adults cyclist counts in both NSW and SA”.
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/finch-melbourne.pdf page 35, states
“
5.6.4 Numbers of Bicyclists Observed During Each of the MUARC Surveys
The number of bicyclists observed in the 64 sites in common to each of the MUARC surveys is shown in figure 28. In the total group of bicyclists, the number of bicyclists fell by 36% from 3121 in 1990 to 2011 in 1991.
The 1992 survey did not detail the adult count for Albury
The 1990 survey was conducted in spring, with poor Sydney weather conditions. Walker reported: “As it turns out, the first survey was conducted in overcast conditions in Sydney and, in some areas, was interrupted by rain whereas the second survey was conducted in sunny conditions” 6. Adult rural road cycling reduced by 37%, according to a simple estimate (1660/2650 = 0.63). From 1991 to 1993, a drop of 22% occurred in Sydney. In 1991, the helmet law already applied to adults.
Again Linda you are incorrect.
The data for SA seems to be based on Adelaide and only 2 surveys, hardly reliable.
In any case their census data shows a 35% reduction from 1991 to 1996.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1194.html
Cycling to work in South Australia
1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011
2.04% 2.45% 2.27% 1.95% 1.27% 1.17% 1.43% 1.25%
Census data
Linda says
“that there was no evidence of any reduction in cycling as a result of the helmet law in NZ.”
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/zealand_helmets.html
51% reduction.
Linda your view is totally at odds with much of the evidence. Please do not mislead others with these invalid statements. Sorry to have to point to so many mistakes and I hope you can see that you are misguided. Monash reports may have misled you with some of their publications.
The Velo paper provides details about the weather in Vic for the 1990, 91 and 92 and some extra reference to the weather could be made for a Wiki graph.Colin at cycling (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is becoming ridiculously long, but I think I should point this out here: in your 2007 Velo-city paper, Colin, you state that according to the Finch et al. surveys, 42% of people in Melbourne were observed to be wearing helmets immediately prior to the laws. I searched for this figure in the Finch et al. report but couldn't find it. What I think you have done is taken an average of the pre-law helmet wearing percentages for children, teenagers and adults as given in the report. When I do that, I get 42%. The problem is that such as calculation is mathematically incorrect. Because there were very different numbers of adults, teenagers and children counted (far more adults), you need to take a weighted average of the three percentages to get the correct figure, which is 36%. The same applies to your post-law calculation helmet wearing rates. Thus, Colin, your graph is arithmetically wrong. Tim C (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, can you please check your figures? Comparing 1991 with 1990, the number of helmet wearers increased by 297, which is 9.5% of the number of cyclists counted in 1990. The number of cyclists decreased by 1110, which is 36% of the cyclists counted in 1990. Sometimes people do make typos when faced with deadlines for papers, but that doesn't make this particular graph incorrect or uninformative.
A published peer-reviewed paper compared the counts of cyclists in injury rates and concluded: "In Victoria, after the introduction of compulsory helmets, there was a 30% reduction in cycling and it was associated with a higher risk of death or serious injury per cyclist, outweighing any benefits of increased helmet wearing."
Despite this peer-reviewed information, Linda states above: "Cyclist non-head hospital admission data in Vic, NSW and SA also indicate that there was no (overall) reduction in cycling as a result of the helmet law." I'm afraid I don't understand the argument that you can infer cycle use from injury statistics. Substantially fewer cyclists were counted, especially children (who generally have a much higher risk of injury) in the second post-law survey, which had better weather than the pre-law survey. Research shows that people who are accustomed to helmets cycle faster when wearing them, and that putting a helmet and wrist guards on a kid results in a substantial increase in tripping, falling and bumping into things. This might explain why injury rates didn't decrease despite the reductions numbers of cyclists counted.
In my day job, I’ve just prepared a poster for an international conference – the accepted standard is to use graphics and limited text to attract interest and improve understanding. Bias isn’t a concern because the data dictates the form of the graph, e.g. series of points over time, stacked columns for counts by category etc. To convey the same amount of information in words would risk greater biases by omitting important details, or give readers a severe case of verbal diarrhoea, which we would all like a cure!
Colin's graph has merit in that it illustrates the change in helmet wearing as well as the change in cycle use. The criticism seems to be the slight differences in the weekend (but not weekday) weather, compared to the survey the following year (which had better weather than the pre-law survey). Unfortunately there's no published graphic based on the average of the two post-law years, otherwise it might have been acceptable compromise to shed light (which I think we agree is necessary) on what most people consider a complicated subject.
I would prefer this article to have a NPOV by reporting actual counts of cyclists, numbers wearing helmets and injury rates from peer-reviewed publications, rather than speculations from non-peer reviewed sources that injury rates can be used to infer the amount of cycling, but will await a consensus of experienced editors. Dorre (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To which published, peer-reviewed paper are you referring, User:Dorre? And yes, I'll check my figures later today. The 36% which I mentioned was for the proportion of cyclists wearing helmets in May 1990, not the drop in total numbers counted. Oh, and sorry, but incorrect numbers in a graph do make that graph incorrect and uninformative. That's the purpose of corrigenda and errata in peer-reviewed journals, to allow such mistakes to be corrected. Tim C (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more that incorrect numbers in graphs do matter, that's why I checked the two numbers shown on that particular graph - the increase of 297 cyclists wearing helmets is 9.5% of the original number of 3121 counted, and the decrease of 1110 cyclists counted works out at 35.5%. In other words, the graph is appears to be correct. I suspect the 42% in the text may have been a typo, though given the length the Finch report and other reports describing the same surveys, it can be hard to find relevant information in a hurry! The problem with those surveys is not the numbers counted, but the attempt to turn them by weird and wonderful statistical manipulation into "exposure". Fig 7 on page 336 of the AAP paper by Cameron et al. (1994) claims a total of 55 million hours per week in a city with a population of 3 million. That's nearly 20 hours a week for every man, woman, child and elderly pensioner in the city. Several years ago, I looked for a corrigenda to draw attention to this obvious problem, but never found one. Dorre (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re "In Victoria, after the introduction of compulsory helmets, there was a 30% reduction in cycling and it was associated with a higher risk of death or serious injury per cyclist, outweighing any benefits of increased helmet wearing." . . .
Is the claimed 30% reduction in cycling based on counts with equivalent weather conditions? And no sites excluded?
Percentage of road users in Western Australia with head injury in relation to the timing of bicycle helmet laws. Drawn from data provided by Delia Hendrie and Bruce Robinson and analysed as part of: Hendrie, D., M. Legge, D. Rosman, and C. Kirov. 1999. An economic evaluation of the mandatory bicycle helmet legislation in Western Australia, Road Accident Prevention Unit.
The graph doesn't appear in the Hendrie et al. paper. It is a synthesis of data supplied to User:Dorre by Di Rosman, one of the authors of the Hendrie et al. report, and by Bruce Robinson. As such, I don't think it is eligible for inclusion in a WP article under WP guidelines on synthesis and original research. Tim C (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't eligible, Tim, for the reasons that you give. Commons will take pretty much anything because, as is well-known nowadays, it has lost its purpose. Just because something exists at Commons does not make it valid for inclusion. In addition, I am becoming more and more concerned that Colin is actually no better qualified than I am when it comes to interpreting data - it is worrying because I've had a fairly minimal post-grad exposure to statistical methods etc and if even I can see the holes, and others seem also to see them, then there is likely a problem. Couple that with the obtuseness, Colin, and I'm afraid that it doesn't look good. I don't like doing this but I'll mention it anyway at this point: the policy of assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The graph shows the 36% drop that is for the basic data, Finch confirms this aspect. The 10% extra wearing helmets comes from the basic survey data. The main points are not really in dispute. The 42% "where 42% wore helmets before the law" comes from ref 7 in the paper, "weighted average wearing rate", so the reports does in fact refer to a published weighted average. In this regard Tim assumed the 42% had been calculated by the author when in fact it had not. The Velo paper reports the basic numbers, weather is mentioned, a weighted average for Melbourne pre law and weekday information. All this information gives a fairly good picture to inform readers. If other people wish to use other information to provide better graphs that is OK. Making invalid assumptions and others thinking the are valid and ADDING UNSUITABLE COMMENTS does not help. Colin at cycling (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence that the figures are representative for Australia as a whole? Are you sure that the basic survey data has been accurately represented and that the Finch methods/survey correspond with the methods used in this survey? Can you find any information that disputes the conclusions? If not, then it ain't going in because it is inaccurate, undue weight and POV. You may not like my comments but, hey, I didn't exactly appreciate your subterfuge either, so let's call that a draw, eh? Everyone else, bar perhaps Dorre, seems to have been very open about their positions in relation to the article subject. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that my version of the Clarke graph should be included in this WP article (or any others) - but it does illustrate why the Clarke graph shouldn't be included. Tim C (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim for providing quite a detailed reply. More or less we seem to agree about the figures I think.
It report
“A reported 36% drop in number of cyclists (Finch, Heiman, Nelger) from 3121 to 2011 was from surveys in Melbourne, where 42% wore helmets before the law.”
The 42% figure is from another source. Victorian Bicycling Strategy; Vic Roads, Australia 1991, it provided a weighted average wearing rate for Melbourne. The 42% figure would have come from Vic Roads annual surveys.
The Monash surveys were a 64 subset of 105 survey sites. Providing the 42% figure would probably have been more accurate than the 32% figure, at least that’s my understanding and judgement. If anyone had any questions contact details were provided.
With hindsight a clear ref to where the 42% figure came from may have been better.
In both cases 42% or 32% wearing helmets pre law, 58% or 68% not wearing, the drop of 36% is more than half. So it could be reported that the helmet law discouraged about 50% of pre law non -helmeted cyclists.
The Clarke graph shows the basic data for 1990 -1991 and is based on Finch etc. It appears to be accurate.
If you revise your comment to reflect that the 42% figure was not a spelling typo that may be better.
The data for 1992 is subject to a large cycle rally and dryer weather conditions. Wiki cannot provide original research and the Clarke graph has not been subject to peer review criticism. If Tim or Linda had quoted peer review criticism of the graph, that may have been suitable grounds not to include it. Has it stands it is really just people pushing their own point of view about Wiki content, excluding what they think, rather then on merit or principle. The graph was displayed for a number of weeks and is useful to show the changes in both number cycling, wearing rates and it clearly shows that the main effect of legislation was to discourage cycling. This was perhaps the clearest effect from helmet legislation in Australia.
I will amend my re-analysis of your graph to reflect your assurance that the 42% figure came from reference 7 in your paper, but was not attributed as such. Regarding your reasons for not showing the 1992 data available in the Finch et al. report, here is what the authors of that report have to say on the issue (p44):
Another explanation for some of the increase in bicyclist numbers in 1992 is related to the fact that there appears to have been a bicycle rally passing through one of the sites (site 80, in 1991/2, Appendix 2) on a Sunday morning. This particular site is a popular recreational area and is part of a defined bicycle track. In 1991, it was rainy during all observations of this site and very few bicyclists were observed. Although the weather was generally fine in 1990, the number of bicyclists in 1992 in this area was still more than would have been expected on the basis of pre-law levels. The chance occurrence of a large group of bicyclists passing through a particular area is one of the hazards of observational surveys such as these. From a statistical point of view, however, an occurrence such as this is a true observation, well within the bounds of “normal” behaviour for that time period, and cannot be excluded from the analysis.
The chance occurrence of events such as different weather conditions or large groups of bicyclists, as described above, can be a problem associated with observational surveys even though observation sessions are randomly allocated within time and space strata. Such problems can be overcome, or minimised, by conducting larger surveys. Analysis methods, however, cannot overcome such problems (eg. by focussing on “fine” sites only) because it upsets the matched 64 site comparison of 1990 versus 1991.
The importance of the analysis of the total numbers of bicyclists as a measure of exposure trends is that it enables an assessment of trends in adults because, unlike timed-exposure, this information was available in 1990, prior to the law. This means that to have a valid comparison of pre- and post- law levels in adults, we have no choice but to look at the number of bicyclists over time. On the other hand, comparisons of the numbers of bicyclists leads only to valid conclusions about the 64 observation sites in common to each of the MUARC surveys. Unlike the timed exposure data, these results cannot, and should not, be extrapolated to the whole of metropolitan Melbourne; they only describe the 64 sampled sites.
Others can form their own opinions about whether such second-guessing of the authors' intentions represents unjustified selectivity in the use of available data, or not. Tim C (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has become entirely inappropriate even for a talk page, but I'm still amused by the quoted comment: "The chance occurrence of a large group of bicyclists passing through a particular area is one of the hazards of observational surveys such as these. From a statistical point of view, however, an occurrence such as this is a true observation, well within the bounds of “normal” behaviour for that time period, and cannot be excluded from the analysis." To put it another way, they counted normal cycling before the law, normal cycling plus a bike rally after the law. If they had done the obvious thing and excluded the rally site, they'd have had to come up with a conclusion they didn't like. Suppose the rally had been before the law and had biased things the other way? I would bet my last dollar that they'd have done the obvious (and valid and correct) thing, taken the site out and possibly never even mentioned it.
This is not the right place to discuss the matter, but Sitush and others may like to note that, in the debate about bicycle helmets, government sponsorship is at times (there are other examples, including some from other jurisdictions) a marker for true conflict of interest within the published literature. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to add that the current article contains gross errors including incorrect citations (information in the text in a different paper to the one that's cited), statements such as "Hospital admission data in a 1995 Victorian study by Carr et al. showed that in the 3 after the helmet law, compared to the 3 years before the helmet law", and as I pointed out in a previous comment on the talk page a very obscure comment in the middle of a government-funded report that the number of non-head injuries can be used to indicate the amount of cycling, when peer-reviewed journal papers show increased injury rates per cyclist. These errors appear to have been created when someone with a strongly-held POV hastily edited sections to selectively reports that POV, didn't check the result for accuracy, and, after removing material that didn't support the said POV, removed the wrong citations. I have a COI in that I ride a bike for transport in Australia (and a less significant COI in that I am very familiar with most of the papers published on this subject) so no longer feel empowered to do anything about it. Dorre (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Publishing papers isn't a conflict of interest, though disclosing them is most certainly good practice and may protect against some accusations. A COI here means that advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia. This is something that anyone with a prior opinion needs to avoid very carefully. It does occur to me that argument on talk sites, letter columns etc. is probably a better indicator of possible COI than published papers. There is some of that on my own record. Would Sitush suggest that we list as many as we can conveniently find? Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Editing an article in which your own papers appear is too close to WP:COI for comfort. As with subjects of BLPs editing articles about themselves, the advice is usually not to do it and instead to confine yourself to the talk page. I think it is safe to assume that if people contributing here have commented on the helmet issue elsewhere then they will have taken a similar position.
As for Colin's graph, well, it seems more and more likely that he may be working outside his capabilities when it comes to stats etc. That doesn't stop him from commenting here, of course, but it makes me wonder whether anything based on his studies should appear in the article without a really solid consensus. And that consensus seems unlikely at present. Colin, you could escalate the graph issue to WP:DRN or institute a RfC but I'd advise you to simplify any comments that you make there: people's eyes glaze over when they see the sort of thing that has been going on at this talk page and the outcome will not be good in a RfC or at DRN if similar stuff happens there. - Sitush (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I was trying to say is that, as someone who cycles for transport in in Australia, helmet laws and consequent reduced safety in numbers affects me personally - my safety when I cycle is important to me. Regular exercise without having to find time to go to the gym is an important benefit. There is also a monetary component in that lost health and environmental benefits affect taxpayers. Personal benefits represent COI. Having an accurate and truthful Wiki article is a more subtle COI - shall we just say that truthful representations lead to a more harmonious environment that improves quality of life for everyone? On the other hand, I'm not sure about having my name splashed about the internet - I'm not trying to hide anything, but there's no possible personal benefit and in some ways it's distasteful - so I don't understand why it should be a COI. I suspect, however, that Tim (who posed the question) cannot understand this any more than he can understand why some people cycle less because of helmet laws. He has made it clear that helmet laws don't affect him personally and this appears to have convinced him that all the other people who say they were affected - in the WA survey the number was equivalent to 64% of adult cyclists - must be deluding themselves. This in an area where lots of people have strong opinions and, from what I've seen of the edits that have been made in the past months, it's the strong opinions ('my helmet saved my life' stories vs detrimental effects of reduced safety in numbers) that has generated the edit wars. Strong opinions + knowledge represents a potentially solvable problem; strong options + ignorance would be an entirely different matter. Dorre (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what to suggest for the best.
For
"Cycling levels before and after the introduction of mandatory helmet laws[edit]"
Curnow provides a reference to changes in cycling activity across Australia in Table 1, provides one source that has been peer reviewed. It avoids too much discussion.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/p787.pdf
Discouragement,,
Though it was known that compulsion to wear a helmet could discourage cycling [3], no
national monitoring for it was done, but in most jurisdictions (percentages of total population shown in Table 1, second column) surveys made before and after the helmet laws, mainly to measure compliance with them, found declines in cycling/numbers of cyclists. The measured declines are shown in Table 1 (reproduced from Curnow [74] with kind permission of Health Promotion Journal of Australia), as follows.
Table 1. Declines in cycling, Australia
State/territory % Class of cyclist Decline pre-to post-law'
If permission could be obtained for including Table 1, this could be the main data provided and perhaps a short description based on Curnow's report.
This would effectively cuts out most of the present discussions,,
'A 1993 Victorian study by Finch et al',,
'Studies conducted for the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority',,
'The (1995) report by Williams noted',,
'A 1995 SA study by Marshall and White found that',,
'Automatic counters installed on two key cyclist bridges over the Swan river',,
A short summary could be included that helmet wearing rates pre legislation ranged from about 10% to 47% depending on the type of cyclist and location, e.g. a recreational teenager cyclist in country Victoria compared to adults commuting in Melbourne (ref Vic Bike Strategy 1991).
Robinson noted that for children, the decrease in numbers of cyclists counted in New South Wales and Victoria)was greater than the increase in numbers wearing helmets, suggesting that the main effect of the law was to discourage cycling rather than persuade cyclists to wear helmets.[12]
This could effectively sum up the changes in cycling levels for Australia and avoid graphs.
As an optional extra, including the Clarke graph or similar with a suitable caveat, if required, would make it clearer to the reader but this aspect could be considered as an extra.
Colin at cycling (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, Table 1 in the Curnow paper that you mention only shows data for children, and even worse, it cherry-picks the worst data from the children age categories. All those surveys included adults as well, but those results are completely omitted from the Curnow table - possibly because they most show that the helmet laws had a far less effect on adult cycling levels. Look at the row in Curnow's table for Victoria - it only shows teenagers, but completely excludes the data for younger children and adults, which show much smaller decreases post-helmet laws than teenagers. The same applies to the NSW and SA data. Excluding relevant data from the same sources like that is unforgivable. Tim C (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's totally unacceptable. Many of the strong opinions were generated when MUARC did exactly that - claiming "the 1990 survey did not cover adult bicyclists" and claiming increases in adult cycling despite the fact that the matched pre- and post-law surveys counted 29% fewer adult cyclists. Then there's the the bicycle rally in the second year. As Richard points out it's a safe bet what would have happened had that occurred pre-law instead of post-law. So I agree that it's unacceptable to exclude relevant data (whoever does it), but still don't understand your comment about adults in NSW - the surveys were conducted at different times of year so clearly incomparable. Dorre (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In stating that MUARC claimed that "the 1990 survey did not cover adult bicyclists", Dorre appears to be confusing cyclist counts with (timed) exposure. According to the (1992) Cameron report "Bicycle use was measured in billions of seconds . . . represents total cycling time . . . As bicycle use data for adult cyclists was not collected in 1990, a comparison between the 1987/88 and 1991 results for the adult group was made instead".
In another recent talk post, Dorre claimed that the article contains "gross errors . . . including . . .statements such as "Hospital admission data in a 1995 Victorian study by Carr et al. showed that in the 3 after the helmet law, compared to the 3 years before the helmet law". The (4) tables of injury admission data shown on pages 17-20 are labelled as Jul87-Jun90 (ie. 3 years) for pre-law and Jul90-Jun94 (ie.4 years) for post-law. I agree that the article should be tweaked to reflect that the fact that the post-law data covered 4 years, not 3.
Some errors with respect to cyclist non-head injuries . . .
A reference I added about a week ago was (hastily) removed by Dorre, who incorrectly claimed that "Williams didn't infer cycle use from injury data". Dorre has subsequently referred to "speculations from non-peer reviewed sources that injury rates can be used to infer the amount of cycling". Some of the other material (hastily) removed by Dorre included a reference to an article by Povey et al., which noted that cyclist non-head injuries are a measure of changes in both cycling exposure and the general road safety environment. It seems that in the haste to remove the (offensive) material, Dorre has overlooked the fact that the Povey study was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (AAP, in 1999).
A further error re what was in the Povey study is Robinson's (2001, in AAP) claim that "Unless voluntary wearing is 15 times more effective in reducing head injuries, it seems likely that the apparent effects (as described by Povey et al., 1999) were an artefact caused by failure to fit time trends in their model." In fact, Povey et al. included a cyclist non-head injury term to control for time-trends (in the modelling terminology I am familiar with, models are fitted, not trends, trend effect terms may be included to improve model fit).
Re Dorre's response to TimC exposure of Curnow's cherry-picking: "Of course it's totally unacceptable . . . I agree that it's unacceptable to exclude relevant data (whoever does it)" . . .
On 5 June I noted that between 1986 and 1991, when jurisdictions with helmet laws comprised about 70% of the Australian population, cycling to work fell by 6.9%, and bus travel to work fell by 14%. My post also noted that between 1991 and 1996, when the remaining 30% of the population was also subject to helmet laws, cycling to work fell by 38%, and walking to work fell by 36%.
On 6 June Dorre posted some material arguing that 'there is no hint of a difference in walking to work in states with and without enforced helmet laws.'
I posted a response (about 7 hours later) noting that re WA/Qld/ACT between 1991 and 1996, cycling to work in the ACT increased, in Qld train decreased by the same amount as bike, and that in WA bus decreased by exactly the same amount as bike. (Prior to re recent pruning, the article noted that between 1991 and 1996 train travel to work in Perth skyrocketed, and travel to work by bus and bicycle both had big drops.)
On 16 Jun (at 05:59) I noted the 'eerily similar' drops, across Australia, in various travel to work modes in the post-law v pre-law censuses: cycling to work dropped by 21%, bus travel dropped by 21%, and train dropped by 19%. (The accompanying graph showed that ferry/tram travel dropped by 29%. Something not mentioned in my post was that walking to work dropped by 6.4%.)
On 16 Jun (at 08:09) Dorre posted some material to her user page, including a graph showing that cycling to work had dropped by (considerably) more than walking to work. People are entitled to post whatever they like on their user pages, however this material is extremely 'misleading' . . .
The areas that comprised only about 30% of the population, but had the biggest drops, namely WA/Qld/ACT and the capital cities, are shown on the same scale as the smaller drops in the larger areas (ie. undue prominence to the larger drops in areas that comprised about only 30% of the population). The accompanying text states that ' . . . decreases in cycling to work, aggregated over all states which had enforced helmet laws in 1991 . . . no such change in walking to work, suggesting that . . . helmet laws . . .'.
Re the line showing the drop in cycling in Vic/NSW/SA between 1986 and 1991, it is 'unacceptable' not to 'show' that
in Vic, cycling to work dropped by 22%, ferry/tram dropped by 28%, bus dropped by 26%
in NSW, cycling to work dropped by 12%, bus dropped by 11%
in SA, cycling to work dropped by 14%, ferry/tram dropped by 28%, train dropped by 30%
Re the line showing the drop in cycling in WA/Qld/ACT between 1991 and 1996, it is 'unacceptable' not to 'show' that
in WA travel to work by bus and bicycle both dropped by 35% (train increased by 115%)
in Qld bicycle dropped by 28% and train dropped by 69%
(I was prompted to look at Dorre's user page after reading Richard Keatinge's comment that it had occurred to him that 'argument on talk sites, letter columns, etc. is probably a better indicator of possible COI than published papers.)
I have been reverted here. We say that Robinson criticised something because it ignored similar trends found in pedestrians. The figures that have been reinstated are unnecessary stats: they add nothing to the statement that is of significance.
Look,folks, we really, really need to make this article more accessible and it is not being helped by throwing all these stats around. I get the impression that a fair few of the major contributors are professional statisticians etc and they may be unaware of just how daunting it is for the average reader to comprehend such a mass of figures. - Sitush (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there's far too much detail. Editors have tended to focus on tiny detail like the census stats for one city (usually Melbourne), or trot out the stats for every single city (but ignore the rest of the country despite the much higher cycling rates in regional areas) when the bigger picture of what happened in the entire country is far more important. I reverted the information on pedestrian injuries (until we get some consensus here), because the comment said that changes for pedestrians weren't relevant, even though there was a 75% reduction in pedestrian concussions. On the other had, the next sentence "In 2013, Vicroads reported "Two years after the legislation was introduced, there was a 16% reduction in head injuries in metropolitan Melbourne and 23% reduction in head injuries throughout Victoria".[20]" is confusing in that most readers won't realise it applies to all road users. There are many examples like this that need to be fixed up or deleted. Dorre (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forget the edit summary and concentrate on the edit itself because edit summaries are just that, a summary in a limited amount of space. Prior to your revert, the article said Robinson criticised this study on the grounds that it ignored the similar trends for pedestrians. You reinstated detail relating to that which is not needed - we'll have enough stats about cyclists without adding detailed stats about pedestrians. The pre-revert statement adequately reflects what you said in your criticism (you are Dorre Robinson, aren't you?). - Sitush (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, Dorre is a potentially misleading name for a WP:SPA account because a person called Dorre Robinson does much more than just "cycle for transport". I'll probably raise the issue at UAA or COIN when I get home. - Sitush (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is difficult. For any scientific analysis the experience of the control group - the pedestrians - is fundamental and leaving it out is clearly and absurdly POV. On the other hand, we do have far too much detailed argument here. We need to tell the story simply, with minimal figures, but we certainly don't need deletion of the major part of the argument. So long as we have detailed argumentation - not much longer I hope - we do need both sides. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand this at all. Robinson notes that there were similar trends for pedestrians - there is no need for the stats to reinforce a point that has already been made. And please do not accuse me of POV as, by the looks of things, I'm practically the only person involved here who has absolutely no connection with the topic area. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside to the initial point of this thread, Dorre and Richard Keatinge both seem to agree that there are too many stats. Why not do something about it, then? I realise that one of you (Richard) and probably both have conflicts of interest here but you could at least explain exactly which stats you mean and propose changes here. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have been watching the current flood of edits in the hope that both sides would eventually see the error of their ways; my off-Wiki consultants (family and friends) agree that the article has become unreadable with a rash of statistics which no normal reader will plough through. My Wiki time has been limited of late and I have not felt inclined to argue about the overdose of additions (often accurate and cumulatively probably helping NPOV, but in aggregate hopelessly un-encyclopaedic). I hope to see, or possibly be involved in, a major rewrite so that this article again becomes attractive and readable for the encyclopaedic reader.
You may well be the only editor with no prior connection / opinion! I, for example, was an early adopter of bicycle helmets and quite enthusiastic about them until the evidence started to come out. Just to make it clear, I have a long-term interest in the subject and a relevant qualification (in epidemiology), but I don't have any conflict of interest at all. In fact my life would be somewhat easier if I were to drop NPOV and go along with a certain POV. And I'm sure you and others are doing your best to achieve NPOV. I do appreciate your help and I hope that you are willing to assist with the rewrite that this article needs. What it doesn't need is bits trimmed off in such a way that, if any reader were to get so far, would leave them with an inaccurate and POV impression. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to the Robinson pedestrian statistics, please explain why removal of the detail makes the article POv-slanted; if you are referring more generally, please elaborate where I am exhibiting POV. If you can find a diff of the article at its previously optimum state then I'd appreciate it: I'm not afraid to do a restore to that version if needs must because everyone seems to be agreeing that it is a mess now. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but no, its previous state wasn't optimum and I doubt if a revert would command consensus, a lot of people have a stake in the recent changes. In a smaller way it still had too many statistics and it wasn't clear enough, and on balance the recent flood may have improved NPOV. In my judgement we need a rewrite.
No, to repeat, I'm confident you're doing your best with NPOV in a very difficult area. I apologize if I have given any other impression. The specific edit reverted here removed information on a control group which is essential to interpret the facts. We may not need any of that particular sentence in a rewritten version (the concept is important but the detail isn't), but we don't need part of it, shorn of an essential detail. We are better off with a more complete version of the sentence for the moment. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see why the detail is important now. I also note that we seem to be comparing chalk with cheese in that paragraph. MUARC analysis showed a 23% and 28% reduction in the number of bicyclists killed or admitted to hospital who did not sustain head injuries in the first and second post-law years, respectively." but Robinson criticised this study on the grounds that it ignored the similar trends for pedestrians, in particular that numbers of pedestrians with concussion fell by 29% and 75% in the first and second years after the introduction of the bicycle helmet law in Victoria. Concussion is not death and it is not all types of head injury. I'm not wading through the two sources right now but either Robinson is was not comparing like with like (which would be their problem) or we are misrepresenting one or both of the sources. I suspect the latter, and removing the excess detail would also have the effect of removing the misrepresentation, if that is what it is. - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The site gives readers an insight into the problems, claims were made of a 70% reduction but 3 years later in the Monash report they claimed they could not tell if the reductions were due to less cycling or helmets and by 2013 Vic roads claim a reduction of 23%. Including info on pedestrians helps readers to appreciate the level of changes occurring. The primary purpose is to reflect information, if easy to read great, but the detail is important. Bearing in mind if the reduction of 23% is lower than the reduction in cycling activity, the risk per person increases. The information provided reflects various reports and provides a sort of balance. To evaluate them on wiki appears to be heading for original research. Colin at cycling (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've avoided my query and points again. I'm not a stupid person and if I cannot fathom out what is going on in the article then the average reader will not. As I've said before, if anyone wants to write an academic summary then they are free to do so, but not here. If we are comparing apples and oranges/chalk and cheese then we are doing the reader a dis-service, especially if they are ill-equipped to wade through all this crap and merely speed-read it. - Sitush (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was maybe a bit hasty, but concerned that the following sentence: 'In 2013, Vicroads reported "Two years after the legislation was introduced, there was a 16% reduction in head injuries in metropolitan Melbourne and 23% reduction in head injuries throughout Victoria".[20]', would then have been interpreted as applying to cyclists, rather than all road users. The following sentence 'Road safety improved substantially with deaths reducing from 776 in 1989 to 396 in 1992.[21]' also needed to be edited to make it clear the numbers refer to all road users in Victoria. I would also question the need to report the effect of the law in the first 2 years, when there was a follow-up study showing no effect of the law in the third year, and then a study over 4 years. These are explained immediately below the text we are discussing.
"Newstead et al. 1994 provided details of TAC claims (from motor vehicle/cyclist accidents) with the percentage reduction in severe bicyclist casualties relative to the 1989/90 financial year. For Melbourne bicyclists without head injuries fell by 4% and 12% for the years 1990/91 and 1991/92.[22] Clarke asserted that, because the Melbourne helmet wearing surveys reported reductions in generally cycling of 36%, compared to the reported 4% and 12% reductions in non-head injury rates in cyclists, this indicates that accident involvement increased by 37% to 50%.[9]
"A final MUARC report on the helmet law in Victoria (published in 1995) reported that after taking into account changes in the funding arrangements for publicly funded hospitals, cyclist non-head injuries dropped by about 25%, and serious and severe cyclist head/brain injuries dropped by 40%.[23] The report noted improvements to road safety and increased availability of bicycle paths. They mention "we were unable to include any reliable measures of exposure, and thus it is impossible to distinguish between reductions due to helmet wearing and reductions solely due to possible reductions in exposure".
Given the above, I was a bit concerned over the whole string of sudden changes (that I hadn't seen before), and that the whole section needed to be fixed up, rather than just removing one bit with the justification that pedestrians weren't relevant. Dorre (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to propose a rewrite of the entire paragraph, hopefully based on the concept that less is more! I did some big cuts and am now wandering around excising smaller pieces while I get a better feel for the various positions etc. I deal more with history-related stuff than with current subjects but, as a general rule, new research from respected academics (who are presumed to have digested the prior research) will always carry more weight. That, of course, makes the assumption that those academics are impartial and in the context of history it can, for example, lead to odd outcomes unless the contributor is aware that X or Y is a Marxist historian or similar. Doubtless, the same fundamental issues will exist here. - Sitush (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to re-write the paragraph, I would start with WA because the graph shows the trends for all road users. By explaining this first, the 2-year, 3-year and 4-year studies in Victoria can be explained more simply and concisely. Is there general approval to do this? Dorre (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the graph that is disputed in the section above or any other based directly on census data then no, I do not approve of it because you don't know why the figures have changed. You can't use primary data to infer something that is not said explicitly, and I'm becoming fed up of repeating myself as much as, I am sure, you are becoming fed up of reading it. - Sitush (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the graph showing the trends in percent head injury to all road users - cyclists, pedestrians & motor vehicle occupants in Western Australia. Dorre (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot extrapolate from one region to an entire country unless a reliable source has done so. If there is such a source then that is what should be used. Adding info about a single state when similar info is not available for other states using the same criteria amounts to excess weight, although it would likely be fine if you wanted to create an article about, say, travel-related head injuries in Western Australia. You certainly could not use any summary based on that graph to explain the situation in Victoria. Honestly, people here are completely misunderstanding how Wikipedia works: it is not a perfect environment for the dissemination of knowledge and we have to reflect sources very closely, whereas academic papers can spread the net more widely. - Sitush (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right about extrapolation. Giving a concise graphical presentation of what happened to ridership or head injuries in relation to helmet laws in Australia (or Western Australia alone if that's what's available, but more comprehensive is better), based on a thoroughly reliable source, strikes me as so obviously useful to this article that I am still puzzled by calls for its removal. Coming back to your earlier points in this section, no we don't need all the detail now or indeed ever, but we really don't need half a point pruned to leave only the other half. Getting rid of the lot might be defensible, and getting rid of the present verbiage and giving a nice neat account of the whole story would be really good. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Showing figures just for WA is undue when the article concerns the entire country/continent. I do not understand your puzzlement but I'm beginning to think that the solution here is simply to remove everything that exists subsequent to the section explaining the law. There is far too much POv, there are far too many dubious statistics and there is far too much comparison of apples and oranges. Sure, if sources do not agree then we can reflect the alternate opinions but if sources are disagreeing based on parallel datasets rather than common datasets then any such comparison is worthless in the Wikipedia context. - Sitush (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to set the record straight, my comments were not intended to imply any extrapolation from WA to the rest of the country. The aim was to show that the existence of trends in the WA data that are common to all WA road users. Having established that, the casual reader is more likely to understand what a trend is, and therefore the totally independent research and references to trends in Victoria. I was not suggesting anything radical, simply re-ordering what is already there to make it easier for the average reader to follow. However, you seem to be arguing that you can't show a graph for WA without showing identical data for other states. That would be a tall order and conflict with your desire for brevity. Biases can be created by omitting relevant, neutrally presented information. I would have thought that readers want some information to help them make sense of the conflicting POV. The important issue is to agree on how to report it simply and with a NPOV. If the problem is that the article refers to the whole country, then perhaps creating sub-headings for the different states could avoid the problem of anyone possibly misinterpreting it as an intention to refer to the whole country? Dorre (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd strongly suggest keeping the graph, which is a much better presentation of more and better-sourced information, but getting rid of the other mentions if needed for clarity. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many casual readers don't know what a trend is and would have difficulty understanding the meaning of text about "similar trends in percent head injury for all road users." However, when they see the graph a lot more people will be able to understand. I don't think it will be possible to successfully simplify the article without such illustrations. Dorre (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Vandalism" by addition
That sensational title is one way of summarizing the changes to this (and the bicycle helmets) page over the past several months. So much detail has been added that it's impossible to see the wood for the trees. Most casual readers are not interested in what happened in individual states, or cities within individual states, but the effect on the whole country. However, it's very difficult for a single editor to delete this additional material without being accused of vandalism. Consider, for example the long and detailed description of the weather in the Melbourne survey where 2011 cyclists were counted in 1991:
"Although surveys conducted on weekdays had similar weather, there appears to have been some differences for counts conducted on weekends. About 32% of weekend observations in the pre-law survey were affected by rain, compared with about half in 1991 but only 14% in 1992. Counts in 1992 were also inflated by a bicycle rally passing through one of the sites in 1992. Finch et al. noted that from a statistical point of view, it would not be valid to exclude that site.[10] (Excluding the site would have excluded cyclists who would have been cycling anyway, but through a different site, had it not been for the rally.) A study by Robinson that re-analysed the data from the Finch study, excluding the site with the rally, concluded that 27% fewer cyclists were counted in 1992 than 1990.[11]"
Most people would agree that there's not a great deal of difference between 27% and 36%, and that the detailed description of the weather isn't too important because the pre-law weather was about the same as the average for the 2 post-law years (slightly better in 92, slightly worse in 91). So why all the complicated detail? A cynic would say that it's to hide the relevant information about numbers counted and helmet wearing. Pre-law, 1293 teenagers were counted, of which 272 wore helmets. A year later, 670 teenagers were counted, of which 302 wore helmets. The insightful comparison of the drop in teenage cycling (632 fewer teenage cycling) with the the increase of 30 in the number of teenagers wearing helmets gets lost because of the long and detailed discussion of the weather.
The small numbers observed in these surveys contrasts with the 100,000 people cycling to work on census day in 2011. Cycling is seasonal, so surveys taken at the same time of year generally have the same weather and are comparable. Comparing the results of surveys taken at different times of year (e.g. the pre and post-law survey of adults in NSW) is generally a lot less reliable.
The graphs of the census data is important because provides a reasonably consistent series from 1976 to 2011 for the whole country, illustrating the difference between trends unrelated to helmet wearing and the effect of helmet laws. This simply cannot be put into words.
This article's problems were compounded by the addition of new sections that effectively duplicated existing ones. For example,'Surveys of helmet use and cycling participation', effectively repeats (with many additional details to) the information that was in an existing section 'Bicycle usage: changes without concurrent control groups around the time of helmet compulsion'. Such edits added to the repetition, making the article longer and unreadable. The last time the article was pruned, there was consensus on the talk page to go back to the version as at Nov 28, 2012. Because the current article is so confusing and difficult to read, anyone who wants to prune it should consider reading that version and then see what additional material is relevant and informative. This might provide sufficient insight to help distinguish the wood from the trees. Dorre (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have my eye on a lot of what you mention above but am conscious that my knowledge of the detail is slim and that the umpteen sources are highly technical. I'm off for a couple of days into a bit of Wales that has no easy internet access, during which time I will be having a bit of a think about where to go from here. It would be great if I turned up here at the weekend and found that someone had done that bold thing. There does not seem to be much disagreement that big changes are needed. - Sitush (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MUARC 4-year study
I have great difficulty with edits that make exaggerated claims about the benefits of helmet laws. Although, as a member of the editorial board of the BHRF, some people might consider I have a conflict of interest, the data on head and non-head injuries shown on the BHRF website Head and non-head injuries over time is not consistent with the quote added by Tim:
"A 1995 study by Carr et al. found that cyclist admissions to hospitals in Victoria in the first four years after helmet legislation was introduced were 40% below the number expected on the basis of pre-legislation trends, and that the severity of cyclist head injury had also declined subsequent to the helmet legislation.[18]"
Some balance is necessary. Tim didn't like my direct quote from the report stating the fall in head injuries, but indicating that some of the reduction might be due to reduced cycling. Does anyone therefore have a problem with a counterbalancing direct quote from the BHRF web page noting that "Both head and non-head injuries fell substantially"? Dorre (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I think that I may begin to understand your point and the problem we have been having lately. I'm sorry to be so slow, but of course the Hall of Valence Mary is junior to Peterhouse and I can only accept my consequent inferiority. You are of course quite right in the strictest sense; what happens to control groups, or to non-head injuries, is not directly relevant to bicycle helmets in Australia. However, if we take this article to include scientific studies into the results of head injury legislation in Australia, then it is absolutely essential to produce a text that fully takes into account the use of scientific controls, such as non-head injuries. Dorre references a graph which gives an excellent idea of what happened to the numbers of injuries to cyclists over a period including the law. If you take a quick look at it and spend a moment thinking through its implications, it will be clear to you that head injuries did reduce after the law. And so, more or less identically, did other injuries. The obvious scientific implication is that the overall exposure of cyclists to danger reduced, consistent with other studies which do show a reduction in cycling after helmet laws. But no obvious effect of mass helmet use on head injuries is supported.
Now, this leaves us with some choices for this article. We could perfectly well leave all the scientific stuff, apart from a very very brief summary and maybe a couple of graphs, to the Bicycle helmet article. Or we could ensure that our comments reflect a fuller view of the science; this doesn't mean putting in every possibly-Reliable comment but implies that we should give a cautious and balanced view of the Australian science; this will inevitably duplicate some material from Bicycle helmet. I'd follow your guidance to either of those two choices. But it is absolutely unacceptable to cherry-pick figures and quotations that give a one-sided view, then omit graphical presentations of data from reliable sources that give an unbiased, clearer and more comprehensive idea to the reader. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is nothing to do with educational establishments/perceived inferiority and everything to do with focus. This article is about bicycle helmets in Australia. If someone wants to write an article about head injuries to motorists, cyclists, pedestrians (... skateboarders, horseriders) in Australia then they're welcome to do so and there might be a justification for including such an article as a See also link from here.
If someone wants to include a graph here then it must involve precisely zero original research, be in focus and ideally not have been created by anyone who has a stake in the academic dispute. Indeed, we may be entering the realms of WP:MEDRS and might not even be in a position where we can invite people to draw a conclusion, as you have invited me to do above. My suspicion is that, as some people said around the time of the ANI report, this article has no real reason for existing because the content that matters can be dealt with via a merge with an article about helmet legislation worldwide. - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree, with apologies to all and especially anyone from Australia. There is some material about the introduction of helmets, the law, support and opposition and so on that is directly apposite to this article and could possibly form a respectable article on its own, but we seem to be moving to the idea of removing all of the scientific debate from this article. What do others think of this proposal? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When there are no cyclists, there are no cycling injuries, but it has nothing to do with helmets. The issue of whether how much of the effect was due to reduced cycling and how much to increased helmet wearing cannot possibly be irrelevant to an article on bicycle helmets. Perhaps Sitush can elaborate on why this is considered irrelevant. I think most casual readers are capable of understanding this difference. In discussing the future of this Wiki page, I would certainly agreed that no information is better than an article that attributes reductions in head injury from reduced cycling to helmets. But is no information better than one with intricate detail? That is a very hard decision. We were discussing how to simplify the information to make it accessible to the casual reader. Striking a balance means following Einstein's maxim - everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. Dorre (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure that Einstein did not digress. When there are no cyclists, there is no relevance to this article. I cannot make it simpler than that. Any meta-level stuff needs to be said elsewhere and why people cannot see the elephant in the room is beyond me, although the obvious reason is being blinded by vested interests. - Sitush (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do see your point. You may be less mystified if I tell you that the full and proper use of control groups - agreed by all sides to be scientifically necessary to the debate - is a central element in the longstanding scientific disputes about, in fact, the effects of bicycle helmets in Australia. Your response makes a further argument for removing almost all of the scientific debate to Bicycle helmet, leaving here little more than a remark that it exists. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If, after looking at the WA graph, somebody (eg. Richard Keatinge) thinks that the reduction in cyclist head injuries after the helmet law was 'more or less identical' to (head) injury reductions in other road users, and that 'no obvious effect of mass helmet use on head injuries is supported', then the graph has been misunderstood/misinterpreted.
The accompanying text states that "A 1996 analysis by Bruce Robinson used information on head injuries, recorded for hospital admissions in Western Australia (WA) since 1971, to show the remarkably similar trends for all road users, and noted that a divergence between the injury rates from 1991 was unexplained, suggesting that it might just be random variation."
However, the graph has been reproduced from (figure 1 in) a 1999 analysis by Hendrie et al..
Curiously, prior to my addition of the results of the Hendrie analysis, there was no reference in the text to the Hendrie analysis. The text I added re the Hendrie analysis was "The WA data were later analysed by Hendrie et al., using a statistical model to estimate the effect of the helmet law on cyclist head injuries, after taking the downward trends in both pedestrian and cyclist head injuries into account. The model showed that the divergence was not due to random variation (p<0.001); that before the helmet law the proportion of cyclists with a head injury was on average 6% higher than the proportion of pedestrians with a head injury; and that after the law the proportion of cyclists with a head injury was on average 16% lower than the proportion of pedestrians with a head injury. (This divergence can be seen on the graph, where the green/pedestrian line crosses the black/cyclist line the year before the helmet law is introduced.)".
On Bruce Robinson's graph (fig. 8 in http://www.bhsi.org/veloaust.htm), the 'divergence' is much clearer. (When I reproduced Bruce Robinson's graph, and added the cyclist and pedestrian data points from the extra 3 years from the Hendrie graph, and the 'divergence' became even more obvious and consistent, and clearly does not appear to be 'random variation'.)
The Hendrie (figure 1) graph is being misused/misinterpreted (ie. it is misleading, in the context in which it is being used), and should be removed. Linda.m.ward (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm.To quote from Robinson (your Hendrie URL doesn't seem to be accessible): "The divergence between WA pedestrian and cyclist rates in 1991 (before the legislation) is so far unexplained..." (http://www.bhsi.org/veloaust.htm). The above gives further reason to remove the main dispute from this page. I would note that there are published graphical representations of indisputably-reliable figures that all should agree are relevant and which would probably be useful here as residual introductions to the issue. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should list all areas and consider where general agreement exists. Basically the topic runs for 30+ years, 1980 - 2013, many reports can be accessed. What to include, built up to legislation, did Governments act properly, has legislation provided a benefit to Australia, effects on individuals, reporting the evidence etc. Reporting areas of scientific debate would help readers to appreciate why debate occurs. If the article ends up being long and slightly complicated in a few parts but accurate, reliable and balanced this may provide the best approach for understanding the topic.
"removing all of the scientific debate" may not be a good objective,
"this article has no real reason for existing because the content that matters can be dealt with via a merge with an article about helmet legislation worldwide"
many country seems to vary their approach to helmets or legislation and trying to include all the details into one report may mean missing out important information. Colin at cycling (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why? You will just be repeating what has already been said. None of us can comment on whether governments "acted properly" or whether legislation" provided a benefit to Australia" and we already know that as soon as we try evaluating it then all the conflicts of interest turn the article into one of the most messy, trivial and incomprehensible pieces of writing that many experienced uninvolved people have had the misfortune to see. I really do think some contributors here would benefit from having a wider experience of the many subjects that Wikipedia presents: you, Colin, for example, appear to be a single-purpose account and that is rarely ever A Good Thing. Spread your wings a bit, seen how we do stuff generally and learn from it. - Sitush (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Road safety, cycling levels, enforcement approaches, cultural aspects all vary with countries. Even within a country variation in both type of enforcement or just promotion occurs. Readers may end up not knowing which country or part of that country is being discussed. Many wiki contributions could also occur and trying to have one article and explain each aspect to both readers and people contributing may be vary time consuming.
I think we have different points of view. I have some concerns that a useful balance is being missed. The risk level of cycling v helmet effects. The 1991 article by Ron Shepard provided details of the relative risk, Ron had given evidence to government in 1986. Robinson's 1996 paper provided data on risk per million hours. The issue of wearing protection is about risk v effects. Ron Shepard's article was removed and this would not help readers. The article probably fails to adequately balance risk against effects, to help readers have a good understanding.
Colin at cycling (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about risks vs effects and if it were then the data as presented would still be useless as an aid to understanding. Seriously, I'm giving this no more than another 24 hours and then I am going to pull all the allegedly scientific content unless someone can square the obvious circle. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken Sitush's strong suggestion and at this diff I have greatly abbreviated the article, removing in particular almost all of the disputation but leaving (for the moment) the references. I must apologise to Tim; I said I would give plenty of opportunity to comment before I did any such thing, and now I've gone and done it without any significant input from anyone else at all. In the spirit of WP:BRD the discussion above, and no doubt further discussion to come, may perhaps be taken as plenty of opportunity to comment.
No doubt everyone will comment as they please, and I'm aware of many defects. I'd particularly appreciate your opinions on whether, as I hope, this very rough first cut is actually an improvement on the previous version. If we can restart work from here we may leave this article in relative peace and set about the much more difficult task of achieving good quality in Bicycle helmet, which does need to include a better summary of the state of the scientific debate. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed major problems with the edit. Two generic and fundamental problems: a) it conflates scientific discourse with public discourse - lumping together peer-reviewed scientific studies with non-peer-reviewed web site pages and newspaper articles; b) it reports that there are are debates on various issues (most issues are debated...), but fails completely to report on what the consensus or weight of the scientific evidence is - this is akin to writing an article on anthropogenic climate change which just says: "There is debate about this issue.[long list of references]" I recommend reversion of the edit, and another try. Tim C (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tim C. It was a bold attempt and worth a try but I don't think it's a helpful summary of the situation. I think we can appreciate that there is some debate about the topic but we do need to include some actual information and facts or else we're not writing an article about Helmets in Australia, we're writing an article about the debate about Helmets in Australia. I applaud the sentiment but I'd be in favour of reverting it back to the way it was and continuing with the gradual pruning which I think was producing a better article. Dsnmi (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely too many citations, I didn't even try to remove any. They could be drastically pruned. The whole point is to give a readable summary including mention of a debate but to leave the scientific argumentation for another and more appropriate article. I'd suggest a graph or two to make some of the key points clearer, but even the simplest presentation will stimulate vigorous debate because there are two consensuses with entirely different conclusions on the weight of the evidence. One side feels that the case-control work is too heavily confounded to be valid, and the best time-series studies show at most only trivial effects of helmets on head injuries but large effects on discouraging cycling; helmets are a non-answer to a rare problem. The other feels that the case-control studies are valid and useful, any effects on discouraging cycling are trivial and dubious, while diligent work on time-series can elucidate useful effects on reducing head injuries; helmets are a very useful solution to a serious threat. Both sides have literature to support them and coming to a consensus text will not be easy. I rather suggest that we should mention the debate here, as I have done, and work on the consensus text to describe the scientific argument elsewhere. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have to reach a consensus text here, that's not this page's job and it would be impossible to achieve. The purpose of this page should be to outline the scientific data that's Australia specific in an impartial and unbiased way so the reader can make up their own mind. The data has to be there for readers to examine and read further if they choose to. Dsnmi (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained why you are wrong to think this on numerous occasions above and, so far, no-one has actually come up with a policy-based reason that contradicts me. While RK's removal didn't really do the trick, it was heading in the general direction that we need to go. Please note that other people, both here and at venues such as ANI, have agreed that the amount of data in this article is ridiculous. And please also note that those people include some very experienced contributors, including admins and people well inside the top 400 on the all-time list. While edit count is not everything, such experience gained across a broad spectrum of articles stands at odds with the generally-WP:SPA nature of the regulars who contribute to this particular article. The regulars here need to open their eyes and start looking at the wood instead of the trees. - Sitush (talk) 08:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC) - restored this comment that was inexplicably deleted - Sitush (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely that there is too much information. I've never disputed the fact. I maintain however that the process you have engaged in so far of systematic and gradual pruning, with appropriate discussion on these pages, is the way to create an article that is both dramatically improved and won't simply revert to a shambles in a few months. A drastic edit will gradually become a mess again as people restore parts of the page they think are essential (and everyone has got one). A systematic reduction is more likely to last. Dsnmi (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus text is the foundation of an encyclopaedia and is precisely what we are here for. Consensus data presentation may also be useful. I'm here to try. In view of the strong POVs evidenced so far this will really not be easy. What we have achieved with the recent flood of POV edits is simple unreadability in which the entire argument disappears. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is an egregiously inaccurate/distorted 'summary' that bears almost no resemblance to the reality of the matter. I agree with Tim C and Dsnmi that this destructive edit should be reverted, and that the 'evolutionary' pruning approach be continued. Linda.m.ward (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That you consider a rather neat NPOV summary to be inaccurate/distorted does emphasize the problems we will have in achieving agreement on this and related articles. I am well aware of extreme views on both sides; our business here is to describe the issues and the arguments. I quote from WP:COI: "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." The aims of Wikipedia are to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia. To attempt to remove or belittle either side of the argument would be clear conflict-of-interest editing. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The section headed Surveys of helmet use and cycling participation is pointless for the reasons stated by Marshall and White in 1994. Since we are not comparing like with like and since the outcomes of the various surveys are so vague in terms of conclusions, please can we consider either removing the entire section or replacing it merely with non-statistical summaries of the surveys mentioned. Rather than clearing the air, the stats there cloud it. - Sitush (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It duplicates the material in section on changes without concurrent control groups. It also refers to a paper about New Zealand, and breaks Wiki rules about synthesis - Carr & Williams didn't infer cycle use from injury data. Given its current state, it seemed better to delete it. Dorre (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to retain brief summaries of the results of the surveys of cycling rates (and helmet wearing rates) done just before and in the few years after the introduction of helmet laws, since that is the issue which is directly relevant to this article. But all the other information about long-term changes in cycling rates from the Census and other sources belongs in a general article about cycling in Australia, not in this article about bike helmets in Australia. Also, the headings for these sections ("with and without control groups") were uninformative and jargonistic (they didn't make much sense to me, and I'm an epidemiologist). Thus I've pruned all the very detailed Census material, and re-organised the cycling survey data from around the time helmet laws were introduced into one section labelled explicitly to indicate what its scope is. Tim C (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone cycling to work without a helmet on census day 1991 in NSW, Vic or Tas who was observed by the police, would most likely have been stopped and fined. On the same day in WA, ACT and Qld, non-helmeted cyclists were free to cycle anywhere they wanted without fear or reprisal. You know, as well as I do, that fitting a statistical model the census data for the entire country for the 3 censuses surrounding helmet laws would find a most significant effect on cycling to work in states where you could be stopped by the police and fined for not wearing a helmet. Whether or not other factors (e.g. proportions walking to work, regional vs capital city) were included, the fear of police reprisal for non-helmeted cyclists would still be there. As such, the census data reveals a very important effect on showing how the law affected trends. It's reliable data that has been published on the BHRF website. If this article is to have a NPOV it has report such information. Dorre (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are straying into WP:OR territory, Dorre. Where is the source for these latest conjectures? And why is the BHRF seen as a fount of all respectable knowledge? - Sitush (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. In response to Dorre's rhetorical question, no, I do not know at all that "...fitting a statistical model [to] the census data for the entire country for the 3 censuses surrounding helmet laws would find a most significant effect on cycling to work in states where you could be stopped by the police and fined for not wearing a helmet." Has anyone done that and published such research? To start with, it would not make sense to fit a statistical model to just three Census data points before and after the helmet legislation - the method of travel to work data is available for Censuses from 1976 through to 2011, and it would be important to use all that data, and to look at other influences on cycling to work, such as changes in other commuting modes, as well as other factors such as weather on the Census day etc. I've had a preliminary look at this, and it is clear that levels of all types of commuting (bike, pedestrian, public transport) vary in a reciprocal fashion to commuting by car, and that car commuting increased dramatically at the same time as the helmet laws were introduced (in fact, throughout the 1990s). Thus a great deal of careful analysis needs to be done before making statements which attribute some or all of cycling commuting changes in the Census data to helmet laws. There is also a lot of variation between states, and between capital city and rural regions. It is not possible to just make the causal leap from helmet laws to drops (and increases - the trend has has not been down in all cases by any means) in cycle commuting in the Census data. Researchers need to undertake a careful analysis of these data and submit it for publication by a suitable peer-reviewed scientific journal. Then, but only then, the results of such an analysis could be included in this WP article. Anything else is original research involving leaps of faith. Tim C (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Presenting relevant reliable data in an easily-readable form is fundamental to what a good encylopaedic article should do. As I'm sure you are aware, quite a lot of other factors affected cycling and road safety around the time the helmet laws were passed. You and Dorre describe quite a lot of original research that hasn't been done and from which we might well benefit, but the basic census data would remain as the point of departure for any such research, reliable in the ordinary sense, Reliable, and obviously essential to this article.
I've met quite a lot of people who described themselves as epidemiologists, but never before one who found the concept of control groups "uninformative". I put in that particular heading as a preliminary to drastic reduction; comparisons without control groups are fundamentally weaker and I'd see them as a priority for pruning. I see you have done some of the pruning, which is fine. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Richard, the Census on cycle commuting is essential to an article on cycling in Australia, but not to this article on Bicycle Helmets in Australia. You, and User:Dorre, have made the leap of faith that changes in cycle commuting in the Census data are due to helmet laws. Some of those changes may well be, but other factors almost certainly play a role, and further research needs to be done to estimate what proportion of the changes in cycle commuting in the Census data are likely to have been due to helmet laws. To present the Census data in THIS article without having done that further research, and having it vetted by scientific peers and published in a reputable journal, is potentially misleading because it implies that all, or a large part of the changes in cycle commuting in the 1990s were due to helmet laws, and that may not be the case.
Regarding control groups, of course I am familiar with the concept in the context of both experimental (eg RCTs) and observational studies (eg cohort and case-control studies). However those sections contained descriptions of Census data and helmet wearing surveys, and I found the the concept of "control groups" (or lack thereof) with respect to a census or a survey rather peculiar. Tim C (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC~)
It is really very simple: census data is a primary source and much care is needed when using such sources. Given the fairly obvious statement that raw statistics can be interpreted in numerous ways, we should not be using such statistics at all in the article nor relying on them in discussions on this talk page. The only valid use of census data is where it has been cited in peer-reviewed studies. - Sitush (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have used this graph or one very similar as a nice simple way to illustrate the concept of control groups to first-year students. None of them had any trouble understanding the point. I'll take Sitush's opinion and leave the issue of this particular graph for the moment. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, in the context of that graph, I now understand the intent of your section headings - you were conceiving of the Census commuting data by State as a natural experiment, with some States subject to helmet law at the 1991 Census, and some not. Frankly, that wasn't obvious to me, nor to colleagues to whom I showed the article as it was. However, Sitush's point still stands - even just that graph represents an analysis of primary source data - an analysis in which causation is strongly suggested. The problem is that other factors which influence cycle commuting on Census day are not also taken into account, and thus there is a strong risk that the analysis implied by that graph is very incomplete at best and highly misleading at worst. If you submit a paper to a scientific journal in which that graph is the only analysis, the paper will be rejected - the reviewers will send it back with a curt note pointing out that many things influence cycle commuting levels and please consider them all in your analysis before re-subitting your paper. Tim C (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Call me stupid but I don't even understand what the dotted bits are supposed to represent. And in addition to my earlier comment about primary data, I reiterate something that I said a few days ago: it is my understanding that merely changing the format of a chart - eg: from bar to pie - can dramatically alter the perception of outcomes. I've no idea if it would do so in this case but I'm pretty sure that I am correct to say that it might. - Sitush (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the states and territories shown in the red line, helmet laws came into effect in the year or so before the 1991 Census. For the states and territories shown in the dark blue line, the helmet laws came into effect after the 1991 Census, but before the 1996 Census. Therefore, I think the dotted line segments are supposed to represent the effects of the helmet laws on cycle commuting in that inter-Censal period. It is a pretty strongly framed way to present these data in order to make a particular point. But if you look at exactly the same Census data, but in context and much greater detail, it is clear that the story is not as simple as the BHRF graph makes it appear - see https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BykuVdPr-by8N1dRMEQwTVI5QTg/edit?usp=sharing But none of these Census graphs (not the BHRF ones, and not mine) should appear in the article unless or until they are part of a thorough multivariate analysis in a peer-reviewed paper published in a reputable scholarly journal. Tim C (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This graph, which I am NOT suggesting should appear in the article, shows that the drops in cycling (-21%), bus (-21%), and train (-19%) to work were eerily similar.
Putting the data into a statistical model is not going magically transform the drop in cycling into a huge drop, and magically shrink the drops in the other modes into insignificance. Linda.m.ward (talk) 05:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My last revert
I really, really do not have any stake in this argument and I'm really unsure who is right and who is wrong. Indeed, both "sides" may be equally right or wrong. What I do know is that edits to this article are by and large coming from people who have a pre-set agenda either in favour of mandatory helmet use or opposed to it. That is not the best environment for achieving a neutral article. Or, rather, it is not the best if people keep pushing A or B without really discussing things first. Yes, there has been a lot of discussion but much of it is going round in circles and it has become apparent that there is an element of obtuseness from certain contributors.
I've reverted to my last edit. It is almost certainly the wrong version but it is more certainly less wrong than what followed because that came from a contributor who has indeed been obtuse. If needs must, we will have to take this to a higher level. RfCs are pointless, in my opinion but something in the dispute resolution process looks likely unless we can begin to define exactly what it is that this article is supposed to be focussed on. Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a bold edit, trimming it down to easy readability (except for the multiple references - sorry, aggregation might help in due course). I felt that this, though far from perfect, was a point from which we could gradually build up with contributions as consensus may allow. That it was readable, short, and more or less free from the various specific comments that get one side or the other worked up might perhaps have allowed us to improve it by degrees. Forgive me for pushing an idea, but would something of the sort be worth trying again? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
................................................................................. problem with line space.................................................................................
--
There has been evidence for and against helmets and any article may need to reflect both views. Other Wiki topics may not have this degree of difficulty.
In some ways you need to know right from wrong to provide a neutral article. Provided each view is supported by suitable evidence that is probably the best approach. Reverting to a previous version without considering each change and its merits does not encourage me to help write a worthy article. As noted I am contributing to one topic at the minute and many of the protocols may take some time to digest. Time of course is limited. Colin at cycling (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817
worth a read Colin at cycling (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse Colin's recommendation of http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817, especially to anyone new to the issues. Not that I'd agree with absolutely everything Goldacre and Spiegelhalter say, but they do give a very good overview of the published evidence on the debate, embarrassingly more readable than ours presently is, and they hint at some of the reasons for strong feelings on both sides. Indeed I'd ask other editors if their article may supply a framework for ours. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. The Goldacre and Spiegelhalter editorial is about the UK, where bicycle helmets are not compulsory. This article is about Australia, where they have been compulsory for over two decades. Quite different countries and circumstances. But you could use it as the basis for a WP article on Bicycle Helmets in Blighty. Tim C (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Colin and Richard were suggesting that anyone interested in learning more about the topic in general might enjoy reading the BMJ editorial and seeing the way the material is presented. I didn't see any suggestion in either comment that it should actually be used in the BH in Aus page. Dorre (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to achieve a consensus
In an area full of strong opinions and COI affecting virtually everyone who rides a bike (and indeed governments with a desire to justify laws to win elections), the best hope of achieving a consensus is to report facts, not opinions. For every published argument in favour, another one can be added against, leading to an ever-increasing indigestible mass of words. But there is no dispute about the data, only its interpretation. Instead of discussing how to present relevant facts (which I personally find hard to interpret without graphs), much time has been wasted on attacking sources of factual information (e.g. the BHRF, of which I serve on the editorial board) or individual editors, many of whom, like myself, ride bikes and so could be considered to have major COI. While these disputes have continued, as I have noted on the talk page, the current article contains factual errors. It's time to move beyond the strong, personal opinions and try and achieve a consensus on what facts should be presented. Dorre (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suits me fine. It means that we will show nothing about the various allegations regarding the effect of the legislation, all of which seems to cherry-picked and biased and much of which seems to have its origin with people who have contributed to the article. Until someone does an Australia-wide study of now and somehow reconciles the gaps in the pre-legislation study, none of this crap deserves to be mentioned here. - Sitush (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the section on Opinions, which contains individual opinions, should be replaced by results of opinion surveys on helmets from reputable sources (there are several such surveys published). Questioning the BHRF as a reliable source was entirely valid, for all the reasons previously stated: it is a single-issue organisation, the material on the BHRF is relentlessly anti-helmet and anti-helmet promotion/laws (yes, I know that there are pages for almost every study that has found helmets to be beneficial, but those pages then attempt to tear those studies to pieces - but there are no such pages on the BHRF site which are critical of studies that cast doubt on the effectiveness or utility of helmets or helmet promotion/laws), several of your fellow BHRF editorial board members run anti-helmet (or anti-helmet-law) lobby groups and web sites (including Bill Curnow), and frankly, some of your fellow patrons of the organisation are at the very fringe of road safety thought - in particular Gerald Wylde and John Adams, both of whom still argue in public fora that seat belts increase the road toll and should not be compulsory. Tim C (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Until there is consensus for inclusion of material, it should not be in the article. For that reason, I have removed a huge chunk from it - it is clear from this talk page that people cannot come close to agreeing which surveys are appropriate to use, how to show them etc. I suspect that there is a bit more that should be removed. If anyone wants to expand again then they will need to seek consensus here first, and I am prepared to seek full protection of the article in order to force that to happen. - Sitush (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Long time observer of this article here. I'm 100% with Sitush. It's obvious that several editors want to use this article primarily (if not exclusively) to promote their point of view on the issue of bicycle helmets. They MUST recognise that is their position, and that it is unacceptable here. To maintain the credibility of both themselves and the article they should decline to edit this article any more. HiLo48 (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly endorse Sitush's action and his recommendation to seek consensus before making any changes. The article is now arguably incomplete, but it has acquired the immense merits of being readable, referenced, and relevant. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that the scope of the article should be left as it now is - it covers all the aspects of bicycle helmets in Australia that are unique to Australia. It is inappropriate to cover bicycle helmet effectiveness in this article, because that it not unique to Australia, and it makes no sense to cover just Australian studies of helmet effectiveness, divorced from the context of similar overseas studies. The same argument applies to surveys and studies of the effects of mandatory bicycle helmet laws - Australia may have been the first country to introduce such laws, but that was two decades ago, and now it is far from unique in having mandatory helmet laws, and there is a lot of evidence on the effects of helmet laws on both cycling participation (how many people ride bikes) and on injury rates in cyclists from jurisdictions other than Australia, including NZ, Canada, Spain, the US and Sweden. Thus it makes little sense to examine the effects of just the Australian helmet laws in isolation. My feeling is that the effectiveness of bicycle helmets and related topics (including risk compensation theories) should be covered in the main Bicycle helmets article (they are already), and that promotion of helmet wearing and mandatory helmet laws, and their effects, should have its own article, but one which encompasses all jurisdictions and countries (perhaps with country-specific sections if required). And all these helmet articles should be part of a broader set of article on bicycle safety, helmets being only one aspect of cycling safety. Tim C (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TimC's observation that "the material on the BHRF is relentlessly anti-helmet and anti-helmet promotion/laws" is not a "distortion", it is entirely consistent with the views expressed by a number of editors in response to the BHFR RfC. Some examples:
"all the stories are about how bike helmets are a bad thing"
"a website which clearly exists to promote one point of view"
"If the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation wants to be seen as a reliable, scientific, objective source it should stop using such a deceptive name. I would suggest the "Anti-Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation."
During the RfC,I noted a number of factual errors with respect to material on the BHRF site. That was about 3 months ago, and at least 4 BHRF editiorial board members would have seen those comments. I don't think any of those corrections have been made (1 correction was to remove the reference to an anti-helmet paper that was retracted more than a year ago). Refusal to accept facts is 'not conducive' to consensus. Linda.m.ward (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I mean a balanced article that reflects the facts from a neutral point of view. I will see if I can suggest some changes to help. Colin at cycling (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My Tidy Up
It's good to come back to this page and see it vastly shrunk and more readable.
The edits have resulted in a few rough edges, e.g.: "The 1978 inquiry" - what inquiry? A reference listed twice (15, 18). A rather strange summary on a list of references from both sides of the debate "These consistently show..." - if they were consistent with each other there wouldn't be a debate! Some of the dates don't seem right/out-of-order. Other odds'n'ends. So I'm going to try and clean these up. It will probably look like a lot more than it is as some bits seem out-of-order so I'll move them around, but the length shouldn't change appreciably. Regarding the 1978 inquiry and its report I'll just insert [full citation needed] - there appears to be no details of what the inquiry was or its report, unless I've missed them... Indeed the whole para contains one reference marked as unreliable, maybe it should just go? Kiwikiped (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the page there was "History" but no "Now" so I've added a very short section "Two Decades On" (rather than "Today" as it dates better!). In that I have simply referenced one recent paper from each side of the debate and one of the groups formed in opposition to follow up on the comment in the history section about the opposition being initially fragmented. The papers were not chosen as they stand out (and I do not know the authors of either personally), the group was picked based on its recent formation as an Australia-wide collaboration and hence indicative of the recent increase in activity. If people wish to substitute any one of these for one other, without analysis/argument/discussion/original research etc. then that should be OK. Kiwikiped (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your latter change and the likely more problematic survey added by Colin, who has a considerable POV. Surveys are problematic and need discussions before addition, as per my previous comment in the section above. I'm now away for a couple of days, so that should provide some time for people to talk. - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to revert the addition by User:Kiwikiped (but User:Sitush has already done that) for the following reasons:
WP articles are not supposed to provide "balance" between "opposing views", they are supposed to reflect the consensus of scientific or other scholarly research, while still mentioning conflicting findings (but not fringe theories or opinions of lobby groups). There have been quite a few studies of the effects of helmet laws in Australia, most finding a positive effect on injuries, a few equivocal, and then there are papers by Robinson and Curnow claiming those were all wrong. Thus picking "one of each side" is not consistent with WP guidelines.
the edit was inaccurate: the benefit-cost study by de Jong was cited as finding that helmet laws in Australia had a negative cost-benefit. Sorry, that's NOT what the de Jong paper says - please read it - it only evaluates benefit-cost for North American and some European countries (includng Britain). Neither Australia nor New Zealand are evaluated in the de Jong study - they do not appear anywhere in de Jong's results. Tim C (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tim writes "they are supposed to reflect the consensus of scientific or other scholarly research" - there is no consensus, we have "scientific or other scholarly research" coming to opposing conclusions. In the light of that simply referencing two papers, from Australia, with opposing conclusions, is a reasonable summary of the current situation. Where they the best papers to pick as representative of the two opposing conclusions? Quite possibly not, and above I carefully wrote "If people wish to substitute". I'm afraid Tim your objection comes across as "my POV should carry more weight" - I was careful to give neither POV weight just state they both exist.
Sitush, not clear to me you gave a reason to revert the change (you gave a reason to revert one by Colin).
The change was small and brought "History" to "Now". Maybe I should put it back but without any example output. Why should the article not make it clear that the debate continues, has anyone got a good reason to exclude that fact? Kiwikiped (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have reinserted the small section without referencing any particular papers as examples. If folk think it is better with examples say so. If folk would like to propose replacements for the two I selected then please do so here.
I avoided commenting on Tim's erroneous claim regarding de Jong above, but least avoidance be misinterpreted let me make it clear - Tim's objection is original research. I neither state that I agree, or disagree, with de Jong's work, that is not my role as a wikipedia editor. It is merely used as an example of a paper by an Australian professor working at an Australian university whose conclusion is not supportive of helmet legislation. The abstract of the paper starts:
This article seeks to answer the question whether mandatory bicycle helmet laws deliver a net societal health benefit.
And it's conclusion contains:
Using elementary mathematical modeling and parameter estimates from previous studies, leads to reasonable bounds for the net health impact of a mandatory bicycle helmet law. ... A (positive) net health benefit emerges only in dangerous bicycling environments under optimistic assumptions as to the efficacy of helmets and a minor behavioral response. Resolution of the issue for any particular jurisdiction requires...
The conclusion does not either include, or exclude, any country, state, region, city, county or parish. The research was published in a peer reviewed journal. Are the conclusions valid? It is not for us as wikipedia editors to decide, the paper is referenced purely as an example of research supporting one side of the debate. The CARRS-Q paper is reference as an example of research supporting the other side of the debate - are its conclusions valid? Again it is not for us to decide. To claim that de Jong does not apply to any land mass touching the Tasman Sea is original research. Tim, borrowing a phrase from Sitush, I acknowledge you are someone "who has a considerable POV" and are very passionate about it; but you know better than to do original research in wikipedia, behave. Kiwikiped (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot: Sitush, if you have an argument that no statement giving the current state of play should be included at all then please elaborate on your return. I obviously don't see one and felt the article was lacking without it, but will consider the case if you have one to present. Kiwikiped (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well Sitush deleted the new version rather quickly and says they will be back in 28 hours with the simple note that the argument is BRD - so he presumably has an argument to present that the current state of play should not be noted. While it might have been better to make it when the deletion was made, I understand it was a rush. We await... Kiwikiped (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Am viewing with a tablet on a mobile connecyion - crap. You added, I reverted, a couple of people whovhsfe been pushing one POV have responded but there are some regulads here who have not AND yet you only gave a short time for discussion to develop. So I reverte again. If you hsve nit resd this mess of a tslk page then you pergaps should. - Sitush (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about typos. It had gone quiet, but if a couple more days is indicated that's fine. Not sure why you thought the edit was Bold (...RD), it was crafted to state the current state of play in a short and uncontroversial way - but in this POV-imbued environment uncontroversial is a challenge :-( Anyway, wait till you're back, no hurry. Kiwikiped (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, the typos were bad! That the debate continues in the real world is not disputed by me. Some time ago, I suggested that we could do with a source that says just that and is not yet another survey. As soon as we start using surveys, we hit all sorts of problems - which do we use, how do we stop survey bloat and so on - and it is for that reason I massively pruned the thing recently. There was, after all, no consensus regarding what was suitable and the state of the article was shocking.
I've no interest in this subject matter and have read only a very few of the sources, so your general amplifications and your corrections to long-standing errors etc were welcome. Surely, there must be a reliable source that is completely independent of the various governmental bodies and the various sides in this argument? Even a newspaper report would be better than taking our finger out of this dyke? Just about every regular contributor to this talk page seems to have an emotional (and frequently intellectual) investment and I'd rather we tried to avoid any encouragement of it. - Sitush (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush, the article was indeed shocking, the cleanup long overdue. When I returned I was pleased to see it so short. On reading it I noted that things were not quite in the right chronological order etc. so I did the first edit - just a tidy up. Then, as noted above and just now in response to Linda, on reading the result I noted the chronological gap. The challenge was to bring the article up to the present day in as few words as possible without triggering a backlash from one or other of the POVs in this forum - in that I clearly failed :-( I selected two papers (not surveys, have you confused the references with those made by Colin?) from Australian Universities which have come to differing conclusions. Yes, the one from QUT was funded by the Queensland Government, and they themselves have stated they did so in part to counter research coming out of other Universities, so somebody could argue it is biased. But it is being referenced as an example supportive of the legislation, we trust Universities have a certain academic integrity, and since I posted it here no one from the opposing POV has objected to it. Why the other selection, from Macquarie, got the reaction it did is hard to fathom - but then so much of the "argument" on this forum is :-( - but the arguments against it are, what should I say, lacking in substance maybe?
I don't know, and please correct me if I am wrong, of any meta-analysis relating to the current state in Australia (well enough one that would be viewed as impartial by both POVs); or a newspaper article doing the same. When I first posted I invited others to substitute one-for-one (yes, no taking the finger out of the dyke!) other suitable references, I've no attachment to the two I selected - any reputable recent paper representative of one of the opposing conclusions would suffice as an example (and best not authored by any of the editors here if possible - that is a "cat meet pigeon" invitation). My second offering was to remove the references to particular papers and simply state that Australian Universities were publishing research coming to opposing conclusions. While I do think supporting references are better, better to report the current state of play than to not report it because people are fighting over the papers to reference.
As I see it now one reference has received no comments against it and the other an insubstantial "original research" comment from the opposing POV. Give it a bit more time for discussion and then add one of the versions in? I think the article would be better with the first, but what is the consensus? Kiwikiped (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As noted by TimC, WP articles are supposed to reflect the consensus of scientific or other scholarly research, while still mentioning conflicting findings, but not fringe theories or opinions of lobby groups. Also as noted by TimC, most studies have found a positive effect of helmet laws in Australia, and that the papers by (BHRF editorial board members) Robinson and Curnow claim that all the studies with positive findings were wrong.
Kiwikiped has previously been scathing of the theconversation.com, describing a critique (by Dr Jake Olivier, Senior Lecturer in Statistics at the University of NSW) of an anti-helmet 'study' (by Colin Clarke) as 'an opinion expressed in a non-reviewed web forum discussion', and deleting the reference to the critique.
"The Conversation is an independent source of news and views, sourced from the academic and research community . . . Our team of professional editors work with university, CSIRO and research institute experts . . . Access to independent, high-quality, authenticated, explanatory journalism underpins a functioning democracy . . . All authors and editors sign up to our Editorial Charter . . . We only allow authors to write on a subject on which they have proven expertise, which they must disclose alongside their article. Authors’ funding and potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed. Failure to do so carries a risk of being banned from contributing to the site".
Kiwikiped has previously bemoaned the BHRF being 'denigrated', and has argued that it is a superior source to theconversation.com (because the BHRF has an 'editorial board').
Kiwikiped should declare whether Kiwikiped has any interest/s with respect to the BHRF.
When I clicked the freestylecyclist link added by kiwikiped, I was taken to a page where I could 'sign' an anti-helmet petition. The page included some code to enable other anti-helmet sites to collect collect signatures for the petition, at least 2 other sites (http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet_petition.html and http://helmetfreedom.org/) have heeded the call.
The petition has apparently been going for about a year, and currently has 1,272 'signatures' from Australia, with 563 of them from Victoria. Bicycle Victoria, Australia's largest bike riding organisation, with almost 50,000 members, supports the helmet legislation.
Whilst there may be 'a number of groups dedicated to the abolition of the legislation', they represent only a tiny fringe, use of the word 'debate' is akin to claiming that a mouse weighs as much as an elephant.
I'm not sure everyone would agree that 10,000 cyclists receiving fines every year in a state of about 4 million people represents a tiny fringe. Dorre (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Linda, I am afraid your comments are just filibustering, as you know - why is less clear.
In recent years academics at a number of Australian Universities have published papers related to bicycle helmet legislation. Those papers do not all agree, some have come to conclusions supportive of helmet legislation, others conclusions that are unsupportive - that is a core element of the debate that is occurring. To provide examples I sought two papers from Australia, one supportive, one unsupportive. What that has to do with the BHRF, BHSI, Robinson, Curnow, or the fact that The Conversation is a web blog is absolute zero as you well know. And considering just the two papers I choose, to suggest that Macquarie University is a mouse and Queensland University of Technology and elephant is bizarre - they both rank in Australia's top 10.
I am aware that a number of groups have sprung up in recent times around Australia which are anti-helmet law. The history section of the article ends with a comment about the opposition being fragmented and ineffective at the time of introduction (and I had no part in writing any of that). Given those two it seems appropriate to bring that up-to-date. I understand that Freestyle Cyclists held a national launch last Oct (it was covered in the media and discussed on various bicycling related websites), this appears as an attempt by those opposing to be less fragmented. I've no idea whether they will be successfully, but they seemed to be a suitable pick as representative of this movement - so I wrote "One thing that may have changed is increasing organisation among those opposed to the legislation". To inject a very rare personal comment, frankly I don't think their website does them much credit (looks unprofessional), but it is not for me to judge but to report.
Linda, as with Tim, I acknowledge your passion for your POV (and Colin's for his - both POVs have passion), and there is nothing wrong with being passionate about something, far from it. But this is an encyclopaedia article. The fact is there is continuing debate, and there are clear attempts at growing organisation amongst those opposed. I added the small section simply because after reordering the existing material into more chronological order I noticed the omission in chronology - the article ended before the present day. Kiwikiped (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "fragmented" phrase was in there when I did the clear-out. I have no idea of its origins. Do we have decent sources both for that and for your "growing organisation" comment or are one/both in fact a case of drawing conclusions? I wince at bit when I read things like this but presumed that with all the eyes upon this article by members of various POV camps, the "fragmented" statement must have been correct. - Sitush (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea of the origin either, but I don't think it is in any way controversial - though I open to correction on that. I wrote "maybe" becoming more organised as there is a reported attempt to become more organised, but whether that attempt will be successful is as yet uncertain (early days) as far as I know - as is of course what such organisation might achieve. There was a national launch of Freestyle Cyclists last Oct which is why I picked it (quick google just now turned up this article in The Age written before the event - though it doesn't call it a "national launch", but a certainly much smaller paper The Moreland Leader does).
That there are a growing number of anti-law sites/blogs/groups/individuals/whatever is clear, and some have garnered a certain amount of attention (e.g. The Freedom Cyclist probably due to Court cases). Whether any of this is significant or will result in pro-law groups emerging to counter them who knows? And its not for wikipedia to speculate either!
I understand that the earlier statement is factual, so like you I'd leave it. Given it is there it seemed right to bring it up-to-date - while not introducing any opinion either way as to the merits of these groups! The section can of course omit any reference to organisation among the opposition and just make reference to the ongoing debate apparent through work of the various universities. Is there a consensus that it should not be included? Or that some other group should be used as an example?
Re the de Jong paper, as previously noted by TimC (on 28 Mar), de Jong's evaluation only included data from North American and European countries.
I do not know what Kiwikiped means by 'I avoided commenting on Tim's erroneous claim regarding de Jong'. What IS erroneous is the claim added to the article by Kiwikiped with respect to the de Jong paper: 'research from Macquarie University found the costs outweighed the benefits'.
As previously noted by TimC, the Newbold paper was a critique of the de Jong paper, and was published on the very next page to the de Jong paper. Some salient points from Newbold's study:
"I focused on estimating the exercise health benefits of cycling, because this is a crucial ingredient of the health-risk tradeoff but was not examined in detail by De Jong. I appliced the forumula using cycling statistics from the United States and found that mandatory bicycle helmets laws seem to have positive net public health benefits there."
"I also will caution against drawing overly broad policy conclusions from these results, and I will emphasize the need for more research on several key behavioral responses and the importance of estimating the model parameters on a case-by-case basis at the jurisdictional level where mandatory helmet laws typically are passed."
I agree with TimC and dsnmi, who have previously noted that the de Jong paper should not be cited without also citing the Newbold paper, and that neither paper should be mentioned in this article. Linda.m.ward (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Linda, let's try tackling this another way.
I picked de Jong as an example of a published research by an Australian academic which comes to one particular conclusion. Whether folk who favour research which comes to the opposing conclusion find fault with this work is both unsurprising and not relevant in this context. I strongly suspect the folk of the opposing POV to you find fault with the CARRS-Q paper which was selected as an example of a recent Australian paper supportive of legislation - but again that is not relevant in this context.
The question for you is there any recent paper by an Australian academic which is unsupportive of legislation that you would be happy for Wikipedia to reference? If you can present an alternative paper, or an argument why no such paper can be referenced, then please do so. I've no axe to grind as to the selection of de Jong or CARRS-Q, they were just picked as examples of the opposing conclusions coming from different Australian academics, and I said from the start appropriate substitutions can be made. Indeed, though I think it less informative, I offered a second version of the text which included *no* references, just reported the fact that today there are Australian academics producing papers coming to opposing conclusions. Given your passion for your POV I would understand your position if you expressed a wish that these academics would "see the light", but I wouldn't accept your position if you argue that the very existence of their work should be suppressed - any more than I would accept someone from the opposing POV arguing that the work of academics supportive of your POV should be suppressed! Kiwikiped (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kiwikiped has said 'Linda, I am afraid your comments are just filibustering, as you know - why is less clear'.
I am afraid that I do NOT 'know' that my comments are just filibustering, the reasons I sought the declaration include
During the BHRF RfC, Stuart.Jamieson commented 'The fact that a number of members of the BHRF are editing this article is worrying they should familiarise themselves with our conflict of interest policy'
Sitush has previously expressed (well-founded, as it turns out) concerns that Dorre and Colin C had some undeclared interests, and pressed them for declarations of any relevant interests
Linda, I could write a long and thoughtful response, but frankly I don't want to add fuel to your fire. In short: If someone does not show support for your POV it does not follow that they are pushing the opposite one. You are filibustering because you've gone of on a tangent introducing some of your pet whipping posts which are completely irrelevant to the topic under discussion. Its a tactic used by both POVs here, indeed IIRC Sitush mentioned it once (I can't remember who was the culprit at that time)... Argue the topic, don't play games. Kiwikiped (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BRD Process Wrapup
Sitush initiated a BRD process for this small addition to the article to bring it up to the present day. No specific reason was given. Regular contributors: (Linda.m.ward, Dorre, Tim C and Richard Keatinge (Note: the latter's comments appear in the following thread - this thread started off as one as Sitush reverted two different edits at the same time); representative of both major POVs editing the article have contributed to the discussion. Over a week has transpired since the discussion started and no additions have been made for 5 days.
Concerns were expressed over one of the two references selected. These appear to be have sprung from a genuine misunderstanding of the purpose of the references, which is simply to be examples of recent work by Australian academics which have come to opposing conclusions. From the start it was made clear that alternative papers could be suggested, no such suggestions have been made. Also no objections to including references have been made, though an alternative wording along those lines was presented by me early on it found no supporters.
BRD requires us to move the process along. Based on the above the edit is being reinstated in its original form. Should folk feel that other references should be used, or other changes be made to the wording, it is strongly encouraged that such changes be posited in the Talk section first and consensus achieved. Kiwikiped (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As stated earlier, the de Jong paper is not about Australia - it does not consider the Australian or NZ situation, and nowhere in it are parameter values for Australia used to evaluate benefit-cost in Australia. The fact that it is written by an Australian-based research is irrelevant. The text in the article to which I am referring is: "For example: the Queensland University of Technology, in a report commissioned by the Queensland Government, found the legislation to be beneficial[22]; while research from Macquarie University found the costs outweighed the benefits.[23]" It is very difficult to read that in any way other than suggesting that de Jong evaluated the Australian helmet laws. He didn't. Even then, it is inaccurate. In fact, de Jong found that the laws had a positive benefit-cost ratio in some countries (USA and Italy from memory) under some parameterisations, and thus to summarise the de Jong paper as "found the costs outweighed the benefits" is incomplete at best. Furthermore, a paper by Newbold on the very next page of the journal in which the de Jong paper was published critically examined the de Jong model, suggested improvements, and using better evidence-based estimates of parameters for it found that the model indicated a positive benefit-cost ratio for the US. But Newbold also cautioned that both his and the de Jong model on which it was based are at best preliminary and that more research is needed to better characterise various crucial parameters, such as exercise-sibstitution (i.e. if people don't ride bikes because they are forced by law to wear helmets, what proportion of those people then fail to engage in some other form of physical activity instead - no-one knows what that proportion is, it has never been investigated, but it is vital to any benefit-cost model of helmet laws). Tim C (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tim C you have raised this issue before and it has been dealt with in detail. We do not need to go round in circles, the BRD process gives the warning that it is not a BRDRD process. Having said that, as before there in no investment in the choice of the particular papers representing the different conclusions academics are coming to. Anybody is welcome to propose in these Talk pages an alternative for either paper and if consensus is reached such may be substituted. Kiwikiped (talk) 04:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tim C in adding the text to the article I have sought to address your concerns that my summary of de Jong's findings missed an important issue. While it is clear that de Jong places no geographic constraints on his results - to argue that is original research as explained previously - I had, without any negative intention, omitted the part about benefit in dangerous environments under optimistic assumptions. This really seems unnecessary detail to me but as far as I can see it does not favour your POV so if that is what you wish I will not object (even though I wouldn't put it in by choice) - others may object of course, we'll see! If you prefer the original shorter version I'm also happy to revert it. Kiwikiped (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Information on enforcement
I included the following information on fines, with 3 citations, that was removed without sufficient reason being provided, please explain.
"Victoria issued more than 19,000 fines ($15 each) for not wearing helmets in the first 12 months of their helmet law.[1] In 2005 almost 10,000 cyclists in NSW were fined for not wearing a helmet but that number has reduced.[2] In 2013 fines are now $176 in Victoria and lower in other states.[3]Colin at cycling (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may have questions, but having questions is not sufficient reason to undue posts. If you asked the questions first and did not obtain reasonable information then perhaps it would give grounds to undue a post.
The article states:
"Mandatory helmet laws were first introduced in Victoria in July 1990, followed in January 1991 by laws for adult cyclists in New South Wales and all age-groups in Tasmania."
The first piece of information related to Victoria and the info is on the web for anyone to check out.
"Victoria issued more than 19,000 fines ($15 each) for not wearing helmets in the first 12 months of their helmet law.[4]
The second reference:
"In 2005 almost 10,000 cyclists in NSW were fined for not wearing a helmet but that number has reduced.[5]
can also be checked
The info on fines provides a useful comparison between when the law was first introduced and current levels.
Sitush (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC wrote
"I've reverted your latter change and the likely more problematic survey added by Colin, who has a considerable POV. Surveys are problematic and need discussions before addition, as per my previous comment in the section above. I'm now away for a couple of days, so that should provide some time for people to talk. - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)"
it stated
"A survey in Victoria reported that eighteen percent of respondents did not know that legislation was being introduced. A lower awareness amongst adults was noted.[6]"
A survey in Victoria from 61% of respondents who already owned a helmet, reported 84% in favour of mandation. Eighteen percent of respondents did not know that legislation was being introduced. A lower awareness amongst adults was apparent. Thirteen percent reported they would either cycle less or not at all. AGB Bike helmet survey published May 1990.
The articles states
"Opposition was fragmented and ineffective; no major cycling groups opposed the law in public"
It is good for the public to be made aware that a proportion of adults did not even know that the law was being introduced. Therefore it is understandable to a degree that opposition was fragmented. It raises the question about the public consultation process and if the public were given suitable information or the topic suitably discussed in the media.
Again if good reasons can be provided why this information should not be included they can be discussedColin at cycling (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With no good reasons provided why the information, ""A survey in Victoria reported that eighteen percent of respondents did not know that legislation was being introduced. A lower awareness amongst adults was noted.[7]" I intend to reinsert shortly.
Similar with no good reasons being provided for not including the following information, "Victoria issued more than 19,000 fines ($15 each) for not wearing helmets in the first 12 months of their helmet law.[8] In 2005 almost 10,000 cyclists in NSW were fined for not wearing a helmet but that number has reduced.[9] In 2013 fines are now $176 in Victoria and lower in other states.[10]
Colin at cycling — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin at cycling (talk • contribs) 08:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, you have a POV and you have previously demonstrated a selective approach on matters relating to this article. You'll have to excuse me if I do not assume good faith but I think it is a reasonable position in the circumstances. Asking a question was a perfectly valid thing to do and removing the content while awaiting an answer was equally so: you have brought these misfortunes on yourself. So, I ask again: why did you choose those particular regions? And I say again: those surveys are not going back in this article because there was no consensus as recently as a week or so ago. - Sitush (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush, I cannot assume that you act in good faith because you have shown bias in my view with your previous comments and replies. Prior to you joining the discussions a lot of material was being discussed and the contents were lengthy at more than 9000 words but included significant details. Quite a few people had worked on the contents. You admitted not knowing what was right or wrong but taking bold steps with your view and in your assumptions of good faith. You removed most of the content to arrive at a short version of a few aspects, not covering the issue properly, at currently 775 words.
The points I raised;
1
“ Victoria issued more than 19,000 fines ($15 each) for not wearing helmets in the first 12 months of their helmet law.”
No one has disputed this information in the Talk section or in previous discussions.
2
In 2005 almost 10,000 cyclists in NSW were fined for not wearing a helmet but that number has reduced.[9]
No one has disputed this information in the Talk section or in previous discussions.
3
In 2013 fines are now $176 in Victoria and lower in other states.[10]
No one has disputed this information in the Talk section or in previous discussions.
I explained;
“The article states: "Mandatory helmet laws were first introduced in Victoria in July 1990, followed in January 1991 by laws for adult cyclists in New South Wales and all age-groups in Tasmania." The first piece of information related to Victoria and the info is on the web for anyone to check out. "Victoria issued more than 19,000 fines ($15 each) for not wearing helmets in the first 12 months of their helmet law.[4]”
Data for some regions has been included in reports or published by the press. National data is generally not provided, so only a portion of the data is available. Wiki can only report data that has been published.
4
The other point I raised
“A survey in Victoria reported that eighteen percent of respondents did not know that legislation was being introduced. A lower awareness amongst adults was noted.[11]”
You asked to be discussed in the Talk pages, I posted information without reply. The survey I mentioned “Bicycle helmet study AGB Spectrum May 1990” had not previously been discussed.
You assume that no agreement on this survey could be found when in fact it had not been discussed.
So, really you are off the mark, in your approach and judgment, together with the underlying bias.
I suggest the 4 points go to an independent evaluation to consider if they should be included. Colin at cycling (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, I have to mention the issues of focus and weight to you. This article concerns Australia, not NSW or Victoria. What are the figures for the other areas? - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After some days away it's good to see the standard of debate as well as the article itself improving. My spare time has been consumed (possibly I should declare these as indication of my outside opinions) by commenting on the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan on behalf of Beicio Bangor and Safe Streets Anglesey. I can speak to a couple of recently-raised points:
I originated the description of opposition to the laws as "fragmented and ineffective". I have no reference for it but I think it's pretty indisputably accurate and in combination with information from polls gives a useful picture of the situation at the time.
I agree that some comment should be made about the current state of opinion on helmet laws in Australia - solidly for in officialdom and its offshoots (civil servants of course must support the official view and are very unlikely to support any academic or group that even hints at opposition), large majority for among both general public and current cyclists, split among academics, strongly anti among small groups which in these days of the Internet I would no longer describe as obviously fragmented. For such a description I would suggest reference (maybe with a couple of important poll results) to: one leading academic paper for, one against, a couple of official remarks, at least a couple of polls (nationwide if possible, more local if not), and to Sue Abbott and maybe one other activist website.
Sitush, we may well find informed editors who are prepared to do their very best to achieve a good NPOV article. I hope that I am one myself. But I've yet to meet anyone at all who took a serious interest in this subject and came out both informed and totally neutral. The situation is even worse among those who are prepared to try evaluating the scientific papers; Occam's razor requires us to come up with a reasonably simple idea about whether helmets and laws are good/effective, the science (none of it methodologically perfect) gives very different answers depending on the details of methods used, and it's only possible to support such a reasonably simple conclusion by arguing that invalid methods have been used in studies that disagree. (Or, especially when connected with officialdom, by simply ignoring any work that disagrees with the official POV, not a promising habit for anyone trying to edit an encyclopedia.) Coming to such a judgement is the essence of what scientific training is all about. This is not a situation that conduces to interpersonal harmony and good will. Personally I suspect that true consensus will be reached only when everyone now arguing is dead and bicycle helmets are a very small footnote in specialist history textbooks. In the meantime I can only repeat to all concerned the famous request, as a matter of good scientific practice, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." Please, before making any edit, think how you might write it differently if you had become convinced that your original point of view had been wrong. In view of the difficulties this subject presents, I'm particularly grateful to Sitush for ongoing help with this article.
It would be difficult to dispute that figures illustrating the amount and impact of law enforcement are relevant to this article. Weight and focus are indeed important and all-Australia figures would clearly be best if we can find them. This is problematic since the laws, their enforcement, and any data collection are done by States/territories and not Commonwealth-of-Australia-wide. I do suggest that, until we can produce all-Australia figures, it's reasonable to include a small selection of figures from individual States or even smaller areas. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Figures and comparisons exist for at least 3 states - Victoria, NSW and Qld, where a majority of the population live. Dorre (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are not going to use different surveys/papers conducted at different times in different places and involving different laws, different weather conditions etc. Nor are we going to highlight certain states when the article is about an entire country. Sometimes articles just cannot be written in the way that you want them to be - live with it or go write somewhere else. End. Of. Story. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than reopening the science argument here - there is an excellent argument for omitting it - I had in mind Colin's figures on the impact of law enforcement. He wrote "Victoria issued more than 19,000 fines ($15 each) for not wearing helmets in the first 12 months of their helmet law.[12] In 2005 almost 10,000 cyclists in NSW were fined for not wearing a helmet but that number has reduced.[13] In 2013 fines are now $176 in Victoria and lower in other states.[14]" These figures are limited in time and place, but they do give some idea of what the law meant on the ground, and they don't reopen the scientific issues. I'd have thought it desirable to include them or something like them. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find comparable figures for the other states, they had identical laws and fines, applied them with equal stringency etc then that would be ok. Otherwise, it isn't for exactly the same reasons I've been saying here for ages now, ie: (1) apples and oranges and (2) inference of cause and effect. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologise for failing to make myself clear. The suggestion above includes no inference of cause and effect and no comparisons. It is a straightforward and, I think, uncontroversial description of certain things that happened as a consequence of bicycle helmet laws in Australia: some people were fined for not obeying the laws. I agree that all-Australia figures would be better, but in their absence I suggest that we could reasonably use what we have. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUE. Why the first 12 months for one place, 2005 for another. Why mention the value of the fine in one place but not another. Did the two places apply the same law and in the same way? (I seem to recall that the article suggested otherwise at one point). What proportion of the total cycling population do the figures represent? And so on. - Sitush (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't make myself clear either. We were talking about numbers of cyclists fined for not wearing helmets. I thought it was clear that numbers of cyclists fined (which, as I mentioned above have been reported for at least Vic, NSW and Qld) had nothing to with surveys. They were collated by the police departments, and have no more to do with weather etc the annual numbers of motorists fined for drink-driving! You were concerned that the 19,000 cyclists fined per year Victoria weren't representative of the entire country. Peer-reviewed research does indeed show that Qld had much higher rate of issuing penalties, but I'm happy with Richard's suggestion to report the figures for Victoria. I find it a bit weird that people argue Wiki shouldn't report indisputable facts on the numbers of cyclists fined for not wearing helmets. Any relevant, simply-presented info is better than nothing. 22:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorre (talk • contribs)
But you are still comparing apples and oranges, and you are giving no real context. Laws are introduced and people get caught in breach - that's the way of the world. Why the info about fines for one place but not another, why no explanation of the reduction in numbers etc. It is borderline sensationalism. No-one is denying the facts here: it is the context and the inference that is my concern. Plus, it is not even strictly necessary - go write an article for each state and then these figures and a lot of the surveys would have relevance in those specific articles. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy for info on fines for any/all states. My argument is simply that some relevant info is much better than nothing. Dorre (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Sitush, I think you're clearly wrong on this one. The suggested text gives the conveniently-available and reliable data on the mechanism and effects of enforcement of the law. Such information is an obvious component of an encyclopaedic article on any criminal law whatever. It doesn't make any inferences (correct me if I'm wrong but I don't see any.) Nor does it make any comparisons, nor as far as I know are any such possible comparisons a matter of dispute. In the spirit of WP:DEADHORSE I'll drop the matter at this point, but I do ask you to reconsider in your own time. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of falling of the right edge of the screen (you folks have had a busy few days) let me try to suggest a compromise. The article is about Australia, but to not report anything unless data is available from every State & Territory is a little extreme. Contrawise to report for for just a few locations leaving open (or maybe even hoping) for an unsound inference to be made is also not good. Would it not be appropriate when Australia-wide information is unavailable to state that, maybe with reasons? Now I don't know why fines data is currently only available for certain States Or Territories so the following text may be wrong but how about something along the lines of "Information for other States and Territories is not readily available, and may be higher or lower than those quoted."?
Some have mentioned the number of fines vs. the size of the population, a reasonable point surely. This seems harder to address in an NPOV way - is %age of the population or rate of issue more important? E.g. 10,000 fines might be a small or large proportion of the population, it's also - given that we all sleep - around one fine every 30 minutes. Quoting any of those is likely to be seen as biased by someone! As in just about the whole of this debate, what and how you count and what you deem important decides what results you produce. Are reliable cyclist-population counts available to pair with fine counts? Any consensus on what additional, if any, contextual information should accompanying fine numbers? Kiwikiped (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush has noted Colin Clarke's 'selective' track record, in response Colin has accused Sitush of bias and lack of good faith, and included this quote from some of the disputed material: 'In 2005 almost 10,000 cyclists in NSW were fined for not wearing a helmet but that number has reduced.[9]'
Dorre has argued that "I'm not sure everyone would agree that 10,000 cyclists receiving fines every year in a state of about 4 million people represents a tiny fringe".
A more complete quote from the cited reference, which was written in 2010, is
'The overwhelming majority of penalties have been issued to riders for not wearing a helmet . . . The number of cyclists who have been fined has been decreasing from more than 13,000 in 2005-06, to 10,807 in 2007-08 to 8866 last financial year, the latest figures from the government's fine collection office reveal. The figures also show that in 2005 almost 10,000 cyclists were fined for not wearing a helmet but that number has dropped to 6537".
According to ERASS surveys, in 2010 there were 603,500 cyclists aged 15 and over in NSW. 6,537/603,500=1.1%, I think that anybody not wearing BHRF-tinted glasses would probably think that 1% DOES represent a tiny fringe. Linda.m.ward (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Basically Australia has states helmet laws, the levels of fines vary and are open to the police discretion if they give a ticket. Some of the number of fines have been detailed for some states and for a selected years. Australian data covering the whole country has not been reported as far as I know because they are state matters subject state laws. The article has only two main section 'Legal requirements' being one but then it provides no information about the enforcement aspect. Some data has been published. Williams RESEARCH NOTE 17/94
EVALUATION OF THE NSW
INTRODUCTION OF COMPULSORY
BICYCLE HELMET LEGISLATION
Meredyth-Ann Williams
Page 13 Table 2 provides data for 1991, 92, 93, fines were 5.8K, 15.2k, 14k respectively.
For Victoria the most widely quoted figure has probably been the 19k.
Wiki can provide an indication of the enforcement aspect and this was my intention. It is one of the aspects that can be considered a fact, x fines were issued. Accident data can change due to several factors. Wiki would be providing facts on this issue. My view is of course this would be worth including.Colin at cycling (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ps If I had been selecting data with the intention to focus on the least favourable data then the 1992 data for NSW would probably have been used but I mentioned more recent data indicating less than 10k fines, "In 2005 almost 10,000 cyclists in NSW were fined for not wearing a helmet but that number has reduced"
In any case, I wanted just a brief mention and not heaps of detailsColin at cycling (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Colin at cycling, I made a suggestion above as a way forward on this impasse. To address Sitush's concerns any edit must avoid the possibility of invalid inference by including wording along the lines of "Information for other States and Territories is not readily available, and may be higher or lower than those quoted.". Furthermore any figures quoted should be the latest available, for example Linda.m.ward has pointed out that there are more recent figures for NSW, these clearly must be used rather than older ones. Are you willing to propose wording meeting these criteria? Or make an argument the criteria are wrong? Let's wrap this up! Kiwikiped (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My Tidy Up - Redux
[The following edit relates to an article edit in relation to the "My Tidy Up" topic, though the reasons given refer to the reasons given relate to the unconnected "Information on enforcement" topic - see the "Unfortunate Confusion" topic below. As additions to this section are continuing, I have inserted the above "My Tidy Up - Redux" topic header to separate it from "Information on enforcement". Hopefully this will help folk navigate and allow the "Information on enforcement" topic to continue without being usurped by this one.
I've reverted you again. This is an encyclopaedia, not an essay-hosting website. We are supposed to be authoritative and to present all points of view. If we cannot do that then we should say nothing. Phrases such as "For example" are classic of the essay style that should be avoided, as is your rough-draft disclaimer in the message just above this one. If there is doubt, say nowt.
I'm sorry Sitush, what on earth are you talking about? What rough-draft disclaimer? What has this got to New South Wales? Are you confusing Colin at cycling proposed inclusion of fine data with the few lines bringing the article up to date? What has been written is certainly not an essay! If you are now making the argument for no references (a version which you also reverted, that time on the grounds of lack of discussion time), then please do so. I'm sorry but your actions just don't make sense, what am I missing? Kiwikiped (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The rough-draft disclaimer is ... by including wording along the lines of "Information for other States and Territories is not readily available, and may be higher or lower than those quoted." The NSW thing I mentioned was because Colin was citing figures for NSW and not for Australia, giving undue weight and loss of focus. "Essay" is not necessarily about length but about style. I'm afraid that I am away in Wales again from early-ish Friday (GMT+1) until late-ish Sunday - web access is pretty much limited to a smartphone. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush the things you mention are all to do with this topic "Information on Enforcement", the edit you have reverted is to do with a different topic altogether! I think your confusion arises as you originally reverted two different edits on different topics by different editors - that is now covered here in Talk in two separate threads.
Can you please undo your accidental reversion.
We can discuss issues over "Information on Enforcement" separately, like Richard Keatinge I think you are wrong on this one and this needs to be resolved. But let's sort out this accidental reversion first! Kiwikiped (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, maybe even probably. It has been a long day and my meds may have kicked in a bit more so than usual, for which my apologies would be due as it would be entirely my fault. Trying to determine your "see talk" with a message from you that references New South Wales etc probably didn't help things, but shit happens. Nonetheless, the phrasing is still wrong and the conclusion is not justified. Find a source that says they were not organised/are much better organised. WP:OR and, yes, essay-like - we should not use phrases such as "for example and we should not draw our own conclusions. - Sitush (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted, but you really need to revert. You are in danger of adding the extra RD to BRD that is warned against. The edit draws no conclusions, that is the whole point - indeed one early comment was that is was balanced when it should not have been! The discussion has all centred around the selection of the references. The edit doesn't mention NSW at all! And I know of no objection to the phrase "for example" in an encyclopaedia, especially as used here to refer the reader to other sources of information on a controversial issue in a neutral way. Kiwikiped (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has reached no consensus about anything and when there is no consensus you should not add the material to the article. What has happened is that people have gone off on tangents, mixing multiple issues in one thread. That has been a feature since your arrival here a couple of weeks ago. I have been consistent in saying that people need to find a source that summarises multiple research papers etc, that the research needs to consider Australia as a whole, that we cannot arbitrarily select a couple of papers when there are so many saying so many different things, and that we say nothing unless there is consensus. Indeed, the saying nothing is precisely why I removed a large chunk of the material just prior to your arrival here. I can't find any such overview using Google but there must surely be one: Australian newspapers are a likely source but very few seem to be available online, perhaps due to paywalls. - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[The convention is to always thread/nest so that the flow of posting can be seen. However we are already a few levels deep so at this point I am resetting to the left edge to make things easier.]
What is it about this topic which so encourages going around in circles, stubbornness, etc., etc.? Previously when faced with the endless merry-go-round so beloved of editors in this forum I've ended up resorting to a detailed analysis and history to make the games and rule violations obvious, and fortunately we've been able to move to conclusion. I considered doing so again, but frankly I doubt it would help with the particular three positions now prevalent.
Let's see if we can really wrap this up. So much trouble over three (currently two, one at best postponed till a later date) sentences! To keep things short I'll comment on just two things Sitush writes:
That [confusion] has been a feature since your arrival here a couple of weeks ago.
Seriously?? Sitush nixes two edits, on different topics, by different editors, and starts confusion. Later he nixes a later edit, giving reasons completely off topic, and places the Talk comment in a different topic. On his talk page Sitush writes "Whether confused or not, I'm still correct." And then after having apologised, making reference to medication, indicating he will be away for a few days, comes back after a few hours, continues with multiple postings, and implies that somehow the identity of the person whose edit he reverted caused him to start all the confusion? Words fail. Probably violates a Wikipedia policy, or three, as well but let's skip the legalese.
...people need to find a source that summarises multiple research papers etc, that the research needs to consider Australia as a whole,....
The argument simply does not stand up, Australia is a federation of States and Territories, they have their own laws, their own priorities, etc.; but they are all Australia and share federal law. Does an article on America, with a similar arrangement, have to only quote sources which cover all 52 States? Of course not.
We will soon have a Federal election [1]. If, say, Tasmania decides to run a referendum at the same time with the question "Do you support the continued existence of the bicycle helmet legislation" should that and its outcome be reported in this article? Surely yes? Except by the rules Sitush is choosing to impose, and I see no consensus for this position, it will not be allowed. This appears to make a mockery of Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia.
In my opinion, in dealing with this topic, given the strong opposing views, one needs firmness, but not stubbornness - accept in being resilient to the inevitable slings and arrows, in the pursuit of NPOV. I fear a kind of inappropriate ownership WP:OWN is being enforced without consensus - there are now three distinct positions held by regular editors of this article.
Let's move to the topic at hand, a brief history of the edit:
1. On visiting this page after some time I found it much improved, I wrote:
It's good to come back to this page and see it vastly shrunk and more readable. The edits have resulted in a few rough edges
2. These rough edges were things out of order, a few wrong words, a duplicate reference, etc. So I tidied up. Just a litte janitorial effort.
3. Once the janitorial work was done I noticed that there was a chronological omission, the article did not report the present day situation. I thought I could address that with three short NPOV sentences... Yes, as I've had cause to remark on this forum before, I am a fool sometimes...
And the merry-go-round started up...
However we need progress, not continual blockading, so...
Let's move forward!
I am going to make another, so-called "bold", edit based on the following reasoning:
A. The article has a chronological gap, it does not report the present day situation. Wikipedia should be up-to-date.
B. It is incontrovertible that Australian academics/researchers continue to produce research whose conclusions fall into too broad categories - research that is supportive of helmets laws, and research that is unsupportive. The debate continues in Australia (as it does elsewhere, but that is not for this article to mention).
My proof, as if one is needed, that this is the case: Forget CARRS-Q and de Jong for now; and Rissel, and Olivier et al; let's just pick two others: Church and Robinson.
Church & Robinson both are Australian academics/researchers and have peer-reviewed publications in this area, one tends to conclude that helmet laws work the other that they do not. And if that is not enough, both Robinson & Church (order swapped to be fair, I'm expressing no preference) have produced work critiquing work by other authors whose conclusions tend to be opposite to that of their own work. For them to be able to do this there must be work for them to critique! The debate continues (among all the above named and others, not just Church & Robinson). QED.
C. Sitush expresses a strong dislike for providing any actual examples unless they meet his own self-imposed criteria. While this does not follow normal Wikipedia practice, where references are made to support the facts presented, he is most insistent on this point - indeed to the point of appearing to claim the right to veto the article contents in possible violation of WP:OWN. While the motivation for this position may be for the good, I disagree, and think Wikipedia will be the poorer for it, but such is life. No examples will be included.
Of course I've offered a version without references before and it was vetoed with the remark "BRD is the argument" - which might be fine accept that WP:BRD makes it clear that BRD is not an argument in itself but a process... Kiwikiped (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate Confusion
Above there are two separate threads "My Tidy Up" and "Information on enforcement" on different topics relating to text by different editors. Unfortunately the issues started with some confusion as Sitush reverted both separate edits as a single action, and while the threads were separated there are still comments in the wrong thread after that point. To err is human and collectively we did so here.
Unfortunately when the BRD process for the first thread came to its natural end and I added the resultant text, which was the original text, into the article Sitush unintentionally reverted that edit giving as reasons issues to do with the second, unrelated topic. Sitush has apologise for this confusion, referring to a medical issue, but his ongoing comments do not fully add up (e.g. ongoing references to NSW). This is a somewhat delicate situation, Sitush has made a valuable contribution to this and other articles on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not the place to be discussing his personal circumstances. On the other hand we cannot have the BRD process confused and edits revoked with invalid justification. Sitush has also indicated he will be away for a few days. I am sure we all wish him well and hope he is feeling better by the time he returns.
On his talk page Sitush has suggested that he intended {{Essay-like}} rather than WP:ESSAY in doing the reversion, but if I have untwined the threads correctly and then he might have been meaning {{Tone}}, but I of course cannot be sure of that. This is in relation to the final part of the edit only, which refers to the recent organisation by the opposition which pairs with a comment in the History section. If that is the issue, while it should have been raised in the BRD process, it is down to my choice of language and it can certainly be dealt with. I will look at rewording keeping that in mind, even if {{Tone}} is not a concern there should be no harm in such a rewording.
I will separate the edit into two, one on the continuing academic debate closed by the BRD process above, and one of the organisation of the opposition. Kiwikiped (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on "My Tidy Up" and "Information on enforcement" Threads
In re-instating the de Jong reference, Kiwikiped appears to have overlooked my comments of 30 June:
"As previously noted by TimC, the Newbold paper was a critique of the de Jong paper, and was published on the very next page to the de Jong paper . . . I agree with TimC and dsnmi, who have previously noted that the de Jong paper should not be cited without also citing the Newbold paper, and that neither paper should be mentioned in this article." Linda.m.ward (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why must people on this thread insist on playing these games? Linda.m.ward anybody reading these talk pages can scroll back up to the "My Tidy Up" topic, see that you raised this issue, it was not overlooked but responded to in detail and you were invited to propose an alternative paper. You choose ignore that response and inivatation and the thread fell silent for almost a week. Wikipedia has rules about continually bringing up the same points and using the Talk forums to stymie progress on an article. Please stop playing games. Kiwikiped (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In asking (at 22:28 on 30 June) "Are reliable cyclist-population counts available to pair with fine counts?", Kiwikiped appears to have overlooked this info I had posted about 10 hours earlier: "According to ERASS surveys, in 2010 there were 603,500 cyclists aged 15 and over in NSW. 6,537/603,500=1.1%".
Dorre had previously commented: "I'm not sure everyone would agree that 10,000 cyclists receiving fines every year in a state of about 4 million people represents a tiny fringe."
According to the ABS data I have been using, the population of NSW was about 4 million in 1991, and about 7 million in 2005 and 2010.
I have been unable to find any info on the total number traffic infringement notices (TINs) issued in NSW, some rough calculations using the limited data I have been able to find:
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle#Australia, in January 2011, the car ownership rate in Australia was 73%. So there would have been about 73%x300,000=219,000 cars in the NT, and about 1 TIN per 219,000/40,265=5.4 cars.
The 6,537 helmet fines issued to the estimated 603,500 cyclists in NSW (in 2010) works out to 1 helmet fine per 92 cyclists.
OK, onto the "Information on enforcement" topic. Linda.m.ward I did not overlook what you posted, indeed as you know I went on to write to Colin at cycling:
"Furthermore any figures quoted should be the latest available, for example Linda.m.ward has pointed out that there are more recent figures for NSW, these clearly must be used rather than older ones."
If my wording of "Are reliable cyclist-population counts available to pair with fine counts?" was confusing my apologies, and I will clarify: Are reliable cyclist-population counts available to pair with fine counts for which there is consensus agreement? Numbers of fines issued will be an official count, they are either available or not. Cyclist population counts probably come from surveys or are estimated some other way, and it is quite possible that the validity of such surveys/estimates may be questioned by one party or another. So the question is are there cyclist population figures for which there is consensus agreement on their reliability? I am simply trying to find whether there is something that the various editors can agree on. Kiwikiped (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kiwikiped claims that my request for a declaration of any interest/s with respect to the BHRF is filibustering, and that I have "gone off on a tangent", introducing some of my "pet whipping posts, which are completely irrelevant". Around the time that Sitush was pressing Dorre and Colin at cycling to declare any relevant interest/s, Sitush noted that "Dorre is a potentially misleading name for a WP:SPA account because a person called Dorre Robinson does much more than just 'cycle for transport'. I'll probably raise the issue at UAA or COIN when I get home." Asking that Kiwikiped declare any interest/s with respect to the BHRF is neither filibustering nor (completely) irrelevant. Linda.m.ward (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the "My Tidy Up" topic. Raised and responded to. I selected two papers as representative of recent academic work in Australia that has come to different conclusions - anybody can read the conclusions and see that. I have repeatedly stated right from the start that is the only reason they were selected, that anybody can suggest alternatives and if there is consensus over them they may be used. I have made it clear that I am not arguing that either paper is right or wrong, I am not pushing any barrow. Yet you keep trying to divert attention away from the issue at hand. Please stop playing games it does you no service. Kiwikiped (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You do not have consensus to add even those which you have selected. When another single-purpose account turns up at this controversial article after a long gap and starts making bold edits then, especially given the fact that there are already numerous overly-involved contributors, suspicions are inevitable, WP:AGF or no AGF. That's human nature, although I've no idea whether there is any rational basis for it. Me? I'm not concerned about potential motivations but am rather just trying to keep the focus and prevent this thing deteriorating once again due to subjective selection of sources. Whether now or in six months' time, we'll just end up having this source selection debate all over again unless we find a way to keep a lid on it. And the optimum lid is an overview. So, please find that overview source rather than - randomly or otherwise, well-intentioned or otherwise - selecting a couple. - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kiwikiped has accused me of choosing to ignore the invitation to nominate an anti-helmet paper that would merit being referenced in the article. This claim is as arrogant as it is baseless. I was writing a response explaining why none of the 'anti' papers that I am aware of hold up to scrutiny, when 'somebody' cut through a fibre link (in Queensland), and Darwin dropped out of cyberspace for several hours . . .
With respect to Rissel
The BHRF site claims that Rissel's 2010 paper showed that "Helmets were not the main reason for the drop in head injuries in Australia since helmet laws were introduced. General improvement in road safety from random breath testing and other measures were probably the cause.", however this paper was retracted more than 2 years ago (due to numerous errors identified by Tim Churches).
The (2011) paper by Walter et al., using the same methodology, and data from the same jurisdiction (NSW), found that helmets were indeed (p<0.05) the main reason for the drop in head injuries.
(Given that errors identified by Tim C resulted in the retraction of the Rissel paper, and a whole-of-article corrigendum for the Elvik paper, Kiwikiped's previous description of Tim C as a "seeker of insignificant errors" seems more than a little odd.)
In various papers, Robinson has claimed that
cycling reduced by 30-40% as a result of the helmet legislation
after taking injury reductions in other road users (eg. pedestrians) into account, cyclist head injuries did not drop by as much as the drop in cycling
In the 2006 article, Robinson cites injury data from an SA study by Marshall et al., but fails to note that participation data in the same study showed that
consistent with the findings of the Finch/Vic study there was no reduction in the level of adult cycling as a result of the helmet law
consistent with the findings of Finch et al., there was an approximately 40% reduction in cycling to school
there was no drop in overall cycling, because the reduction in cycling to school, which comprised only 20% of cycling in that age group prior to the helmet law, was accompanied by an increase of equivalent size in cycling to/around other venues.
Injury data from Vic, NSW and SA all indicate that there was (little or) no reduction in cycling as a result of the helmet law. As does the census ride-to-work data, and the SA cycling participation household surveys. Povey et al. made the point that contrary to a claim by Robinson that the helmet law reduced cycling, there was no evidence of any such reduction in Kiwi-land (NZ). (An analysis by Kiwi BHRF editorial board member Nigel Perry used injury data for all Kiwi cyclists, even though the helmet law applies only to on-road cycling, did not take injury severity into account, and concluded that the helmet law failed to improve cyclist safety. This finding is at odds with the results of the Povey study, and data from another Kiwi study by Tin Tin et al..)
Robinson's 2006 article also contained a number of 'inaccuracies' with respect to the study by Carr et al.
In noting a 40% drop in the number of cyclist head injuries, Robinson claimed that "the authors could not tell whether the main cause was increased helmet wearing or reduced cycling because of the law".
Carr et al. had in fact noted that after taking into account a number of factors that may have influenced cyclist head injuries, the major part of the reduction in both number and severity of cyclist head injuries was attributable to the helmet law.
Robinson claimed that "Non-head injuries bell by almost as much as head injuries, suggesting the main mechanism was reduced cycling, with perhaps some benefit from reduced speeding and drink-diriving".
The hospital admission data in the Carr study actually showed that pedestrian head injury dropped by 20%, cyclist non-head injuries dropped by 25%, cyclist head injuries dropped by 40%, the proportion of serious/severe cyclist head injuries dropped by 40%, and the number of serious/severe cyclist head injuries dropped by 60%.
With respect to the study by Marshall et al., in addition to failing to cite the data that indicated that there was no reduction in (overall) cycling, Robinson
Failed to note that Marshall et al. had found that after accounting for changes in exposure and hospital admission policy, the helmet law could be linked to a 12% reduction in cyclist (potentially preventable) head injuries in the year after the law compared to the year before the law, and a 25% reduction when the 2 years either side of the law were compared. (As pointed out by Hynd, failure to take severity into account would under-estimate the actual reduction.)
Instead, expressed cyclist head injuries as the proportions of cyclist injuries, to support the claim of "no clear response" with respect to helmet wearing. Given the (large) reduction/s in concussion admissions due to the policy changes (which Robinson did note), expressing the head injuries as proportion of total injuries will produce a biased result that underestimates the actual helmet effect.
Curnow's outrageous cherry-picking with respect to cycling participation has recently been highlighted by Tim C, a further example is contained in Robinson's 2005 paper: "Curnow (2005) compared 1988 (before any helmet law) with 1994 (when all states had enforced laws); cyclist, pedestrian and all road user deaths fell by 35%, 36% and 38% respectively; head-injury deaths fell by 30%, 38% and 42%. Thus, despite helmet legislation, the reductions for cyclists were no greater than for other road users." It beggars belief that a "senior statistician" cited/accepted without question, a single year comparison either side of the law. ATSB data shows that between 1992 and 1994, compared to 1987-1989, the number of pedestrian fatalities fell by 28%, and the number of cyclist fatalities fell by 45%.
Robinson's 1996 analysis found that the risk of dying of head injury per million hours was 0.19 for cyclists, 0.34 for pedestrians, and 0.17 for car occupants. The finding that cyclist are less at considerably less risk than pedestrians, and are at about at the same level of risk as car occupants is hugely at odd with a (2010) study by Tin Tin et al., and data published by the UK Department for Transport Statistics (DfTS). Tin Tin et al. found that in NZ between 2003 and 2007, the average number of serious (AIS>2) injuries per million hours spent travelling was 6.2 for cyclists, 1.0 for pedestrians, and 0.8 for car/van drivers. The UK DfTS data shows that in 2011, cyclists comprised 1.0% of the kilometres travelled and 13% of reported road deaths and serious injuries; cars/taxis comprised 78% of the kilometres travelled, car occupants comprised 37% of reported road deaths and serious injuries. This data suggests that the risk of death or serious injury per kilometre travelled in the UK is 27 times higher for cyclists than for car occupants.
(In Robinson's 2001 article, Robinson claimed that Povey et al. "did not fit a time-trend in their models". Povey et al. noted that cyclist limb fractures reflects both the amount of travel done by cyclists and changes to the cycling environment, which include changes in the nature of cycle use and safety improvements in the overall road environment". It seems that Robinson did not realise that including a limb injury effect in the model was doing what Robinson describes as "fitting a time-trend'. The only time I have enountered an expression such as "fit a time-trend" is when it has been used by Robinson. In the modelling methodology I am familiar with, and teach, trends are not 'fitted', models are fitted, trend effect terms are included to improve model fit.)
As (more recently) noted by Tim C, the fact that de Jong resides in Australian is irrelevant, the evaluation does not include any Australian data.
Welcome back to cyberspace Linda.m.ward. Now I know you did not suggest this, but let me assure you anyway, it wasn't me who cut the fibre ;-)
Levity aside, I'll let the chronology speak for itself.
You have given a long replay detailing your POV, and I know and respect your passion for your POV. But there is an opposing POV as well. In both POV groups there are academics, medical doctors, and probably bakers etc. And we all know there are folk in the POV opposite to yours that could write a long and detailed statement pointing out errors, omissions, etc. in the output of your POV group. And even if we exclude all output which solely pokes holes in particular output of the opposing POV, there is still research with opposing conclusions. This is why the debate continues in this one corner - the efficacy of helmets and/or helmet laws - and the debate is actually wider than that - people make arguments and disagree with each other over, for example, legal and rights issues in this area. Denying there is such a debate is just untenable and not something Wikipedia should do - this article needs to be NPOV.
Now, and I've said this before, both POVs lose the plot in Wikipedia - its a human trait, especially when views are held so passionately, but one we must strive to curb, particularly when it descends into attacking the people rather than the arguments. On this occasion the POV opposite to yours choose not to lay into CARRS-Q and demand it not be referenced, and I'm sure they could write an argument against it if they so choose - just as detailed and passionate as the ones against de Jong made by you and TimC. But this is not the place for such debate and original research by either POV camp.
Of course this part of the discussion is now moot - there is a third POV in the ring now, and that person has vetoed CARRS-Q as well. I would have given both POVs one reference, it is usual Wikipedia practice to provide references to support the facts, but I've been overruled and there are no references - which at least meets neutrality. Time to move on.
And, permitting myself a POV statement, a single cable up to Darwin? It's meant to be a network, one cut should not isolate Darwin. Go demand a second - I'll back you! Kiwikiped (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not at all sure the topic is suitable for Wiki to cover. As far as I know Wiki reports topic where the evidence is clear. Some of the evidence relating to bicycle helmets in Australia is not very clear in one way or another. I would probably suggest deleting the whole topic. In any case the present article is not a NPOV in some respects. It does not cover issues properly and fails to convey points where agreement has not occurred. It could be better to bin the article than mislead the public. A few examples may help.
No info on fines or changes in cycling levels caused by imposing legislation, it mentions the claim that helmets reduce injuries by 40% or conveys indication that they may but the claim came from 1987 when most helmets were hard shell, no longer in common use, but it does not explain this aspect. Issues via Wiki seem to be suppressed rather than resolved. Wiki cannot provide original research so it cannot make real progress. Details of articles supporting legislation are included but little information conveyed directly of any opposing view. what does Wiki say about covering topics were the evidence may be unclear in some respects?Colin at cycling (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is clear and we can all agree that there are mandatory helmet laws in Australia, which I believe is enough to warrant an article. The fact that there are helmet laws isn't disputed so the nature of the laws and a history of their introduction and implementation should be agreed upon.
Obviously what's not clear is the exact impact of those laws on cycling numbers and on cyclist safety. This article needs to find a way of addressing this with a NPOV. That's the challenge but it's definitely not worth deleting the entire article simply because it's a big challenge that we haven't rise to yet (but have taken great steps towards). Dsnmi (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't have to address the impact of the laws. Really, only those opposed to the laws want it to do that. THAT'S where all our POV problems come from. HiLo48 (talk) 06:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the articles relates to the helmet laws and several papers have been published together with various other reports. looking at the sections and contents, e.g.
'Because Australian bicycle helmet laws came into effect before such laws were enacted elsewhere, much of the data about mandatory bicycle helmet use comes from Australia'
'History: lead-up to the laws'
'Two Decades On[edit]
Two decades after the introduction of the first mandatory helmet laws in Australia the debate is still ongoing as to the merits'
Research[edit]
'Empirical studies of helmet use by injured cyclists were published from the late 1980s, some in Australia, both before and after helmet legislation.'
'Legal requirements'
Clearly if all references to the helmet laws are removed there is not much left.
Seriously, to report the issues is not that difficult.
They expected reduced fatalities and injuries, based on claims of halving the fatality rate and 85% / 88% reduction in head or brain injuries, both claims later revised down considerably.
They did not take account of the health implications if people cycled less.
They assumed that seat belts and motorcycle helmets were similar in some way to cycle helmets.
They had vested interests who could gain from being the first to legislate and gain a potentially larger market share for helmet production.
Cycling groups were not sure that legislation would be enforced even if introduced.
After legislation the authorities noted that cycling had been reduced so limited surveys and made the issue less clear than it could have been. e.g if all none wearers stopped cycling there would be a 100% wearing rate but focusing on the wearing rate of 100% would take attention from the reduction in cycling.
Victoria published results from 64 survey sites in Melbourne, representing 640 hours of surveying. NSW had extensive surveys.
Only one report used survey data and related to accident data in the immediate years following legislation, Robinson 1996. The data presented strongly indicated that safety had been reduced,
Australia does not have annual survey information on overall cycling activity levels therefore they cannot be sure about the accident rates per billion km. Road safety, age profile of cyclists have tended to change over time making it difficult to evaluate helmet effects in isolation. Added to this the accident rate appears to have increased with helmet use. Plus extra provision for safe cycling has been provided and cycle training has increased.
Thousands of fines had to be issued and the level of fines increased substantially to deter people from riding without helmets. Australia failed to provided a full health and safety assessment of the changes that occurred.
20 years on the vexed issue continues because the safety case is questionable, high fines are imposed, civil liberties reduced and around the world most countries can enjoy their cycling without having to imposed legislation. Australia does not want to admit it was a mistake.
One problem is that helmet believers or supporters do not accept the facts and wish to avoid providing the details, that is why so much is disputed.
Colin at cycling (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to be more careful about what you call facts. I like the old expression "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". Many here avoid the second of those criteria like the plague. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Despite repeated requests to declare any relevant interest/s, Colin at cycling has avoided like the plague stating whether it is true that he is Colin Clarke (long-time Brit anti-helmet campaigner). Clarke's (NZMJ) article, purportedly about the effects of the helmet law in NZ, 'overlooks' many facts that do not support his claim that the helmet law did more harm than good. (Having encountered such material in their literature review, a competent and objective researcher would have reported these critical facts in their article.)
Clarke's NZMJ article
Cites census-type data from 1989-90 and 1997-98 as evidence that the helmet law as responsible for a drop in cycling, yet provides no data from around the time that the law came into effect, in 1994.
Fails to note that before/after surveys designed specifically to measure the effect of the helmet law showed no evidence of any reduction in cycling as a result of the helmet law. (Povey et al. noted that the surveys showed a 'gradual' 20% decrease in cycling in the 2 years PRIOR to the law. Pucher and Buehler have noted that in the UK between 1982 and 2006, per capita cycling (kms) reduced by 40%.)
Uses injury data from a study by Tin Tin et al. to show that between 1998 and 2006, cyclist (overall and serious) injury rates (per time unit cycled) increased by more than pedestrian (overall and serious) injury rates (per time unit walked).
Fails to cite injury data from the same study by Tin Tin et al., which shows that
for serious injuries (AIS>=3), between 1998-91 and 1996-99
there was a 62% reduction (p<0.05) in the cyclist serious traumatic brain injury (TBI) rate for injuries with no motor vehicle involvement (MVI)
a 76% reduction (p<0.05) in the cyclist serious TBI rate for injuries with no MVI
no reductions in cyclist arm injury rates (with or without MVI)
for less serious (AIS<3) hospitalised cyclist injuries, between 1996-99 and 2003-07, there was
a 33% reduction (p<0.05) in the TBI rate for injuries with MVI
a 51% reduction (p<0.05) in the TBI rate for injuries with no MVI
a 273% increase (p<0.05) in the arm injury rate for injuries with MVI
a 222% increase (p<0.05) in the arm injury rate for injuries with no MVI
The above is useful for Wikipedia in that it emphasizes the lack of any scientific consensus. Plus, the unlikelihood of Sitush's unbiased review turning up any time soon. I don't think it amounts to an argument for deleting the whole article, but we do need some NPOV way to deal with any scientific issues. Sitush, do you have any better ideas for dealing with the situation? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, my only idea is that Kiwikiped needs to slow down. They've refactored stuff on this talk page, they obviously think they know more about policy than their contribution history would suggest is likely, they have breached BRD on several occasions and I'm now completely confused about who is saying what and where. This is probably the worst intervention I've ever experienced by someone who clearly knows what they are doing even though their contribution history is minimal. The refactoring, in particular, is a nightmare. I'm almost tempted to take it to WP:SPI or something similar. There is a nasty smell, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has been stated several time that Colin@cycling has no substantial conflict of interest in regards to the article. Anyone opposing helmet laws will probably not gain from possible reduced helmet sales or is unlikely to gain in any other way.
If the ID is provided by one person should it not be provided by all wiki editors?
I am happy to use my name if a Wiki requirement applies for all editors. I think a clear Wiki policy is needed to avoid some from using pseudonyms and others using their own names.
Details of a NZ report I would suggest could be a distraction from the topic.
'Large' deleted - 2 citations provided were to Vic 1991, Walker NSW. In NSW 25% wore helmets pre law and for Vic about 30% roughly, using 'large' may give a wrong impression.
Colin at cycling (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, people know who I am in real life and, yes, I have bugger all interest in cycling. I'd be surprised if I've ever contributed to any discussion about cycling anywhere in my 50 years, other than childhood chats related "big" expeditions from my home to that of my uncle some 70 - 80 miles distant. You could track me down easily enough but if you want confirmation of who I am then ask some [former] admins, such as Drmies, who have some past involvement in my on-wiki activities. And, for your records, Simon Tushingham, Manchester (UK), born 1962, degree in history-without-statistics-or-advanced-maths, once-keen walker ('til my hip blew up), liked my bikes until my ankle got screwed in my late teens, on-wiki interests primarily related to the Indic sphere. Happy now? Take a trip over the Pennines and get my signature if you wish - there are wikimeets in Manchester from time to time. Indeed, I am in this photo at one.
As for your comment regarding removals, any studies restricted to one state are dangerous things in this article: different laws, different times etc. I've said all this before and, frankly, am getting fed up that people riding various hobbyhorses cannot see the blindingly obvious point that this article is not about X or Y state/territory and thus that selecting certain areas is bound to be undue weight. Your conflict of interest may not be commercial but it is represented through your advocacy role with the CTC and your extremely obvious POV. - Sitush (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the details provided, your point of view is made even clearer and this helps in understanding.
I tend to agree with a slow approach. Unfortunately what exist are mainly state reports about their helmet laws. A few national reports may be accessible. They are state laws. It would be like trying to write a wiki page ‘bike helmets in GB’, but Wales or Scotland or NI may have different histories, trying to lump them together may not be the best approach.
You say;
Your conflict of interest may not be commercial but it is represented through your advocacy role with the CTC and your extremely obvious POV.
The CTC position is not anti helmet but pro choice. Most countries or states/provinces are either pro choice or some pro legislation for children. My position is strongly pro choice, like the CTC but I can take my own position. I do not see a conflict of interest in a person taking this position, at least less conflict of interest than being pro helmet or pro legislation. They would be advising either using a product that has some know risks or supporting removing freedom of choice, again with know public health potential disadvantages.
I do not really agree that having a pro choice point of view or writing reports on helmets or helmet laws constitute a ‘conflict of interest’, it primarily slows an interest in the topic and supporting civil liberties. Admittedly Wiki publishing information that conflicts with an author’s view may lead to disputes. It is part of the difficulty in dealing with the topic but all information should be considered. For Wiki to provide a NPOV it should be aware of all points of view.Colin at cycling (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are obfuscating again. Pro-choice equates to anti-legislation, and that is precisely what your edits have been reflecting. That you then also deploy such an emotive term as "civil liberties" makes your position even more evident. You really, really should not edit the article again: get consensus here and then ask someone else to add/remove/amend the info, just as happens in WP:BLP situations.
I have already said - and probably more than once - that if someone wants to write an article about, say, bicycle helmets in NSW then the reports relevant to NSW might be applicable. Note: might and note that you almost certainly should not write it. - Sitush (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested addition- The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons
Currently the section headed "20 years on" says "Australian academics at a number of Australian universities have published research with conclusions both supportive and unsupportive of the laws" which may be true but doesn't adequately represent the situation with regards to the established medical position on helmet legislation. The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons has made their support for helmet legislation clear and explicit. http://www.surgeons.org/media/14490/POS_2009-06-25_Road_Trauma_Cycling_Position_Paper.pdf I propose adding this information to the "20 years on section" with a brief one sentence summary of their position which I'm happy to have approved in this talk section before it's included. To my mind this would be an essential addition to this article. The RACS are an independent authority who are talking about the issue at a national level. Their position is explicit, unequivocal and clearly stated so can be easily summarised without any of the accompanying editorialising and bloated clarification that blighted this article before it was revised. We should make it clear where the highest medical authority in the country stands on this contentious issue. Dsnmi (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
^Cameron M, Heiman L, Nelger D; Evaluation of the Bicycle Helmet Wearing Law in Victoria During Its First 12 Months; Report No 32. Melbourne (Vic): Accident Research Centre, Monash University, 1992.
^Cameron M, Heiman L, Nelger D; Evaluation of the Bicycle Helmet Wearing Law in Victoria During Its First 12 Months; Report No 32. Melbourne (Vic): Accident Research Centre, Monash University, 1992.
^Cameron M, Heiman L, Nelger D; Evaluation of the Bicycle Helmet Wearing Law in Victoria During Its First 12 Months; Report No 32. Melbourne (Vic): Accident Research Centre, Monash University, 1992.
^Cameron M, Heiman L, Nelger D; Evaluation of the Bicycle Helmet Wearing Law in Victoria During Its First 12 Months; Report No 32. Melbourne (Vic): Accident Research Centre, Monash University, 1992.
.svg){kind=logo}
_pictogram.svg){kind=small}
This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience.
