Talk:Bicycle helmets in Australia

Use of Cyclists Action Group web pages as references

Currently there are two instances in this article in which self-published, anonymous web pages on the web site of an organisation called the Cyclists Rights Action Group (CRAG) are used as sources for statements and assertions in the article. I do not think that such web pages meet the WP policy requirements for reliable sources, and instead fall into the self-published category. In particular, the "About US" page of the CRAG web site states: "The Cyclists Rights Action Group (CRAG) was formed at a public meeting in Canberra, ACT, Australia, on 30th January 1992, in direct response to the introduction of Mandatory Helmet Laws (MHL) for bicyclists, with the aim of protecting cyclists against undue interference by Governments and erosion of civil liberties. The current aim of CRAG is to oppose legislation compelling cyclists to wear helmets." As such, it is impossible to consider CRAG or its web site as a reliable, unbiased source with a neutral point-of-view - the organisation has an explicit agenda and thus should not be used as a source for material in this WP article. I propose removal of the references and the statements and assertions which they are used to support. Tim C (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The organization is used as a reference for one statement of fact (what was said by an official inquiry), and one of opinion. It is not peer-reviewed. While I note that a partisan approach does not disqualify sources (and if it did we'd have little to put in this article) this website is clearly inappropriate as a source for opinion stated in Wikipedia's voice. I have removed it. To re-insert anything like it we would need an appropriate source.

We could use this website for the statement of fact if we thought this appropriate and worthwhile, though a reference to some official source would be much better. (The original comments were made before widespread use of the Internet and may not be available on line - it would in this case be best to have a proper reference to the official publication and to use the website merely as a conveniently-available recension.) Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The CRAG site is clearly partisan and it is inappropriate to use it as a reference. By all means point to it as an example of an Australian anti-helmet law lobby group, but it falls well outside WP guidelines for reliable sources. Note that absence of a reliable source from the Inetrnet does not mean that unreliable sources can be substituted. The paragraph in question refers to a 1985 report from a 1978 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety inquiry. As such, copies of the report will exist in the National Library of Australia, the Parliamentary Library or possibly in Hansard. The report should thus be properly referenced, including the relevant page numbers. The Unreliable Source tag should remain on the CRAG reference until the proper reference is substituted (and can be verified). Tim C (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to the discussion about the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation. It is biased to dismiss factual information from a source on the basis of disagreeing with the source stated position. The same principle should apply for all. Because you disagree with someone position doesn't mean you can dismiss everything from this source. Opinions from biased sources have no place in Wikipedia. However, the facts they quote cannot be dismissed. The reference in question quotes parliamentary discussion, it is not an opinion. Unless there is a valid reason to believe it is inaccurate there is no reason to mark it as unreliable.Harvey4931 (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Can the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation web site be considered a reliable authority and source of references for this article

Currently there are some 13 references to material on the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation web site. Given that it is a single-issue web site, I have sought opinions at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Bicycle_Helmet_Research_Foundation on whether it is a suitable authority for the relevant assertions which cite it in this article. Please provide feedback on this question in the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Bicycle_Helmet_Research_Foundation section of the RS noticeboard. Tim C (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Seeking to remove these references seems a bit strange, but that doesn't mean doing so is wrong as I am no authority. This article seems to be a fair attempt to present a topic in a NPOV in which there are very strongly held opposing POVs. In doing so it references material from sources from both camps, it surely needs to do this to back up the material presented. For example it references material from Governments which passed the laws, which unsurprisingly supports the laws, as well as referencing material from those who oppose the laws; that would seem to be the balanced approach. Lobby groups; be they for the protection of animals, or against some law or other, etc.; tend to be focussed by nature, to reject references to them because of this inherent nature seems unbalanced. In an article discussing, say, battery farming, I'd expect to see references to material by both those supporting such farming and those opposing it - to include either one to the exclusion of the other would be a non-NPOV article surely? Kiwikiped (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Complete removal of the references to the BHRF web site is not proposed, although some pruning of them (and the assertions in the article that they are used to support) may be reasonable, given the heavy reliance on that web site (13 references at last count). However, flagging of the references to the BHRF website as a potentially unreliable source may be justified and in accord with WP policies. Please see my rationale for this on the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Tim C (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

We will see what emerges from the discussion on the RS noticeboard. Meanwhile I continue to opine that we have achieved an article with many virtues, but which is practically unreadable. I'll make proposals, or a bold edit, when I have time. I hope for a concise narrative account of the main assertions and arguments, graphical presentations of the main data series, far fewer figures especially percentages, and keeping most or all the current references. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It has been more than a week since it was noted that citations are needed for the (2) graphs in the 'Bicycle usage: capital cities vs all other areas' section. Dorre has made 11 contributions since then, but not added the requested citations. The whole section should be removed.--Linda.m.ward (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources are usually required to have "editorial oversight". Just glancing through their editorial board members shows that it is about 50:50 split between experts (university professors, researchers or consultants in the field and the like) and laypersons (activists, GPs etc). I'm not overly familiar with the finer points of determining reliability, but given their obvious POV, it is a bit of a red flag. That said, the data they quote seems to be legit, and their list of sources is immense. Perhaps it would do, where possible, to quote the source material direct rather than the BHRF, since most of the sources seem to be NPOV. Certainly better than citing an interest group 13 times. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Edit: I came here from your request at the sciences RFC noticeboard

This article currently has 126 references, of which 6 cite BHRF pages.

Reference 30 is that "while in the NT since March 1994 there is an exemption for adults cycling along footpaths or on cycle path."

Reference 41 is an article by D L Robinson, author of several peer-reviewed journal articles on bicycle helmet laws.

References 42 and 44 are cited using the text: "Several précis of and commentaries on these surveys have appeared on websites and blogs.[42][43][44][45][46]"

Reference 81 is an article with tables and graphs of Australian Bureau of Stats census data.

Reference 101 is cited as evidence that "Nonetheless, this is still low by international standards at 0.4 trips per bike per day in July and 0.8 trips per bike per day in January,[102]" The BHRF webpage provides a convenient summary of information on usage rates.

I would suggest that the BHRF it is probably one of the most reliable authoritive sources for the information cited above. Their editorial board contains many prominent cyclists, e.g. John Franklin, author of 'Cyclecraft' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclecraft and many others with links to cyclists organisations such as the CTC and the ECF. The BHRF provides links to original papers and sources, where available on the web, so in order to maintain its reputation, has to be very careful about ensuring the information provides is as accurate as possible.

Readers of the Bicycle Helmets in Australia talk page will know that I personally used the census data (available on the BHRF website) on numbers cycling to work, and total numbers of people who travelled to work on census day by state to calculate the percentage of single-mode journeys by bike for a) individual states, b) capital cities and regional areas according to whether there was an enforced helmet law at the time of the census. Tim objected to these graphs because I put vertical lines to indicate the separation between data points with and without enforced laws. To avoid any interpretation of the vertical lines as dates of legislation, I therefore replaced the vertical lines with dotted lines. Tim then objected because he considered drawing graphs from published data was 'original research', so I asked the BHRF to include them on their page of census data. The data cover censuses in 1976, 81, 86, 91, 96, 01, 06, and 11 in 8 different states & territories - Vic, NSW, Tas, SA, WA, ACT, Qld and the NT - so 64 individual documents or downloads were needed to compile the data. I downloaded them all and found only one discrepancy compared to the previoulsy-published data on the BHRF website. I contacted the ABS and they confirmed it was their mistake - the scan for one state included a page on cycling to work for another state. The document on the ABS website has now been corrected.

Perhaps Tim can explain why he thinks there is any inaccuracy or unreliability in the information presented?

Even peer-reviewed literature contains inaccuracies and silly mistakes. For example, one of the early papers [Cameron, MH; Vulcan AP; Finch CF; Newstead SV (June 1994). "Mandatory bicycle helmet use following a decade of helmet promotion in Victoria, Australia--an evaluation.". Accident Analysis & Prevention 6 (3): 325–337.] reports that Melbourne, with a population of 3 million, averaged about 60 million hours of cycling per week (see Fig 7) - an average of 20 hours per week for every many, woman and child in the city! As far as I can determine, the journal has never published a correction to this clearly ludicrous information. If Tim have ever seen equally incorrect on the BHRF website, I expect he would have complained about it immediately.

There is an interesting web page http://www.cbdbug.org.au/2011/06/helmet-research-paper-released/ that provides documents obtained under right to information legislation illustrating the process of government oversight into the commissioning of bicycle helmet research in Australia. Some questions remain about earlier research. For example, a study of the first 3 years of legislation in Victoria found that head injury rates were no different to pre-law trends. The following year, the researchers used a new model to show a decline in the number of head injuries, while admitting that this models cannot distinguish between reductions in head injury because of reduced cycling and reductions because of increased helmet wearing. Research reports provide details of numbers of both adult and child cyclists in 1990, 1991 and 1992 at the same 64 sites and observation periods used to estimate the change in children's cycle use. Indeed, for children, the changes in cycle use are pretty similar to the changes in numbers counted. Yet, instead of using the numbers of adults counted (or estimating cycle use from the highly correlated measure of numbers counted) the published paper by Cameron et al. (1994) claimed that "adults were not included in the 1990 surveys". This sort of inaccuracy can escape peer review - the original research reports were not readily available at the time - so the reviewers would have no reason to know that adults had, indeed, been counted in the 1990 surveys.

Tim is clearly in favour of helmet laws. He was co-author of a paper that found a small reduction in the ratio of head to arm injuries, while noting that "the contribution of factors such as risk compensation and safety in numbers has not been incorporated in this study." Despite not knowing whether there was an increase in injury rates per km cycled, or any discussion of whether the losses from head injury that could be prevented by helmet wearing compare with the lost health and environmental benefits of cycling, the paper nonetheless concluded '...repealing the law cannot be justified." Personally, I'm at a loss to understand some of his edits, for example he "Corrected reference to Hoye and Elvik (not Erke and Elvik as stated)" I clicked on the link to the reference, a pdf file which lists the authors as Alena Erke and Rune Elvik on the front page.

So in summary, I believe the BHRF is a reliable source, that is needed to balance the research funded and sponsored by Australian government agencies. A NPOV cannot be achieved without presenting both sides of the argument. The 6 citations to BHRF pages improve this article. I cannot see why anyone would want to argue against the reproduction of graphs produced from data that can be downloaded and verified from the ABS website. Their removal would represent a considerable loss, given that census data on cycling to work is one of the most longest reliable and consistent data series that covers a 35 year period that can illustrate long-term trends before and after helmet laws were introduced. Dorre (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Response by User:Tim.churches

I have been asked by User:Dorre why I think there is any inaccuracy or unreliability in the information presented? I set out my reasons at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Bicycle_Helmet_Research_Foundation but I will provide a copy of them here:

Can the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation be considered a reliable source for the purposes of this article on bicycle helmets in Australia?

Source: various pages from the website of the "Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation" (BHRF, also known by its URLcyclehelmets.org).

Article: Bicycle helmets in Australia (and by extension to Bicycle helmet, but discussion below relates specifically to Bicycle helmets in Australia)

Content: Material form this organisation's web site is referenced some 13 times (as at 16 March 2013). All these references have been edited (by me) to clearly identify the source, and thus a search the article or article source for "Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation" will show the references.

The question I am seeking opinions on is whether the pages on this organisation's web site can be considered a reliable and appropriate source for the article in question?

The organisation appears to be a company registered in Anglesey, Wales, UK, to a Dr Richard Keatinge, who is the sole director listed.

The BHRF policy statement says "cyclehelmets.org is administered by the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation (BHRF), an incorporated body with an international membership, to undertake, encourage, and spread the scientific study of the use of bicycle helmets.The purpose of cyclehelmets.org is to provide a resource of best-available factual information to assist the understanding of a complex subject, and one where some of the reasoning may conflict with received opinion. In particular we seek to provide access to a wider range of information than is commonly made available by some governments and other bodies that take a strong helmet promotion stance. It is hoped that this will assist informed judgements about the pros and cons of cycle helmets."

The BHRF site claims that its material is peer-reviewed but no details are given on the process. The organisation does list its and Editorial Board. Of concern is that three of the members of the Editorial Board, which it says is responsible for the content of the web site, themselves operate or are associated with organisations and/or web sites which appear to be actively lobbying against mandatory cycle helmet laws, or promote such lobbying. This is potentially problematic because a great deal of the contention in the Bicycle helmets in Australia article is about mandatory helmet laws.

• Guy Chapman appears to operate this web site: http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/about-nohelmetlaw
• Bill Curnow appears to be President of the lobby organisation Cyclists Rights Action Group (CRAG).
• Chris Gillham appears to operate the web site Mandatory bicycle helmet law in Western Australia

In addition, I have been unable to find any statements, comments or publications attributable to any of the other members of the BHRF Editorial Board which are not critical of bicycle helmet laws (and in some cases, of bicycle helmets themselves). If the BHRF promoted a balanced view of bicycle helmets and helmet laws, I would have expected at least some members of its Editorial Board to have publicly voiced opinions favourable to bicycle helmets or bicycle helmet promotion campaigns and laws. Of course, my search was necessarily not exhaustive, and I may have overlooked such material somewhere on the Internet.

Just to make it clear, complete removal of the references to the BHRF web site is not proposed, although some pruning of some of those references (and the assertions in the article that they are used to support) may be reasonable, given the heavy reliance on that web site (13 references to it in the article at last count). However, flagging of the references to the BHRF website as a potentially unreliable source may be justified and in accord with WP policies.

The other thing worth pointing out is that the vast majority of the pages on the BHRF site seem to be anonymously authored - I can't find any attribution to any named individuals except for a few pages (out of many on the site) attributed to Dorothy Robinson. Their Editorial Boardpage states that "The Editorial Board is responsible for the content of cyclehelmets.org" but that's not the same as putting by-lines on pages. I have never seen a peer-reviewed publication (as they claim to be) that doesn't attribute articles to the individuals who authored them.

The nub of the problem is that the BHRF site is about a single subject. The Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation would have a lot more credibility if it were an organisation concerned with all aspects of cycling safety, or an organisation interested in the biomechanical and engineering aspects of all types of helmets. But it is only about bicycle helmets, and furthermore, it seems to be exclusively concerned with what it holds to be the negative aspects of bicycle helmets. Yes, the site does have a page titled "Published evidence supportive of helmet effectiveness or promotion", but nearly every study listed on that page links to a sub-page on cyclehelmets.org which presents a critique of the study which concludes that the study is invalid or fatally flawed. All studies have flaws, but the critiques appear to be relentlessly negative. There's also a page titled "Published evidence sceptical of helmet effectiveness or promotion", but the links on that page don't lead to critiques of these papers, they just point to full-text copies of these papers or to their PubMed records. Thus there would appear to be an imbalance here.

Of even greater concern is that some of the critiques on the BHRF cyclehelmets.org site appear to attack and impugn the professional integrity of researchers. For example, the site has this to say about one particular study: "Despite attempts to manipulate the results, one of the largest reviews of the evidence has not been able to find any reliable evidence that helmets have benefited cyclists". Further accusations of dishonest and unethical behaviour are made against the authors of that study on this page (see the section labelled "Ethics"). Those are not the sort of words one expects to find in a balanced, unbiased and professional publication.

Anonymity of the articles on the BHRF site is one of the main problems I have with it being considered a reliable source. No other peer-reviewed publication that I am aware of permits anonymous articles. The issue is one of potential undue weight. Articles published in peer-reviewed journals by Bill Curnow and Dorothy Robinson, are already cited 4 and 22 times respectively in the WP article in question. Both Bill Curnow and Dorothy Robinson are listed as members of the BHRF editorial board. BHRF web pages are referenced 13 times in the article - 3 references to a BHRF page attributed to Dorothy Robinson, and 10 references to anonymously-authored BHRF pages. It is important for WP readers to be able to know who is responsible for those anonymous web pages, which are used as authorities for statements in the article - particularly when three members of the BHRF editorial board, including Curnow, appear to be running lobby organisations and/or campaigns opposing mandatory bicycle helmet laws, as noted above.

Here is another example of the problems posed by the anonymous and undated (and unversioned) nature of most of the articles/pages on the BHRF web site: two graphs of Australian Census data were added some time ago to the Bicycle usage section of the article by a pseudonymous WP editor who has contributed a great deal of material and made many edits to the article. Although the graphs are based on Australian Bureau of Statistics Census data, they combine and present that data in a particular manner and are thus a synthesis, or possibly original research, and as such they are required to be referenced to an external source. The source files for these graphs are in WikiMedia Commons and are listed there as that pseudonymous editor's own work. I added citation needed tags to these graphs, and the editor was asked via the Talk page for the article to supply suitable external references for the graphs. This was done: the references given are to an anonymous and undated BHRF web page, where copies of these graphs now appear. Thus it would appear that there is some connection between the pseudonymous user in question and the BHRF organisation. This is potentially problematic given that most of the BHRF web pages are anonymously authored, including the one given as the external reference for these two graphs. Thus a circular chain of anonymous authorship has been established. Pseudonymity of WP editors is permitted (and in fact sacrosanct), but anonymity of authorship of external references is just not acceptable in my opinion. Someone has to put their name to and take personal responsibility for web pages on the cyclehelmets.org site if they are to be used as authority for assertions and statements (and sources of graphs) in this and other WP articles. Tim C (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I asked for evidence of inaccuracy or unreliability in the information presented - like, for example, counting 29% fewer adult cyclists at the same sites and observation periods in 1991, compared to 1990, then claiming "adults were not included in the 1990 surveys" and "an estimated increase in adult (cycle) use of 44%", or that "In Melbourne adult cyclist numbers doubled after the helmet legislation was introduced".

As you know, these comments refer to surveys (at the same 64 sites and observation times and time of year) in which 29% fewer adult cyclists were counted in the post-law survey than the pre-law survey. I can see why an organisation that used these results to claim that "adult cyclist numbers doubled after the helmet legislation was introduced" might be considered an unreliable source. Your comments sound like an ad hominem argument - you can't find any inaccuracies with the cited information so instead attack the organisation. If I were a cynic, I'd point out that if you manage to have the BHRF labelled an "unreliable source" maybe people won't see the references to the organisations that claim numbers of adult cyclists doubled, when the surveys actually counted 29% fewer cyclists?

I urge other Wiki editor to consider whether this would be conducive to a NPOV Dorre (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is that references to anonymously-authored and undated pages on the BHRF web site be tagged with due to doubts about the impartiality of the Editorial Board of the organisation, for the reasons set out above, and the inability to assess the expertise and good-standing of the author(s) of such pages if they are not identified. Tim C (talk) 04:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Due to the nature and tone of this particular debate, certain experts have well-founded worries which only anonymity will allay. In the circumstances I don't think that affects reliability for our purposes. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Dorre muses (above): "If Tim have ever seen equally incorrect on the BHRF website, I expect he would have complained about it immediately." Well, I can say that your expectation is incorrect - I am not in the business of correcting the BHRF site - that is the job of the site owner and its Editorial Board. My only concern is whether the BHRF web site is a suitably reliable reference for this and related WP articles. But since you ask, here is something that the BRHF Editorial Board might wish to correct: on this page, research by Voukelatos and Rissel is described: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1207.html?NKey=22 - with a footnoting noting that the study contained serious errors, but failing to mentioned that the study was formally and completely retracted by the journal which published it. The study is also listed (with broken web links to the paper) here: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1160.html and here: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1146.html - in both cases without any mention that the paper contained serious errors and had been retracted (indeed, citation of papers after they have been formally retracted is a highly unusually practice in peer-reviewed scientific discourse). Yet these pages on the cyclehelmets.org site are clearly maintained, because references to much more recent studies have been added to them. Tim C (talk) 04:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You have a useful point in there and I hope that a much fuller account of this paper and its aftermath will soon be on the site. (We'd appreciate any other corrections and updates you or indeed anyone may be able to offer.) We should however, despite your respected opinions above, wait for a clear policy-based consensus on the subject of reliability. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is another example of the selectivity of the information offered on the BHRF cyclehelmets.org site: there is a link titled "Cutting through the controversy about helmet effectiveness" at the very top of the cyclehelmets.org home page, leading to this page: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1249.html which is about the de Jong cost-benefit model of hypothetical all-age mandatory helmet laws. The reference for this study is: de Jong, Piet (May 2012). "The Health Impact of Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Laws". Risk Analysis 32 (5): pp782–790. Fine, but there is no mention whatsoever of the response to the de Jong model by Newbold, which was published on the very next page of the same issue of the same journal (Newbold, Stephen C. (May 2012). "Examining the Health-Risk Tradeoffs of Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Laws". Risk Analysis 32 (5): pp791–798.). Newbold critically examined the de Jong model, and far from dismissing it, he suggested various improvements to it and identified parameters in it which require further research in order to quantify accurately (such as exercise type substitution behaviour). Newbold used published US data in his refined version of the de Jong model and found that mandatory bicycle helmet laws would seem to have positive net public health benefits in the US, although he warned that results from both his model and that of de Jong needed to be treated as very provisional due to uncertainty around values of key parameters to them. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any reference to Newbold's paper at all on the BHRF cyclehelmets.org web site. It is this sort of selectivity in the evidence presented that calls the reliability of the BHRF as a source for WP articles into question. Tim C (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Response by User:Linda.m.ward

Tim Churches has previously pointed out that the studies that appear on the BHRF web site as supportive of helmet effectiveness or promotion are accompanied by critiques claiming that the study is invalid or fatally flawed, but that the studies listed as being sceptical of helmet effectiveness of promotion are not accompanied by negative critiques. I too had noticed this lack of balance when I first stumbled on the site a couple of years ago, and have consequently not spent a lot of time on the site, but have encountered much evidence of inaccuracy or unreliability in the information presented.

The 'Published evidence sceptical of helmet effectiveness or promotion' page (http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1146.html), contains 2 articles that most certainly do NOT 'cast doubt on the effectiveness of cycle helmets in reducing head injuries (at least serious head injuries), or on the wisdom of helmet promotion or laws', and one article (critical of the helmet law) that was retracted more than a year ago.

With respect to an article by Elvik (Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2011;43(3):1245-1251. 2011), the page states that 'Attewell et al influenced by publication and time-trend biases. When controlled for, the protective effects of helmets are smaller. Adding new studies, no overall benefit of helmets found.' Elvik noted that 'the re-analysis shows smaller safety benefits associated with the use of bicycle helmets than the original study', and reported the following odds ratios for fatal, brain and head injuries - fatal injury 0.27 in Attewell's original study, 0.23 in Elvik's re-analysis - brain injury 0.42 in the original study, 0.47 in the re-analysis - head injury 0.40 in the original study, 0.58 in the re-analysis Re head injuries, Elvik wrote: 'Do bicycle helmets reduce the risk of injury to the head, face or neck? With respect to head injury, the answer is clearly yes, and the re-analysis of the meta-analysis reported by Attewell et al.(2001) in this paper has not changed this answer.'

As already noted by Tim Churches, an article by Voukelatos and Rissel (Australasian College of Road Safety, ACRS 2010;21(3):50-55. 2010.) that was retracted in early 2011 is still listed on the page. The page described the study that was retracted 2 years ago as showing 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.'. Many studies published after the retraction have been added to the page (7 in 2012 alone), yet this study has still not been removed from the page.

In describing an AIHW article (Serious injury due to land transport accidents, Australia, 2003-04), the page states that 'Wearing a helmet seems to have no discernible impact on the risk of head injury'. The AIHW report does not even mention bicycle helmets.

I have scanned only a few other pages on the BHRF site, and would not consider any of them to be reliable . . .

'Changes in cycle use in Australia' (http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1194.html) cites an SA study as showing a reduction in cycling to school, notes that the study 'likely' under-estimated that actual decline, and fails to note that the decline in cycling to school in the SA study was very similar to the declines in cycling to school in NSW and Victoria. The article also fails to note that the SA study found that there was no (statistically significant) evidence of a reduction in adult cycling, that prior to the helmet law cycling to school comprised about 20% of cycling in that age group, and that after the helmet law there was an increase in cycling to/around other venues of similar magnitude to the drop in cycling to school.

'Helmet laws: Northern Territory' (http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1114.html) claims that 'Helmet use is now low in the NT . . . Estimates in 2004 suggested that 15% - 20% of cyclists continue to wear helmets, mostly "serious" cyclists'. I live in Darwin and have been cycling almost every day (commuter and utility) for about 10 years. The helmet wearing rate is much higher than the 15-20% alleged, probably at least 80%, ie. it the number of cyclists NOT wearing helmets would be at most 15%-20%.

'Head Injuries and Helmet Laws in Australia and New Zealand' (http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1241.html) contains numerous examples of 'overlooking' evidence that runs counter to the claim that the helmet law was/is a bad thing. With respect to the most obvious examples, the article

• Claims that the Melbourne surveys were done 'in similar weather'. The authors of the study in which the data was collected noted differences in weather conditions, and concluded that after taking those differences into account, there was no reduction in adult cycling as a result of the helmet law.
• Notes downward trends in injuries for all road users; that in Victoria, head injuries fell almost as much as non-head injuries; and suggests that the reductions were due to 'large reductions' in cycling. The article fails to note that the injury data in the Victorian study showed that pedestrian head injuries dropped by about 20%, cyclist non-head injuries dropped by about 25%, and serious and severe cyclist head/brain injuries dropped by 40%.
• Cites injury data from an SA study, yet fails to note that the SA study also found that there was no decrease in overall cycling as a result of the helmet law.
• Claims that there was 'no obvious effect' of the law in SA with respect to reduced cyclist head injuries, yet fails to note that the injury data in the study also showed that

• cyclist concussion admissions dropped by 54%, and that admissions for all other causes of concussion dropped by 27%
• preventable injuries other than concussion reduced by 41%

Linda.m.ward (talk) 07:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This sort of debate is as I've argued before not really suitable for an encyclopedia; on a deeply contested subject we should not rehash minutiae but should give an overview of the main points of the argument. It's also not really relevant to the subject of reliability. You may disagree with everything a source says, but that is not the point at issue. If we leave out every source that makes a contestable comment we will be left with a remarkably short article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

With respect, User:Dorre, who has stated on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Bicycle_Helmet_Research_Foundation that s/he is a member of the BHRF cyclehelmets.org Editorial Board, specifically asked (above) for "evidence of inaccuracy or unreliability in the information presented", and that is exactly what User:Linda.m.ward has provided. Debating on Talk pages the accuracy and reliability of sources referred to in WP articles is entirely appropriate, BTW. Such debate should not appear in the article itself, of course. Tim C (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I could say that the 1992 MUARC study was conducted in better weather than the pre-law survey (the 1991 survey, was slightly worse, but on average the two post-law surveys had similar weather to the pre-law survey. Yet, despite the better weather, and had a bicycle rally passing through one of the sites (451 cyclists in 1992, 72 in 1991), they sill managed to count 83 fewer adult cyclists in 1992 than 1990. But I'd be falling into the trap of arguing about minute details, rather than allowing the data and the graphs to paint the broader picture.

As they say, a picture is worth 1,000 words. If we want to illustrate the effect of helmet laws we have to show the data, as honestly and reliably as possible, in a way that people can understand, so that they can see the effect of the helmet law compared to other effects such as safer roads and pre-law trends. Dorre (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, if we are to achieve a good article then good graphical summaries of the main data series are essential. Per WP:SYNTHNOT this is not a problem, indeed it's what Wikipedia editors are supposed to do. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It is wrong to attempt to dismiss a particular information source on the basis of an alleged bias, rather than on the basis on the accuracy of the information itself. For example, CRAG openly states where it stands. Not everybody agrees with that position, however some of the information provided on the site is still useful. For example, this page summarising surveys of cycling after the helmet law. (http://crag.asn.au/?p=174). This is informative, described in the neutral tone, and properly referenced. To dismiss it on the basis of not agreeing with CRAG's position seems biased.

The same applies to BHRF. Attempts being made to dismiss material from BHRF on the basis of not agreeing with the position of some of its members seems biased. This discussion should be based on facts, not on disagreeing with some members of a group. Linda Ward long list of statements she disagree with on BHRF is interesting. However, it is not proper to attempt to denigrate it without providing BHRF the opportunity to reply. It would be more appropriate to contact BHRF directly and let them know of statements believed to be incorrect on their site, providing supporting evidence. For example, claiming that the helmet wearing rate in the northern territory is 80% based on personal observations is no more generalisable that somebody else perception. A survey is needed to support such statements.

It is odd that an avid helmet advocate attempts to dismiss references from CRAG on the basis that CRAG is open & honest about their position, and now attempts to do the same about BHRF. Particularly while quoting studies without disclosing relevant conflict of interests nor disclosing that they have been conducted by helmet advocates. This is deceitful. These studies could be critiqued in a similar manner as the way BHRF material is being dismissed. Effectively, adopting the approach suggested means punishing honesty (ie. discounting information from sources that have the honesty to state their position), and rewarding deceit (to present as neutral information from sources that attempt to conceal their position, or to pretend to have a neutral position while being helmet advocates).

I do not claim to speak on behalf of Wikipedia, but it seems dangerous for Wikipedia to tolerate such an approach. Rewarding misleading & deceptive conduct can only encourage it, leading Wikipedia to becoming a platform hijacked by well-organized, well-funded deceitful special interest groups.

The key is to disclose conflicts of interest when relevant. For example, it would be inappropriate to dismiss the summary of survey on the CRAG site based on CRAG stated position. The same goes for BHRF. If believe that the information posted is inaccurate, then explain why based on facts. If you are aware of an undisclosed conflict of interest, then state it (rather than try to censor the information), so that people can make a fully informed judgement. Dismissing information on the basis that you don't agree with the source stated position is a form of bias.

Arguments must be based on facts, not on disagreement with parties stated position. If you disagree with a statement referenced by BHRF, then argue based on facts, rather try to dismiss it based on the source being BHRF.Harvey4931 (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Trial of footnotes

As User:Richard Keatinge has noted, this article has become unencyclopaedic, as more and more details are added. These details are important for the accuracy of the article and to maintain a NPOV, but they make it very hard to read. The typical solution to this, used in scholarly writing for hundreds of years, is the footnote. As an experiment, I have moved some critique of one of Dorothy Robinson's review papers to a footnote, as well as a reference to a magistrate's opinion which had been inserted between the mention of Robinson's paper and the discussion of critiques of it (thus interrupting the flow of the discourse). If there are no objections, I intend to do this throughout the article, as time permits. Others are encouraged to do so too. Note that it must be done fairly and from a NPOV - details of critiques of all papers, no matter what they report, should be given the same footnote treatment, if the discussion is technical or very detailed. But not everything needs to be moved to footnotes - judgement is required. Please make such footnote changes one edit at a time, so that each can be reviewed by other editors and reverted or modified if necessary. Comments? Tim C (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the district court judge's opinion belongs as a footnote to the Robinson paper. It was delivered in 2010 in response to the material provided by Sue Abbott as part of her legal challenge. The judge was agreeing with Abbott, not Robinson. Given the chronological nature of the rest of that section, I have therefore put it as a separate paragraph commencing with the words "In 2010". Dorre (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I should add that footnotes are inserted using the efn template. Ref tags can be included in the footnotes, so whole chunks of existing page mark-up just need to be cut-and-pasted inside an efn template to move that text and all associated references into a footnote. Tim C (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I have moved some tedious detail in "Surveys of helmet use and cycling participation before and after the introduction of helmet laws" to the footnote. The whole thing is becoming unreadable as well as poorly structured with duplications. Dorre (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

This would result in a more misleading article, as most readers do not read footnotes. Many helmet studies, notably funded by governments keen to defend current policy, use flawed methodologies that exaggerate the benefits of helmets. Their results can be misleading. To include the claims in the main text, while putting balancing arguments in less prevalent footnotes results in the misleading material being given undue prominence.

A better way to make this article more readable would be not to include controversial studies. The claims and counter claims amount to little more than confusing people. That would be much clearer and more succinct than giving prominence to misleading claims.Harvey4931 (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

-Who determines which studies are controversial and which ones aren't? Is there any study cited in this article that isn't controversial in some way? If Footnotes are the way to go then it's an all or nothing approach and all sources have to be treated equally. Dsnmi (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody needs to determine controversial studies. They become apparent from the claims and counter claims. There is enough data and studies that are not controversial to make a clear article.Harvey4931 (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I can't find any studies on this page so far that aren't controversial in some way and can't be counter-claimed by someone. Helmet advocates will no doubt claim studies that aren't refutable and helmet deniers will claim the same thing about their favourite papers but both will be wrong. If we're going to try and rescue this article and maintain a neutral POV then we have to have a universal approach to all studies and a rigid level of consistent behaviour. Dsnmi (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's not pretend to be neutral while denigrating those of oppose helmet compulsion as "helmet deniers". There are degrees of controversy. At least we can agree on applying the same principles to all studies.Harvey4931 (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes we definitely should treat all studies equally and treat every one as controversial and apply the same system to all. We don't have to pretend neutrality on this page we should strive to actually make it neutral without any pretence. A neutral presentation of the data and facts related to helmets in Australia without editorialising or bias should be our mutual aim. Dsnmi (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Citations Needed

I have added a citation needed tag to the assertion that in SA law may not have been enforced immediately. As noted on Talk by Jake Olivier on 27 Feb 2013, this claim is not substantiated by any analysis or given a citationLinda.m.ward (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The Marshall and White study was cited as the source for a claim of a decrease in the number of people over 15 who cycled at least once a week, from 12.0 per 100 people to 10.4. I could not find these numbers in the Marshall and White study so have added a citation needed tag. Linda.m.ward (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I have tagged 2 occurences of a 250% increase in cycling in Sydney. The citation provided was Robinson's 1996 study, which in turn cited the Ausbike 92 proceedings, which mentioned an RTA report, but did not provide a citation.Linda.m.ward (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

No reference has been cited for a claim of an increase in cycling from 300,000 to 400,000 between 1986 and 1989 in WA, so I have added a citation needed tag. Linda.m.ward (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Injury rates

User:Colin at cycling added - Hillman stated, "they do not protect the head from rotational trauma which can seriously damage the brain and brain stem and which is quite common when cyclists are hit a glancing blow from a motor vehicle rather than in direct collision with it (McCarthy, 1992)".[78]

Reasons, Dr Hillman Senior Fellow Emerious and who wrote the MBA publication Cylcing Towards Health and Safety 1992 view are worthy of including as perhaps the most qualified person in the world on cycling and health aspects. The quote is from his considered report on cycle helmets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin at cycling (talk • contribs) 11:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Colin -- That hypothesis is not supported by the evidence. As noted by TimC and others, the work by Andrew McIntosh using a dummy test found no evidence helmet wearing exacerbated injuries and, in fact, found helmet wearing protective in that regard. Additionally, using real world data, we could only identify at most 12 cases of diffuse axonal injury (7 were unhelmeted and 5 wore helmets). These results are found in peer-reviewed papers published this year.JakeOlivier (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Addition of 1993 quote from Mayer Hillman

User:Colin at cycling added a quote from a 20 year-old non-peer-reviewed report by a UK policy analyst Mayer Hillman asserting that bicycle helmets do not protect from rotational injury. The Hillman report is not available online, but the quote gives a reference to this assertion: McCarthy 1992. Presumably this reference is to an opinion piece in the BMJ by Mike McCarthy - see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1883058/ - in which MCarthy makes the assertion that "...helmets may lessen direct compression but do not protect the brain from rotational trauma" without the support of any references or citations of biomechanical or epidemiological research (in fact, no references in support of this assertion at all). For these reasons, I don't think this quote meets WP standards for sufficient authority. Furthermore, this article is about bicycle helmets in Australia. The 20 year old opinions of a UK policy analyst just do not belong in this article. Therefore removing the addition. Tim C (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Colin at cycling The statement by Dr Hillman has not been disputed in almost 20 years. Both medical professions Mike McCarthy Senior lecturer University of London at the time and Dr Hillman Senior Fellow Emeritus who had both written about cycling, health and safety, they had suitable infortmation backgrounds to support their statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin at cycling (talk • contribs) 11:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree - neither Hillman nor McCarthy cite any research in support of their claims. Neither are expert injury researchers. Also, the quote is 20 years old - there has been more research since then - indeed, the most recent research is mentioned in the preceding sentence. The addition of such a 20 year old quote from a UK policy person at that particular point in this article about bicycle helmets in Australia is misplaced given that recent Australian helmet research is being covered in this section of the article. It is not necessary to offset every positive helmet research finding with a juxtaposed quote which sheds doubt on helmet effectiveness. If the quote warrants mention in WP at all (I don't believe it does), then it should be added to the relevant section of the main Bicycle helmet article. Tim C (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I've yet to see any suggestion that helmets were ever expected to reduce rotational injury, and given a respectable source we could probably keep the statement that they probably don't. I agree with Tim Churches here; I don't see that it helps this article at all and, with much other argumentation, I suggest it should stay out. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of addition of off-topic material by User: Colin at cycling

User:Colin at cycling has added a whole major section, titled "Head rotation and injury rates", without any consultation, and which is not specific to the topic of this article, which is bicycle helmets in Australia. There is already a sub-section titled "rotational injury" in the main Bicycle helmet article and the material added belongs there, if it meets WP standards (noting that only one author, Curnow, has pushed the rotational injury theory about bicycle helmets - that is, it is not a widely held concern amongst injury experts that bicycle helmets cause or worsen rotational injury to the brian, and recent evidence suggests that they don't). However, I also note that much of the material added to this new section is a non-NPOV rehash of material that is already in the main article. In addition, the new major section has been added in a way that makes subsequent sections subordinate to it, when they should not be. In view of this major disruption to the article, I am reverting the changes. Tim C (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Tim C says

"this new section is a non-NPOV rehash of material that is already in the main article" It is not intended to be, can precise details of the non-NPOV be provided? ~~Colin at cycling~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin at cycling (talk • contribs) 16:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Response by User:Tim.churches: Sure. User:Colin at cycling added:

"StClair and Chinn recorded acceleration in helmet tests from approximately 3000 to 20000 rad./sec2, higher than the level that could result in death. Average rotational acceleration for size E, 54cms, were 5333 rad./sec2 compared to J size, 57cms, of 13505 rad./sec2."

The StClair and Chinn report is available online. Here is the relevant section of the abstract for the report:

"Assuming that the response of the unhelmeted head is similar to the helmeted head during an oblique impact at 8.5m/s at 15º, this may generate between 7500rad/s² and 12000rad/s² of rotational acceleration. This is potentially more severe than the 3000rad/s² to 8500rad/s² measured during abrasive and projection oblique tests with size 54cm (E) helmeted headforms. However, for the most severe cases using a size 57cm (J) headform, rotational acceleration was typically greater than 10,000rad/s² and increased to levels of 20,000rad/s², a level at which a 35% - 50% risk of serious AIS3+ injuries is anticipated. Overall, it was concluded that for the majority of cases considered, the helmet can provide life saving protection during typical linear impacts and, in addition, the typical level of rotational acceleration observed using a helmeted headform would generally be no more injurious than expected for a bare human head."

Thus, the material added to the article gives the reader the impression that StClair and Chinn found that helmets increase rotational acceleration compared to a non-helmeted situation, but in fact, they found no such thing. The addition of selected facts from StClair and Chinn while omitting their conclusion that "...the typical level of rotational acceleration observed using a helmeted headform would generally be no more injurious than expected for a bare human head" represents a non-NPOV edit.

User:Colin at cycling added:

"Williams in Australia evaluated the protective performance of 64 helmets and provided details of the impact locations, most were to the sides and temporal regions, few to the crown or some to the front. This suggested that most impacts will incur a level of rotation."

This omits the important detail that Williams evaluated helmets from crashes occurring between 1987 and 1989, with experiements on new helmets available in Australia in 1989, which is 24 years ago. Both helmet technology and construction techniques and helmet testing standards have improved substantially since then - bicycle helmets have evolved and changed a lot in the last quarter of a century. To mention the Williams research while omitting this detail represents a non-NPOV edit in my opinion.

User:Colin at cycling added:

"[Colin] Clarke 2007 compared possible impacts for helmeted v non-helmeted head profile in the occipital region and relative impact forces and number of impacts, reasoning that helmets will incur more impacts than a bare head due to their larger size. Total relative helmeted forces were 54% higher based on a head to helmet width ratio of 1.27, but the average force per impact was lower"

The reference given is for a paper given at a cycling conference, not a peer-reviewed scientific conference or journal. Clarke appears to be a cycling activist, not an injury epidemiologist or statistician, nor a biomechanical safety expert. As such, the source given for these statements does not meet WP standards for authority.

Finally, User:Colin at cycling added the text:

"Many factors may be involved in a crash, impact velocity, impact locations, size of helmet, how well a fit, style of helmets, if a near miss may occur for a bare head, Experiments may account for some aspects."

No source, reference or authority was provided for these assertions, and thus they must be assumed to be the opinion of the editor who added them. I think that the intent is to suggest that experimental studies on helmets do not precisely replicate all the aspects of real-life helmet/head impacts in cycling accidents. The question is whether the important aspects are replicated in experiments. That is a complex technical question, and requires referenced scientific evidence. Tim C (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Response by Colin at cycling: Thank you Tim for those details. Picking out the important points.

The figures I quote for helmet impacts are measured results for modern helmets, 5333 rad./sec2 and 13505 rad./sec2, 20000 rad./sec2.

"Assuming that the response of the unhelmeted head is similar to the helmeted head" This assumption is invalid, a bare head/hair coefficient of friction is about 0.15 (hair), helmets about 0.4. Reporting the StClair and Chinn assumption would be adding to their invalid approach.

“...the typical level of rotational acceleration observed using a helmeted headform would generally be no more injurious than expected for a bare human head"

Could be included but a note to say this is disputed, Cyclehelmets.org provides discussion of this issue. It takes no account of near misses for bare head that result in impacts for one helmeted.

“This omits the important detail that Williams evaluated helmets from crashes occurring between 1987 and 1989, with experiments on new helmets available in Australia in 1989, which is 24 years ago.”

Williams details the impact locations and this information is likely to be similar today, mainly to the sides and frontal temporal areas. 'In 1991 Williams in Australia', a simple change dates the article, but also the citation dates the article.

“Clarke 2007 compared possible impacts for helmeted” Velocity Munch 2007 included the paper, after reviewing. Clarke published ‘Safer Cycling 1995’ an 80 page technical booklet on safety issues and cycling. Restricting Wiki comments to selected groups?

The details provided added important information and intended as a NPOV but granted more information could have been added, but the length of the article is already long and trying to be concise was also a priority.

~~Colin at cycling:~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin at cycling (talk • contribs) 09:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I did not say that the StClair and Chinn results weren't for modern helmets. I only pointed out that you had failed to mention the crucial fact that they didn't provide any results for unhelmeted heads by comparison, but that they clearly state that they expect unhelmeted heads to be no better with respect to radial acceleration.

I am sorry, but anonymously-authored and undated web pages on cyclehelmets.org do not meet the WP standards for verifiability when it comes to biomechanical aspects of helmet performance, IMO. The BHRF/cyclehelmets.org is not a scientific journal, and AFAIK, none of its "editorial board" are biomechanicists or have been invlved in actual helmet testing. Regarding near misses, I suspect that it is untestable in real-life, and would require hyper-detailed and very accurate computer simulations of accidents in order to investigate. Such research has not been done. But I will observe that most head impacts in on-road bicycle accidents are with the road surface, which tends to be a large object not easily avoided even by an unhelmeted head.

Yes, William with a year could be added to this article, but not your editorial commentary on it.

Yes, material to be included in WP articles is restricted - see the WP policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability. As I said, the opinions of a cycling advocate presented at cycling conference do not constitute sufficient authority for a discussion of the biomechanics of head collisions in bicycle accidents. A paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal on biomechanics or similar, or a conference paper by a recognised biomechanical researcher, is required to back up such assertions.

However, my point remains that this material, with the possible exception of Williams, belongs in the main WP article on [Bicycle helmets], because it is not specific to helmets in Australia. Tim C (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Tim C (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC) says “Yes, material to be included in WP articles is restricted - see the WP policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability. As I said, the opinions of a cycling advocate presented at cycling conference do not constitute sufficient authority for a discussion of the biomechanics of head collisions in bicycle accidents. A paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal on biomechanics or similar, or a conference paper by a recognised biomechanical researcher, is required to back up such assertions.”

Tim is referring to a published paper by Velocity cycling confernce Munich 2007, it considered the impacts that could occur for a helmeted profile compared to non-helmeted profile together with a range of helmet issues. (http://www.nationaler-radverkehrsplan.de/eu-bund-laender/eu/velocity/presentations/velocity2007_pp_17c_long_public.pdf). The ECF and Velocity have review committees and scientists who consider cycling information before accepting it as suitable for publication and including in their program. The author of the report provides his email address in case any questions arise.

Accepting published reports from cycling conferences allows Wikipedia to provide much more information than would occur from a narrow selection from specialists, that is if they addressed a particular topic. Funding may not be available or other projects may have higher priorities. Bikesafe Conference Newcastle 1986 provided a range of useful report, various Velocity conferences provide very useful reports. Allowing a selection process by Tim or others to suit a particular point of view is not a progressive or fair approach. Tim or others are free to point to any weaknesses or errors in reports and this allows a suitable balance. ~~Colin at cycling~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin at cycling (talk • contribs) 10:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Resurrection of archived sections of this Talk page by User:Harvey4931

User:Harvey4931 has resurrected a large section of this Talk page that had been archived, but doesn't seem to have added anything to that discussion. Was this a mistake? Can it be archived again? All the past discussion is still available on the archive page for this Talk i.e. it is still readily accessible. Bringing back old discussions but then not adding anything is potentially very confusing. Tim C (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I deleted two large sections that I initially instigated because I thought this page was becoming enormous and the two sections were no longer relevant and were no longer being added to. I have no idea why User:Harvey4931 felt the need to return one. If he can provide a good explanation as to why he thinks it's necessary I'd be interested to hear it but if he can't I'd be in favour of getting rid of it again. Dsnmi (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Didn't know there was an archive. Where is it & how to access it? I have restored this section as it is still relevant to some of the current discussions. Keeping the section in the same place makes it easier to understand the context behind other discussion. I have no problems removing old sections that are no longer relevant.Harvey4931 (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Top right of this Talk page there is a box labelled "Archives". Click on the Archive 1 link. Tim C (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy or for over-detailed argument

Recent edits have left us with large numbers of claims, counter-claims and counter-counter claims that will leave most readers thoroughly confused. The details of these studies tell us little that is useful for an encyclopedic article, except that there is an ongoing debate.

This does not lead to a clear and informative Wikipedia article. The article has become much more confusing than it was two months ago. To re-balance the article, it might be useful to repeat what we did late last year:

1. Revert to an earlier version, perhaps that of 23rd January.
2. When working further, remind ourselves that we are writing an article in an encyclopedia, for the general reader.

We need to report on the fact of debates, and even very long lists of references may be useful as further reading, but we need to outline the main points of debate rather than rehearse every detail of every argument.Harvey4931 (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm against reverting to an earlier version and I think even if reverting received widespread support in the talk page there would be no agreement about which version to revert to. The page as it stands is a bit of a mess but can be redeemed.

I think the key is to agree on same basic guidelines in order to neaten it up. If we can establish an agreed set of rules that all future edits adhere to then there's no reason why we can't maintain the Neutral POV which this article now has (and hasn't enjoyed for a long time) while making the article less intimidating to a first time reader. Both sides of the debate need to accept that this page is never going to become a propaganda page for their own way of thinking and trust that a neutral presentation of the research relating to the issue will back up their side without their own need to editorialise and censor. Dsnmi (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Harvey - I agree with you completely. Some proponents of each side of the debate have put too much of the debate into the article. There's no point to that. Such content would belong in the as yet uncreated article Bicycle helmet debate in Australia. (Which I would rather NOT see created anyway. It would definitely create more heat than light.) Wikipedia is not the place to hold a debate. HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am totally opposed to any reversion to an earlier version. A lot of effort has gone into this article over the last few months, both in bringing a much more NPOV to it by reflecting all POVs with a better balance, removal of editorialising, and in being much more comprehensive in its reference to the scientific literature (and lots of tidying up of poorly formatted and incomplete references, redundant references etc). The reality is that there is evidence published in reliable sources (scientific journals etc) that helmets protect the head and brain, aren't dangerous and that helmet laws increase helmet wearing and decrease head injuries. The fact that evidence exists must be reflected in the article in the same way that the work of Dorothy Robinson and Bill Curnow is reflected in the article. If some of the scientific literature which is relevant to this article is discussed, then all of it must be discussed in order to maintain a NPOV. Yes, that makes for a rather unencyclopaedic article, difficult, tedious and probably somewhat confusing to read. But NPOV trumps encyclopaedic in WP, I'm afraid. I am in favour of judicious restructuring of the article (discuss in Talk first!) in order to make it read better, and for greater use of footnotes in a balanced and NPOV manner. But hoping for a nice concise summary article is a pipe dream, simply because the range of views of what constitutes "the truth" are so different. What may seem like a fair summary to one person is a totally-biased bunch of misinformation to another. Tim C (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

That all seems to ignore my suggestion of a separate article for the debate, if you really must have it on Wikipedia. That would at least leave this article a readable one. HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A separate article for the debate would have to overlap with this one to such an extent that they'd almost duplicate each other. I can't see it solving the problems we currently have trying to edit this page into something more readable. All it would do is create another page like this with a lot of overlapping discussion. Dsnmi (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree - article forking just compounds the problem. For example, apart from the main Bicycle helmet article, and this article, there is also a Bicycle helmet laws page which just rehashes some of the material in this article. Creating yet another article would be even worse. Tim C (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd also oppose a fork, indeed I might even support deleting Bicycle helmet laws, what does everyone else think? I do hope soon to present a bold and much more encyclopaedic version of this page, mainly by removing the argumentation (with apologies, but it is giving us an unreadable article), giving only the main heads of debate, and leaving the references. I hope to improve on NPOV too. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Richard, please note that large-scale edits or restructuring of the page need to be agreed upon by consensus (not majority) via this Talk page, allowing a reasonable period for comment. Any edit of the article involving a complete re-write is likely to be reverted because checking and editing a complete re-write imposes an unreasonably large and sudden workload on other editors. Changes need to be made incrementally. That's not to say that changes and re-structuring aren't possible or desirable - but they need to be done section-by-section, and for the larger sections, paragraph-by-paragraph or even sentence-by-sentence, allowing adequate time for response by other editors - at least several days between edits of a paragraph or smaller section. If that sounds like a tedious and slow process, well, I'd agree, but such is the nature of WP. Tim C (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll make sure everyone has time to comment first. While this article has improved in important respects it was too detailed previously and has now achieved more or less terminal unreadability. Something bold does need to be done. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Some contributors have missed the key issue: an encyclopedia is written for the benefit of readers, by providing a clear, concise, neutral and informative article. However, some helmet advocates seem to place promoting their points of view above that objective.

Helmet advocates seem too eager to quote studies that reinforces their beliefs, without considering the objectivity of the study quoted. For example, studies have been quoted, without disclosing that they were funded by a party with a conflict of interest. Those studies typically use flawed methodologies, resulting in misleading claims not supported by the underlying data. This inevitably leads others to fill in the gaps, pointing out flaws in the study. The resulting set of claims and counterclaims interests few people except avid helmet advocates keen to promote their point of view. The claim that this article has become more neutral after adding misleading studies is incorrect.

Helmet advocates mean well, however their misleading claims and the inevitable rebuttals do not belong in an encyclopedia. We could spend the next few years counter claiming and arguing about misleading claims, or we could revert to an earlier version of the article that is not loaded with misleading claims.

The bottom line is that Wikipedia is not an advocacy platform for people's causes. There are other outlets more appropriate for that.Harvey4931 (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

None of the claims you're making are exclusive to helmet advocates. Studies on both sides can be viewed as flawed and lacking in objectivity. Chris Rissell is a noted and vocal advocate for the repeal of mandatory helmet laws and speaks regularly at anti-helmet rallies. If we're going to remove all non-objective data then anything with Rissell's name on it should definitely be first on the chopping block (especially given his history with data anomolies).

You're correct the bottom line is that Wikipedia shouldn't be an advocacy for people's causes. For a long time this page was exactly that with the anti-helmet group promoting their side of the debate. The only way to maintain any neutral point of view is to present all the information without censoring certain data.

If there are specific surveys or research which are clearly biased, non-objective and totally flawed then they should be brought up in the talk pages where they can be discussed and debated and a consensus reached. If there are clearly misleading claims then name theme here and state a case. Reverting to a previous edit undoes a lot of the hard work that has gone into this page in recent months. We can't sacrifice neutrality for the sake of readibility. Dsnmi (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts dnsmi.

Have you noticed the asymmetry between the two sides?

Chris Rissell made a mistake. Upon the mistake being uncovered, he withdrew his claims. Contrast that with the government-funded studies where, despite having been rebutted, the authors of this misleading studies have not withdrawn their claims.

There is also a strong asymmetry in funding. The government has plenty of money to fund studies defending its policies. There are no well-funded vested interests on the cyclists side.

Helmet advocates are exploiting this asymmetry to push their point of view in Wikipedia, quoting misleading studies while trying to silence the rebuttals. It would be disingenuous to claim that cycling activists are using the same tactics.

Harvey4931 (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

No I haven't noticed any asymmetry. Chris Rissell withdrew his paper because it contained numerous data errors and erroneous calculations. I am not aware of any other report cited on this page that is also guilty of the same offence. If there is another paper referenced on this page in which they author has withdrawn their research due to mathematical errors then please point it out and it should be addressed. Government funded studies may have been rebutted but so has every study from both sides. There is a large difference between rebuttal and the author admitting the study is flawed.

I don't believe that because a study has been funded by government it is necessarilly suspect and biased towards helmet law advocacy. I don't beleive that it necessarilly a tenable position. Chris Rissell is definitely on the anti-helmet side of the debate and he seems quite well funded by the university he works for which recieves government funding as well.

I take issue with the term "cycling activists" in this case. There are a huge number of people who consider themselves militant cycling activits who also support mandatory helmet laws. You can't divide this argument into cyclists vs government. It's about helmets and their effectiveness and the law and it's effectiveness, cycling activists sit on both sides of the fence.

It's definitely not disingenous to claim those who are anti-helmets have been attempting to censor the opposing view throughout the course of the life of this page which I've watched for a long time. There was a period when this entire page read like it was lifted verbatim from one of the sites dedicated entirely to discrediting helmets and laws relating to them.

The only way to maintain a neutral point of view is to treat every study equally and to report it's findings in a neutral capacity without editorialising and censorship. This is an attitude that needs to be supported by both sides. Dsnmi (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Dsnmi's undo for inappropriate material removal and corrections to reference structure.

User:Dsnmi: The edits I made followed a long discussion on the talk page of Bicycle Helmets as I stated in the editing comment - start at the topic "Ding-dong over describing authors" which continues as "Attribution of articles published by the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation (BHRF) in this article". Apologies I thought the reference to the topic on the other page would be sufficient for anyone to follow and there was no need to repeat it all here. Many of the same editors of that page have edited this page and some of the same inappropriate attributions - clear violations of normal practice and Wikipedia guidelines - have been added here (not necessarily by the same editors of course). In making the edit I came across a number of structure errors in references (you can see the error messages inserted by Wikipedia in the article) and fixed then, your undo has also put all those errors back. Note that the same cleanup (though there was much less to do) has been done on Bicycle helmets in New Zealand. Kiwikiped (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Trying to isolate one issue so we can try to gain consensus, I have inserted a link to the page of the editorial board rather than a long list of members inappropriately described as authors. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That is incorrect. At no stage were the BHRF Editorial Board members listed as authors - if you examine the edits I made you will see the names were added to the editors= attribute of the reference template, and when rendered appear as a list with a clear {Eds) after them: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia&diff=552806674&oldid=552639482 It is apparently unacceptable to you to be named as an editor responsible for referenced BHRF content for which no author is named. Tim C (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The editorial board page is there precisely to make clear the names of the editorial board (not quite the same thing as individual editors). The point is that a long list of names is un-necessary clutter. Indeed if I'd added it I would expect it to be removed on the grounds of clutter and self-advertisement. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge & Tim C - The cleanup I did is exactly the same as performed on the Bicycle Helmets page after the long Talk thread there which both of you will have seen. The only problem here is a misunderstanding I created by not describing the reasons behind the edit enough, hence User:Dsnmi's undo to what looked like a massive edit out of the blue - so mea culpa, apologies again.

There is no need to start this again, we've all had enough of the merry-go-round. Richard unless you object I will later undo your edit and redo mine - simply as the two will undoubtedly conflict. If either of you then feel there is some special case why the same standards should not apply to this page as the Bicycle Helmets one and the rest of Wikipedia then that can be discussed. Kiwikiped (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of inappropriate material now restored, along with the fixing of the other structural errors. (If anybody wonders why the character counts don't match it is (a) I think I missed one item first time around and (b) I spotted a strange activity termed "ycling" :-) so I fixed that as well). Apologies again for causing this misunderstanding. Kiwikiped (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You might be better off continuing your rhetorical rumination on the Talk page of this article: Pagination Tim C (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

To which paper by Dorothy Robinson are you referring? Tim C (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.

Reasonably succinct summaries of the Victorian and NSW helmet wearing and cycling surveys done before and after the introduction of the helmet laws can be found at http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2012/02/26/do-mandatory-helmets-discourage-cycling/ and http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2012/04/02/did-mandatory-helmets-kill-cycling-in-nsw/ (references to those web pages were in the article). Tim C (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)