This is an archive of past discussions about Bicycle helmets in Australia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion
I have taken Sitush's strong suggestion and at this diff I have greatly abbreviated the article, removing in particular almost all of the disputation but leaving (for the moment) the references. I must apologise to Tim; I said I would give plenty of opportunity to comment before I did any such thing, and now I've gone and done it without any significant input from anyone else at all. In the spirit of WP:BRD the discussion above, and no doubt further discussion to come, may perhaps be taken as plenty of opportunity to comment.
No doubt everyone will comment as they please, and I'm aware of many defects. I'd particularly appreciate your opinions on whether, as I hope, this very rough first cut is actually an improvement on the previous version. If we can restart work from here we may leave this article in relative peace and set about the much more difficult task of achieving good quality in Bicycle helmet, which does need to include a better summary of the state of the scientific debate. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
There are indeed major problems with the edit. Two generic and fundamental problems: a) it conflates scientific discourse with public discourse - lumping together peer-reviewed scientific studies with non-peer-reviewed web site pages and newspaper articles; b) it reports that there are are debates on various issues (most issues are debated...), but fails completely to report on what the consensus or weight of the scientific evidence is - this is akin to writing an article on anthropogenic climate change which just says: "There is debate about this issue.[long list of references]" I recommend reversion of the edit, and another try. Tim C (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Tim C. It was a bold attempt and worth a try but I don't think it's a helpful summary of the situation. I think we can appreciate that there is some debate about the topic but we do need to include some actual information and facts or else we're not writing an article about Helmets in Australia, we're writing an article about the debate about Helmets in Australia. I applaud the sentiment but I'd be in favour of reverting it back to the way it was and continuing with the gradual pruning which I think was producing a better article. Dsnmi (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Definitely too many citations, I didn't even try to remove any. They could be drastically pruned. The whole point is to give a readable summary including mention of a debate but to leave the scientific argumentation for another and more appropriate article. I'd suggest a graph or two to make some of the key points clearer, but even the simplest presentation will stimulate vigorous debate because there are two consensuses with entirely different conclusions on the weight of the evidence. One side feels that the case-control work is too heavily confounded to be valid, and the best time-series studies show at most only trivial effects of helmets on head injuries but large effects on discouraging cycling; helmets are a non-answer to a rare problem. The other feels that the case-control studies are valid and useful, any effects on discouraging cycling are trivial and dubious, while diligent work on time-series can elucidate useful effects on reducing head injuries; helmets are a very useful solution to a serious threat. Both sides have literature to support them and coming to a consensus text will not be easy. I rather suggest that we should mention the debate here, as I have done, and work on the consensus text to describe the scientific argument elsewhere. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we have to reach a consensus text here, that's not this page's job and it would be impossible to achieve. The purpose of this page should be to outline the scientific data that's Australia specific in an impartial and unbiased way so the reader can make up their own mind. The data has to be there for readers to examine and read further if they choose to. Dsnmi (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I've explained why you are wrong to think this on numerous occasions above and, so far, no-one has actually come up with a policy-based reason that contradicts me. While RK's removal didn't really do the trick, it was heading in the general direction that we need to go. Please note that other people, both here and at venues such as ANI, have agreed that the amount of data in this article is ridiculous. And please also note that those people include some very experienced contributors, including admins and people well inside the top 400 on the all-time list. While edit count is not everything, such experience gained across a broad spectrum of articles stands at odds with the generally-WP:SPA nature of the regulars who contribute to this particular article. The regulars here need to open their eyes and start looking at the wood instead of the trees. - Sitush (talk) 08:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC) - restored this comment that was inexplicably deleted - Sitush (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree entirely that there is too much information. I've never disputed the fact. I maintain however that the process you have engaged in so far of systematic and gradual pruning, with appropriate discussion on these pages, is the way to create an article that is both dramatically improved and won't simply revert to a shambles in a few months. A drastic edit will gradually become a mess again as people restore parts of the page they think are essential (and everyone has got one). A systematic reduction is more likely to last. Dsnmi (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Consensus text is the foundation of an encyclopaedia and is precisely what we are here for. Consensus data presentation may also be useful. I'm here to try. In view of the strong POVs evidenced so far this will really not be easy. What we have achieved with the recent flood of POV edits is simple unreadability in which the entire argument disappears. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
It is an egregiously inaccurate/distorted 'summary' that bears almost no resemblance to the reality of the matter. I agree with Tim C and Dsnmi that this destructive edit should be reverted, and that the 'evolutionary' pruning approach be continued. Linda.m.ward (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
That you consider a rather neat NPOV summary to be inaccurate/distorted does emphasize the problems we will have in achieving agreement on this and related articles. I am well aware of extreme views on both sides; our business here is to describe the issues and the arguments. I quote from WP:COI: "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." The aims of Wikipedia are to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia. To attempt to remove or belittle either side of the argument would be clear conflict-of-interest editing. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion
The section headed Surveys of helmet use and cycling participation is pointless for the reasons stated by Marshall and White in 1994. Since we are not comparing like with like and since the outcomes of the various surveys are so vague in terms of conclusions, please can we consider either removing the entire section or replacing it merely with non-statistical summaries of the surveys mentioned. Rather than clearing the air, the stats there cloud it. - Sitush (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. It duplicates the material in section on changes without concurrent control groups. It also refers to a paper about New Zealand, and breaks Wiki rules about synthesis - Carr & Williams didn't infer cycle use from injury data. Given its current state, it seemed better to delete it. Dorre (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
It is important to retain brief summaries of the results of the surveys of cycling rates (and helmet wearing rates) done just before and in the few years after the introduction of helmet laws, since that is the issue which is directly relevant to this article. But all the other information about long-term changes in cycling rates from the Census and other sources belongs in a general article about cycling in Australia, not in this article about bike helmets in Australia. Also, the headings for these sections ("with and without control groups") were uninformative and jargonistic (they didn't make much sense to me, and I'm an epidemiologist). Thus I've pruned all the very detailed Census material, and re-organised the cycling survey data from around the time helmet laws were introduced into one section labelled explicitly to indicate what its scope is. Tim C (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Anyone cycling to work without a helmet on census day 1991 in NSW, Vic or Tas who was observed by the police, would most likely have been stopped and fined. On the same day in WA, ACT and Qld, non-helmeted cyclists were free to cycle anywhere they wanted without fear or reprisal. You know, as well as I do, that fitting a statistical model the census data for the entire country for the 3 censuses surrounding helmet laws would find a most significant effect on cycling to work in states where you could be stopped by the police and fined for not wearing a helmet. Whether or not other factors (e.g. proportions walking to work, regional vs capital city) were included, the fear of police reprisal for non-helmeted cyclists would still be there. As such, the census data reveals a very important effect on showing how the law affected trends. It's reliable data that has been published on the BHRF website. If this article is to have a NPOV it has report such information. Dorre (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I think you are straying into WP:OR territory, Dorre. Where is the source for these latest conjectures? And why is the BHRF seen as a fount of all respectable knowledge? - Sitush (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree. In response to Dorre's rhetorical question, no, I do not know at all that "...fitting a statistical model [to] the census data for the entire country for the 3 censuses surrounding helmet laws would find a most significant effect on cycling to work in states where you could be stopped by the police and fined for not wearing a helmet." Has anyone done that and published such research? To start with, it would not make sense to fit a statistical model to just three Census data points before and after the helmet legislation - the method of travel to work data is available for Censuses from 1976 through to 2011, and it would be important to use all that data, and to look at other influences on cycling to work, such as changes in other commuting modes, as well as other factors such as weather on the Census day etc. I've had a preliminary look at this, and it is clear that levels of all types of commuting (bike, pedestrian, public transport) vary in a reciprocal fashion to commuting by car, and that car commuting increased dramatically at the same time as the helmet laws were introduced (in fact, throughout the 1990s). Thus a great deal of careful analysis needs to be done before making statements which attribute some or all of cycling commuting changes in the Census data to helmet laws. There is also a lot of variation between states, and between capital city and rural regions. It is not possible to just make the causal leap from helmet laws to drops (and increases - the trend has has not been down in all cases by any means) in cycle commuting in the Census data. Researchers need to undertake a careful analysis of these data and submit it for publication by a suitable peer-reviewed scientific journal. Then, but only then, the results of such an analysis could be included in this WP article. Anything else is original research involving leaps of faith. Tim C (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Presenting relevant reliable data in an easily-readable form is fundamental to what a good encylopaedic article should do. As I'm sure you are aware, quite a lot of other factors affected cycling and road safety around the time the helmet laws were passed. You and Dorre describe quite a lot of original research that hasn't been done and from which we might well benefit, but the basic census data would remain as the point of departure for any such research, reliable in the ordinary sense, Reliable, and obviously essential to this article.
I've met quite a lot of people who described themselves as epidemiologists, but never before one who found the concept of control groups "uninformative". I put in that particular heading as a preliminary to drastic reduction; comparisons without control groups are fundamentally weaker and I'd see them as a priority for pruning. I see you have done some of the pruning, which is fine. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Richard, the Census on cycle commuting is essential to an article on cycling in Australia, but not to this article on Bicycle Helmets in Australia. You, and User:Dorre, have made the leap of faith that changes in cycle commuting in the Census data are due to helmet laws. Some of those changes may well be, but other factors almost certainly play a role, and further research needs to be done to estimate what proportion of the changes in cycle commuting in the Census data are likely to have been due to helmet laws. To present the Census data in THIS article without having done that further research, and having it vetted by scientific peers and published in a reputable journal, is potentially misleading because it implies that all, or a large part of the changes in cycle commuting in the 1990s were due to helmet laws, and that may not be the case.
Regarding control groups, of course I am familiar with the concept in the context of both experimental (eg RCTs) and observational studies (eg cohort and case-control studies). However those sections contained descriptions of Census data and helmet wearing surveys, and I found the the concept of "control groups" (or lack thereof) with respect to a census or a survey rather peculiar. Tim C (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC~)
It is really very simple: census data is a primary source and much care is needed when using such sources. Given the fairly obvious statement that raw statistics can be interpreted in numerous ways, we should not be using such statistics at all in the article nor relying on them in discussions on this talk page. The only valid use of census data is where it has been cited in peer-reviewed studies. - Sitush (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I have used this graph or one very similar as a nice simple way to illustrate the concept of control groups to first-year students. None of them had any trouble understanding the point. I'll take Sitush's opinion and leave the issue of this particular graph for the moment. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, in the context of that graph, I now understand the intent of your section headings - you were conceiving of the Census commuting data by State as a natural experiment, with some States subject to helmet law at the 1991 Census, and some not. Frankly, that wasn't obvious to me, nor to colleagues to whom I showed the article as it was. However, Sitush's point still stands - even just that graph represents an analysis of primary source data - an analysis in which causation is strongly suggested. The problem is that other factors which influence cycle commuting on Census day are not also taken into account, and thus there is a strong risk that the analysis implied by that graph is very incomplete at best and highly misleading at worst. If you submit a paper to a scientific journal in which that graph is the only analysis, the paper will be rejected - the reviewers will send it back with a curt note pointing out that many things influence cycle commuting levels and please consider them all in your analysis before re-subitting your paper. Tim C (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Call me stupid but I don't even understand what the dotted bits are supposed to represent. And in addition to my earlier comment about primary data, I reiterate something that I said a few days ago: it is my understanding that merely changing the format of a chart - eg: from bar to pie - can dramatically alter the perception of outcomes. I've no idea if it would do so in this case but I'm pretty sure that I am correct to say that it might. - Sitush (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
For the states and territories shown in the red line, helmet laws came into effect in the year or so before the 1991 Census. For the states and territories shown in the dark blue line, the helmet laws came into effect after the 1991 Census, but before the 1996 Census. Therefore, I think the dotted line segments are supposed to represent the effects of the helmet laws on cycle commuting in that inter-Censal period. It is a pretty strongly framed way to present these data in order to make a particular point. But if you look at exactly the same Census data, but in context and much greater detail, it is clear that the story is not as simple as the BHRF graph makes it appear - see https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BykuVdPr-by8N1dRMEQwTVI5QTg/edit?usp=sharing But none of these Census graphs (not the BHRF ones, and not mine) should appear in the article unless or until they are part of a thorough multivariate analysis in a peer-reviewed paper published in a reputable scholarly journal. Tim C (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
This graph, which I am NOT suggesting should appear in the article, shows that the drops in cycling (-21%), bus (-21%), and train (-19%) to work were eerily similar.
Putting the data into a statistical model is not going magically transform the drop in cycling into a huge drop, and magically shrink the drops in the other modes into insignificance. Linda.m.ward (talk) 05:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
My last revert
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
I really, really do not have any stake in this argument and I'm really unsure who is right and who is wrong. Indeed, both "sides" may be equally right or wrong. What I do know is that edits to this article are by and large coming from people who have a pre-set agenda either in favour of mandatory helmet use or opposed to it. That is not the best environment for achieving a neutral article. Or, rather, it is not the best if people keep pushing A or B without really discussing things first. Yes, there has been a lot of discussion but much of it is going round in circles and it has become apparent that there is an element of obtuseness from certain contributors.
I've reverted to my last edit. It is almost certainly the wrong version but it is more certainly less wrong than what followed because that came from a contributor who has indeed been obtuse. If needs must, we will have to take this to a higher level. RfCs are pointless, in my opinion but something in the dispute resolution process looks likely unless we can begin to define exactly what it is that this article is supposed to be focussed on. Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I tried a bold edit, trimming it down to easy readability (except for the multiple references - sorry, aggregation might help in due course). I felt that this, though far from perfect, was a point from which we could gradually build up with contributions as consensus may allow. That it was readable, short, and more or less free from the various specific comments that get one side or the other worked up might perhaps have allowed us to improve it by degrees. Forgive me for pushing an idea, but would something of the sort be worth trying again? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
................................................................................. problem with line space.................................................................................
--
There has been evidence for and against helmets and any article may need to reflect both views. Other Wiki topics may not have this degree of difficulty.
In some ways you need to know right from wrong to provide a neutral article. Provided each view is supported by suitable evidence that is probably the best approach. Reverting to a previous version without considering each change and its merits does not encourage me to help write a worthy article. As noted I am contributing to one topic at the minute and many of the protocols may take some time to digest. Time of course is limited. Colin at cycling (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817
worth a read Colin at cycling (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I endorse Colin's recommendation of http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817, especially to anyone new to the issues. Not that I'd agree with absolutely everything Goldacre and Spiegelhalter say, but they do give a very good overview of the published evidence on the debate, embarrassingly more readable than ours presently is, and they hint at some of the reasons for strong feelings on both sides. Indeed I'd ask other editors if their article may supply a framework for ours. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Um, no. The Goldacre and Spiegelhalter editorial is about the UK, where bicycle helmets are not compulsory. This article is about Australia, where they have been compulsory for over two decades. Quite different countries and circumstances. But you could use it as the basis for a WP article on Bicycle Helmets in Blighty. Tim C (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I think Colin and Richard were suggesting that anyone interested in learning more about the topic in general might enjoy reading the BMJ editorial and seeing the way the material is presented. I didn't see any suggestion in either comment that it should actually be used in the BH in Aus page. Dorre (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Graphs
Latest comment: 11 years ago55 comments6 people in discussion
I removed a couple of graphs, which had also received a bit of flak in the recent ANI report. They are, in my opinion, confusing rather than helpful. Furthermore, they are the work of one study (which makes them undue weight) and I remain concerned that we do not have the correct permissions to reproduce them here. - Sitush (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the first graph is confusing, but the second one is fairly simple - reporting percentages cycling to work in states with and without helmet laws at the 1991 census. There is no problem with permissions to reproduce them here and I disagree that census data can be interpreted as the results of a "study". It is simply a report of the percentage of the workforce who cycled there. In the spirit of compromise, I'll remove the first graph that could be confusing, but the second one certainly is not. I believe is provides an extremely relevant picture of the effect of helmet laws on the entire country, so should not be removed. Dorre (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding permissions, the underlying Census data is released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) under a CC-SA-BY license, but it would seem that the ABS is not clearly identified as the source of the data. With respect to the actual graph, as opposed to the data it is presenting, it resides on WikiMedia with a note stating it is the work of User:Dorre. However, the reference given for the graph points to a page on the Bicycle Helmets Research Foundation web site, where a copy of the same graph also appears - see http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1194.htmlTim C (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I was aware that it has been published in the same form elsewhere. I'm also aware that the census is a study of a single day and if this data itself relates to a single day then it is useless, per the various comments about state of the weather affecting participation etc. Commons will accept all sorts of stuff that we simply do not use on en-Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Virtually all studies of cycle use cover either small areas and involve a few thousand cyclists counted over a couple of weeks (so are subject to high sampling errors as well as significant variation in weather) or involve many thousands of cycle trips to work over the whole country. Because of the large distances involved, the variation in weather usually averages itself out over the whole country. The graphs show smooth trends, not the random fluctuations you'd expect from from the effects of variable weather. Many studies and official reports make considerable use of census data, even comparing the cycling trends for a single city or regions within a city - e.g. https://theconversation.com/more-cyclists-that-depends-on-where-you-live-11154 If Australian Bureau of Stats census data on cycling to work was useless, why would so much effort have been expended by many people on analyzing it? Dorre (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be deflecting, sorry. This is not about other studies etc but rather about that study, ie: the census, and the weight of showing an image derived from it that may or may not have permission for use here. I'm am not going to be drawn into side-issues: there seems to have been a lot of unverified waffle/almost-filibustering going on at this talk page without starting another session of it in this thread. Census data is, in any event, a primary source and we should not be analysing it in any form on Wikipedia. The image needs to go. - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Sitush, thanks for your help so far, but on this particular point I really couldn't disagree more. This data is important, reasonably reliable, and its presentation here is Wikipedia:NOTOR. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes but they may have no bearing on helmet use or legislation and are therefore irrelevant. It is WP:OR to assume otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Again I'm sorry to disagree on this point, but their relevance seems obvious. Indeed the only reason I can imagine for removing this image is precisely that it is a relevant presentation of reliable and Reliable facts with an appropriate licence. What people infer from this is of course up to them, but a picture is worth a thousand words, we have a need to reduce the verbiage and a very good image. I respect your opinion and that of others, but it seems clear to me that this image is smiled upon by policy and essential for a good encyclopaedic article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
As Richard said, there is no implication in the Wiki text that the effect is due to legislation. All the graph does is split census data in percentages for Australian States with and without enforced helmet laws on census day 1991. There is a similar graph for walking to work split by States without enforced helmet laws, though it isn't divided into into capital cities vs other area. Initially, the cycling to work wasn't either. I have just uploaded both to Wiki commons. Australian census data on walking to work, averaged over states with and without enforced bicycle helmet laws in the 1991 census and Australian census data on cycling to work, averaged over states with and without enforced bicycle helmet laws in the 1991 census as you can see, there is no hint of a difference in walking to work in states with and without enforced helmet laws. Simple tabulations of cycling and walking to work are not, however, the only source of information. Governments and other authorities asked about cycling in several questionnaires and surveys - e.g. 51% of NSW schoolchildren who hadn't cycled said it was because of helmet laws, the equivalent of 64% of current adult cyclists in WA also stated in a telephone survey that they would cycle more if not legally required to wear a helmet. So yes, we cannot imply anything about whether the trends were caused by the laws, but simply report the facts on cycling to work, the pre and post-law observational data and the questionnaires of what people reported about how the law affected their cycling. Dorre (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'll take a read of the prior discussions here and at RSN and then I'll probably take the issue elsewhere. Unless the graph has a point in relation to bicycle helmets in Australia, it is useless here; and if it does have a point then no-one seems prepared to acknowledge it. Saying that the relevance is "obvious" but not stating why it is obvious is a clear case of insinuating information into the article. It is subliminal and it is wrong: for all everyone here knows, usage could have altered due a combination of the retail cost of new bicycles rising, the weather, a fad for skateboarding and all sorts of other weird things. Likely? No, of course not but certainly possible.
As for a picture being worth a thousand words, well, I'm not great at creating graphs but one thing I had drummed into me was that the choice of style can affect the viewer's perception of the data. So, which thousand words? - Sitush (talk) 05:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
It seems you are suggesting that trends in cycle use over time before and after helmet laws are not relevant. Nor, I suppose, are changes in head injury rates. By your logic, that too, could be coincidence, just like the coincidence of rising retail costs or fads for skateboarding for some reason having a much greater influence in states with enforced helmet laws. There are peer-reviewed journals that include information on the census data, but I see no point in adding unnecessary words, when all most people want to know are the trends over time. Dorre (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
No, that is not what I am saying. My point is that unless we have a reliable, independent source that notes the national change in cycle use over time/head injury rates/whatever is directly and proportionately related to the helmet laws and uses the data presented in the graph(s) then mentioning the change here is inappropriate. It is not for us to decide what "most people want to know" but rather to reflect the sources. I am becoming increasingly concerned, Dorre, that you are Dorre Robinson and that you are attempting to push a POV here. I can't be bothered trying to work it all out right now & I may be wrong but this is likely to end badly for you if I am correct and you have not declared it. Consider, for example, the recent case of Qworty (talk·contribs). - Sitush (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
BTW, So yes, we cannot imply anything about whether the trends were caused by the laws, but simply report the facts on cycling to work, the pre and post-law observational data and the questionnaires of what people reported about how the law affected their cycling is synthesis by inference. - Sitush (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
As User:Sitush correctly points out, there are many possible causes for variation in cycling-to-work as recorded at each Census, of which bicycle helmets is just one possible influence (and the degree of that influence is currently unestimated from the Census data, as far as I am aware). In other words, cycling-to-work levels are multi-factorial, and any analysis (including a graphical analysis) which presents this variation in the context of just one possible cause is inadequate at best and misleading at worst. To illustrate this, here is some work-in-progress, not for citation or further distribution or inclusion in any WP article at this stage (it will form part of a peer-reviewed article in due course), which puts variation in cycling-to-work at each Census in the context of variation in other modes of travel to work (the vertical dashed lines in the bike panels show when mandatory helmet laws were introduced in each jurisdiction): https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BykuVdPr-by8N1dRMEQwTVI5QTg/edit?usp=sharing (you may need to zoom in and pan around to view the graphic adequately, depending on your computer's screen resolution). Tim C (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The Finch (Vic), Williams (NSW), and Marshall (SA) studies all showed that there was no reduction in adult cycling as a result of the helmet law. Povey et al. noted that, contrary to a claim by Robinson that the helmet law reduced cycling in Australia, therere was no evidence of any such reduction in NZ. The Victorian, NSW and SA studies also found that there was a reduction in cycling to school. The SA study also found that there was no reduction in overall child cycling, and that the reduction in cycling to school, which comprised only about 20% of cycling in that age group, was accompanied by an increase in cycling to/around other venues.
Re the (big) post-law drop in cycling to work in WA/Qld/SA, between 1991 and 1996
in the ACT cycling to work increased by 22% (from 1.9% to 2.3%)
in WA
cycling to work decreased by 35% (from 1.9% to 1.2%)
bus travel to work decreased by 35% (from 6.1% to 3.9%)
in Queensland
cycling to work decreased by 74% (from 4.7% to 1.2%)
train travel to work decreased by 69% (from 5.2% to 1.6%)
(Survey questions such as 'Would you cycle more if not legally required to wear a helmet' produce notoriously unreliable/inaccurate results, research design courses teach students to avoid leading OR hypothetical questions like the plague, this example is BOTH.)
User:Sitush has already noted that the graphs copped flak in the recent ANI report, User:Itsmejudith noted that material pertaining to long-term cycling trends does not belong in this article. Those 3 sections have no place in this article. Linda.m.ward (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
the author of the graph, and numerous references to work by the same author, that have been added by User:Colin at cycling?
the petition that was presented to the Victorian parliament in 1991 (a reference that was recently removed by another editor, and re-instated by User:Colin at cycling)?
Colin Clarke does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article as far as I know. People can be opposed to helmet laws because of a range of values and may not believe that helmets are a useful safety product or a reliable product. From what I can see the graph provided useful information and is easy to follow. I do not agree with removing it. Issues of concern about bicycle helmets are being avoided in trying to provide a simple approach. The Wiki process, many changes in one day, poor reasons given for deleting material and people deleting material that questions the benefits of imposing helmet legislation, it adds up to quite a poor process without real agreement.
Colin at cycling (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Despited numerous previous requests to declare any interest, specifically with respect to Colin F Clarke (the author of many, many references that have been added by User:Colin at cycling), User:Colin at cycling has yet again failed to provide a satisfactory response.
Re the (Clarke) graph, if any of my students were to produce such a graph, they would cop a big fat fail for it. Partly because it does not state which year/s 'post-law' refers to, presumably 1991. In which case the graph is grossly misleading (hence ***FAIL***) because it ignores the fact that Finch et al. noted that one site, which was part of a popular recreation area, and defined bike track, HAD RAIN DURING ALL THE 1991 OBSERVATIONS (and very few cyclist were observed).
Linda.m.ward (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Weekend weather conditions suggest 1992 had the
driest survey periods, followed by 1990 and 1991.
The Velo link provided to the report has been deleted by the reverting process.
Finch et al. found that after taking the weather conditions and riding patterns into account, there was no reduction in adult cycling as a result of the helmet law. This finding is consistent with adults cyclist counts in both NSW and SA.
The SA study also found that there was no reduction in overall cycling, and that a reduction in cycling to school, which comprised only 20% of cycling in that age group prior to the law, was accompanied by a equivalent-sized increase in cycling to/around other venues after the helmet law.
Cyclist non-head hospital admission data in Vic, NSW and SA also indicate that there was no (overall) reduction in cycling as a result of the helmet law. (This is consistent with an observatoin by Povey et al. that there was no evidence of any reduction in cycling as a result of the helmet law in NZ.)
One of the first things taught in health research courses is not to attach too much weight to just one study. Numerous data sources from multiple (Australian) jurisdictions all point to (little or) no reduction in (overall) cycling.
Finch et al. anlaysed various factors that could have affected cyclist counts, the Clarke graph is a crudely simplistic 'analysis' that ignores critical factors such as the weather. It gives a message that is inconsistent the the original (actual) analysis by Finch et al., and wildly inconsistent with numerous data sources reported in other Vic, NSW and SA studies.
Linda says
“Finch et al. found that after taking the weather conditions and riding patterns into account, there was no reduction in adult cycling as a result of the helmet law. This finding is consistent with adults cyclist counts in both NSW and SA”.
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/finch-melbourne.pdf page 35, states
“
5.6.4 Numbers of Bicyclists Observed During Each of the MUARC Surveys
The number of bicyclists observed in the 64 sites in common to each of the MUARC surveys is shown in figure 28. In the total group of bicyclists, the number of bicyclists fell by 36% from 3121 in 1990 to 2011 in 1991.
The 1992 survey did not detail the adult count for Albury
The 1990 survey was conducted in spring, with poor Sydney weather conditions. Walker reported: “As it turns out, the first survey was conducted in overcast conditions in Sydney and, in some areas, was interrupted by rain whereas the second survey was conducted in sunny conditions” 6. Adult rural road cycling reduced by 37%, according to a simple estimate (1660/2650 = 0.63). From 1991 to 1993, a drop of 22% occurred in Sydney. In 1991, the helmet law already applied to adults.
Again Linda you are incorrect.
The data for SA seems to be based on Adelaide and only 2 surveys, hardly reliable.
In any case their census data shows a 35% reduction from 1991 to 1996.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1194.html
Cycling to work in South Australia
1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011
2.04% 2.45% 2.27% 1.95% 1.27% 1.17% 1.43% 1.25%
Census data
Linda says
“that there was no evidence of any reduction in cycling as a result of the helmet law in NZ.”
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/zealand_helmets.html
51% reduction.
Linda your view is totally at odds with much of the evidence. Please do not mislead others with these invalid statements. Sorry to have to point to so many mistakes and I hope you can see that you are misguided. Monash reports may have misled you with some of their publications.
The Velo paper provides details about the weather in Vic for the 1990, 91 and 92 and some extra reference to the weather could be made for a Wiki graph.Colin at cycling (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
This discussion is becoming ridiculously long, but I think I should point this out here: in your 2007 Velo-city paper, Colin, you state that according to the Finch et al. surveys, 42% of people in Melbourne were observed to be wearing helmets immediately prior to the laws. I searched for this figure in the Finch et al. report but couldn't find it. What I think you have done is taken an average of the pre-law helmet wearing percentages for children, teenagers and adults as given in the report. When I do that, I get 42%. The problem is that such as calculation is mathematically incorrect. Because there were very different numbers of adults, teenagers and children counted (far more adults), you need to take a weighted average of the three percentages to get the correct figure, which is 36%. The same applies to your post-law calculation helmet wearing rates. Thus, Colin, your graph is arithmetically wrong. Tim C (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Tim, can you please check your figures? Comparing 1991 with 1990, the number of helmet wearers increased by 297, which is 9.5% of the number of cyclists counted in 1990. The number of cyclists decreased by 1110, which is 36% of the cyclists counted in 1990. Sometimes people do make typos when faced with deadlines for papers, but that doesn't make this particular graph incorrect or uninformative.
A published peer-reviewed paper compared the counts of cyclists in injury rates and concluded: "In Victoria, after the introduction of compulsory helmets, there was a 30% reduction in cycling and it was associated with a higher risk of death or serious injury per cyclist, outweighing any benefits of increased helmet wearing."
Despite this peer-reviewed information, Linda states above: "Cyclist non-head hospital admission data in Vic, NSW and SA also indicate that there was no (overall) reduction in cycling as a result of the helmet law." I'm afraid I don't understand the argument that you can infer cycle use from injury statistics. Substantially fewer cyclists were counted, especially children (who generally have a much higher risk of injury) in the second post-law survey, which had better weather than the pre-law survey. Research shows that people who are accustomed to helmets cycle faster when wearing them, and that putting a helmet and wrist guards on a kid results in a substantial increase in tripping, falling and bumping into things. This might explain why injury rates didn't decrease despite the reductions numbers of cyclists counted.
In my day job, I’ve just prepared a poster for an international conference – the accepted standard is to use graphics and limited text to attract interest and improve understanding. Bias isn’t a concern because the data dictates the form of the graph, e.g. series of points over time, stacked columns for counts by category etc. To convey the same amount of information in words would risk greater biases by omitting important details, or give readers a severe case of verbal diarrhoea, which we would all like a cure!
Colin's graph has merit in that it illustrates the change in helmet wearing as well as the change in cycle use. The criticism seems to be the slight differences in the weekend (but not weekday) weather, compared to the survey the following year (which had better weather than the pre-law survey). Unfortunately there's no published graphic based on the average of the two post-law years, otherwise it might have been acceptable compromise to shed light (which I think we agree is necessary) on what most people consider a complicated subject.
I would prefer this article to have a NPOV by reporting actual counts of cyclists, numbers wearing helmets and injury rates from peer-reviewed publications, rather than speculations from non-peer reviewed sources that injury rates can be used to infer the amount of cycling, but will await a consensus of experienced editors. Dorre (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
To which published, peer-reviewed paper are you referring, User:Dorre? And yes, I'll check my figures later today. The 36% which I mentioned was for the proportion of cyclists wearing helmets in May 1990, not the drop in total numbers counted. Oh, and sorry, but incorrect numbers in a graph do make that graph incorrect and uninformative. That's the purpose of corrigenda and errata in peer-reviewed journals, to allow such mistakes to be corrected. Tim C (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more that incorrect numbers in graphs do matter, that's why I checked the two numbers shown on that particular graph - the increase of 297 cyclists wearing helmets is 9.5% of the original number of 3121 counted, and the decrease of 1110 cyclists counted works out at 35.5%. In other words, the graph is appears to be correct. I suspect the 42% in the text may have been a typo, though given the length the Finch report and other reports describing the same surveys, it can be hard to find relevant information in a hurry! The problem with those surveys is not the numbers counted, but the attempt to turn them by weird and wonderful statistical manipulation into "exposure". Fig 7 on page 336 of the AAP paper by Cameron et al. (1994) claims a total of 55 million hours per week in a city with a population of 3 million. That's nearly 20 hours a week for every man, woman, child and elderly pensioner in the city. Several years ago, I looked for a corrigenda to draw attention to this obvious problem, but never found one. Dorre (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Re "In Victoria, after the introduction of compulsory helmets, there was a 30% reduction in cycling and it was associated with a higher risk of death or serious injury per cyclist, outweighing any benefits of increased helmet wearing." . . .
Is the claimed 30% reduction in cycling based on counts with equivalent weather conditions? And no sites excluded?
Percentage of road users in Western Australia with head injury in relation to the timing of bicycle helmet laws. Drawn from data provided by Delia Hendrie and Bruce Robinson and analysed as part of: Hendrie, D., M. Legge, D. Rosman, and C. Kirov. 1999. An economic evaluation of the mandatory bicycle helmet legislation in Western Australia, Road Accident Prevention Unit.
The graph doesn't appear in the Hendrie et al. paper. It is a synthesis of data supplied to User:Dorre by Di Rosman, one of the authors of the Hendrie et al. report, and by Bruce Robinson. As such, I don't think it is eligible for inclusion in a WP article under WP guidelines on synthesis and original research. Tim C (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
It isn't eligible, Tim, for the reasons that you give. Commons will take pretty much anything because, as is well-known nowadays, it has lost its purpose. Just because something exists at Commons does not make it valid for inclusion. In addition, I am becoming more and more concerned that Colin is actually no better qualified than I am when it comes to interpreting data - it is worrying because I've had a fairly minimal post-grad exposure to statistical methods etc and if even I can see the holes, and others seem also to see them, then there is likely a problem. Couple that with the obtuseness, Colin, and I'm afraid that it doesn't look good. I don't like doing this but I'll mention it anyway at this point: the policy of assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The graph shows the 36% drop that is for the basic data, Finch confirms this aspect. The 10% extra wearing helmets comes from the basic survey data. The main points are not really in dispute. The 42% "where 42% wore helmets before the law" comes from ref 7 in the paper, "weighted average wearing rate", so the reports does in fact refer to a published weighted average. In this regard Tim assumed the 42% had been calculated by the author when in fact it had not. The Velo paper reports the basic numbers, weather is mentioned, a weighted average for Melbourne pre law and weekday information. All this information gives a fairly good picture to inform readers. If other people wish to use other information to provide better graphs that is OK. Making invalid assumptions and others thinking the are valid and ADDING UNSUITABLE COMMENTS does not help. Colin at cycling (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that the figures are representative for Australia as a whole? Are you sure that the basic survey data has been accurately represented and that the Finch methods/survey correspond with the methods used in this survey? Can you find any information that disputes the conclusions? If not, then it ain't going in because it is inaccurate, undue weight and POV. You may not like my comments but, hey, I didn't exactly appreciate your subterfuge either, so let's call that a draw, eh? Everyone else, bar perhaps Dorre, seems to have been very open about their positions in relation to the article subject. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that my version of the Clarke graph should be included in this WP article (or any others) - but it does illustrate why the Clarke graph shouldn't be included. Tim C (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Tim for providing quite a detailed reply. More or less we seem to agree about the figures I think.
It report
“A reported 36% drop in number of cyclists (Finch, Heiman, Nelger) from 3121 to 2011 was from surveys in Melbourne, where 42% wore helmets before the law.”
The 42% figure is from another source. Victorian Bicycling Strategy; Vic Roads, Australia 1991, it provided a weighted average wearing rate for Melbourne. The 42% figure would have come from Vic Roads annual surveys.
The Monash surveys were a 64 subset of 105 survey sites. Providing the 42% figure would probably have been more accurate than the 32% figure, at least that’s my understanding and judgement. If anyone had any questions contact details were provided.
With hindsight a clear ref to where the 42% figure came from may have been better.
In both cases 42% or 32% wearing helmets pre law, 58% or 68% not wearing, the drop of 36% is more than half. So it could be reported that the helmet law discouraged about 50% of pre law non -helmeted cyclists.
The Clarke graph shows the basic data for 1990 -1991 and is based on Finch etc. It appears to be accurate.
If you revise your comment to reflect that the 42% figure was not a spelling typo that may be better.
The data for 1992 is subject to a large cycle rally and dryer weather conditions. Wiki cannot provide original research and the Clarke graph has not been subject to peer review criticism. If Tim or Linda had quoted peer review criticism of the graph, that may have been suitable grounds not to include it. Has it stands it is really just people pushing their own point of view about Wiki content, excluding what they think, rather then on merit or principle. The graph was displayed for a number of weeks and is useful to show the changes in both number cycling, wearing rates and it clearly shows that the main effect of legislation was to discourage cycling. This was perhaps the clearest effect from helmet legislation in Australia.
I will amend my re-analysis of your graph to reflect your assurance that the 42% figure came from reference 7 in your paper, but was not attributed as such. Regarding your reasons for not showing the 1992 data available in the Finch et al. report, here is what the authors of that report have to say on the issue (p44):
Another explanation for some of the increase in bicyclist numbers in 1992 is related to the fact that there appears to have been a bicycle rally passing through one of the sites (site 80, in 1991/2, Appendix 2) on a Sunday morning. This particular site is a popular recreational area and is part of a defined bicycle track. In 1991, it was rainy during all observations of this site and very few bicyclists were observed. Although the weather was generally fine in 1990, the number of bicyclists in 1992 in this area was still more than would have been expected on the basis of pre-law levels. The chance occurrence of a large group of bicyclists passing through a particular area is one of the hazards of observational surveys such as these. From a statistical point of view, however, an occurrence such as this is a true observation, well within the bounds of “normal” behaviour for that time period, and cannot be excluded from the analysis.
The chance occurrence of events such as different weather conditions or large groups of bicyclists, as described above, can be a problem associated with observational surveys even though observation sessions are randomly allocated within time and space strata. Such problems can be overcome, or minimised, by conducting larger surveys. Analysis methods, however, cannot overcome such problems (eg. by focussing on “fine” sites only) because it upsets the matched 64 site comparison of 1990 versus 1991.
The importance of the analysis of the total numbers of bicyclists as a measure of exposure trends is that it enables an assessment of trends in adults because, unlike timed-exposure, this information was available in 1990, prior to the law. This means that to have a valid comparison of pre- and post- law levels in adults, we have no choice but to look at the number of bicyclists over time. On the other hand, comparisons of the numbers of bicyclists leads only to valid conclusions about the 64 observation sites in common to each of the MUARC surveys. Unlike the timed exposure data, these results cannot, and should not, be extrapolated to the whole of metropolitan Melbourne; they only describe the 64 sampled sites.
Others can form their own opinions about whether such second-guessing of the authors' intentions represents unjustified selectivity in the use of available data, or not. Tim C (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has become entirely inappropriate even for a talk page, but I'm still amused by the quoted comment: "The chance occurrence of a large group of bicyclists passing through a particular area is one of the hazards of observational surveys such as these. From a statistical point of view, however, an occurrence such as this is a true observation, well within the bounds of “normal” behaviour for that time period, and cannot be excluded from the analysis." To put it another way, they counted normal cycling before the law, normal cycling plus a bike rally after the law. If they had done the obvious thing and excluded the rally site, they'd have had to come up with a conclusion they didn't like. Suppose the rally had been before the law and had biased things the other way? I would bet my last dollar that they'd have done the obvious (and valid and correct) thing, taken the site out and possibly never even mentioned it.
This is not the right place to discuss the matter, but Sitush and others may like to note that, in the debate about bicycle helmets, government sponsorship is at times (there are other examples, including some from other jurisdictions) a marker for true conflict of interest within the published literature. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I would also like to add that the current article contains gross errors including incorrect citations (information in the text in a different paper to the one that's cited), statements such as "Hospital admission data in a 1995 Victorian study by Carr et al. showed that in the 3 after the helmet law, compared to the 3 years before the helmet law", and as I pointed out in a previous comment on the talk page a very obscure comment in the middle of a government-funded report that the number of non-head injuries can be used to indicate the amount of cycling, when peer-reviewed journal papers show increased injury rates per cyclist. These errors appear to have been created when someone with a strongly-held POV hastily edited sections to selectively reports that POV, didn't check the result for accuracy, and, after removing material that didn't support the said POV, removed the wrong citations. I have a COI in that I ride a bike for transport in Australia (and a less significant COI in that I am very familiar with most of the papers published on this subject) so no longer feel empowered to do anything about it. Dorre (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Publishing papers isn't a conflict of interest, though disclosing them is most certainly good practice and may protect against some accusations. A COI here means that advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia. This is something that anyone with a prior opinion needs to avoid very carefully. It does occur to me that argument on talk sites, letter columns etc. is probably a better indicator of possible COI than published papers. There is some of that on my own record. Would Sitush suggest that we list as many as we can conveniently find? Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Editing an article in which your own papers appear is too close to WP:COI for comfort. As with subjects of BLPs editing articles about themselves, the advice is usually not to do it and instead to confine yourself to the talk page. I think it is safe to assume that if people contributing here have commented on the helmet issue elsewhere then they will have taken a similar position.
As for Colin's graph, well, it seems more and more likely that he may be working outside his capabilities when it comes to stats etc. That doesn't stop him from commenting here, of course, but it makes me wonder whether anything based on his studies should appear in the article without a really solid consensus. And that consensus seems unlikely at present. Colin, you could escalate the graph issue to WP:DRN or institute a RfC but I'd advise you to simplify any comments that you make there: people's eyes glaze over when they see the sort of thing that has been going on at this talk page and the outcome will not be good in a RfC or at DRN if similar stuff happens there. - Sitush (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
What I was trying to say is that, as someone who cycles for transport in in Australia, helmet laws and consequent reduced safety in numbers affects me personally - my safety when I cycle is important to me. Regular exercise without having to find time to go to the gym is an important benefit. There is also a monetary component in that lost health and environmental benefits affect taxpayers. Personal benefits represent COI. Having an accurate and truthful Wiki article is a more subtle COI - shall we just say that truthful representations lead to a more harmonious environment that improves quality of life for everyone? On the other hand, I'm not sure about having my name splashed about the internet - I'm not trying to hide anything, but there's no possible personal benefit and in some ways it's distasteful - so I don't understand why it should be a COI. I suspect, however, that Tim (who posed the question) cannot understand this any more than he can understand why some people cycle less because of helmet laws. He has made it clear that helmet laws don't affect him personally and this appears to have convinced him that all the other people who say they were affected - in the WA survey the number was equivalent to 64% of adult cyclists - must be deluding themselves. This in an area where lots of people have strong opinions and, from what I've seen of the edits that have been made in the past months, it's the strong opinions ('my helmet saved my life' stories vs detrimental effects of reduced safety in numbers) that has generated the edit wars. Strong opinions + knowledge represents a potentially solvable problem; strong options + ignorance would be an entirely different matter. Dorre (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure what to suggest for the best.
For
"Cycling levels before and after the introduction of mandatory helmet laws[edit]"
Curnow provides a reference to changes in cycling activity across Australia in Table 1, provides one source that has been peer reviewed. It avoids too much discussion.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/p787.pdf
Discouragement,,
Though it was known that compulsion to wear a helmet could discourage cycling [3], no
national monitoring for it was done, but in most jurisdictions (percentages of total population shown in Table 1, second column) surveys made before and after the helmet laws, mainly to measure compliance with them, found declines in cycling/numbers of cyclists. The measured declines are shown in Table 1 (reproduced from Curnow [74] with kind permission of Health Promotion Journal of Australia), as follows.
Table 1. Declines in cycling, Australia
State/territory % Class of cyclist Decline pre-to post-law'
If permission could be obtained for including Table 1, this could be the main data provided and perhaps a short description based on Curnow's report.
This would effectively cuts out most of the present discussions,,
'A 1993 Victorian study by Finch et al',,
'Studies conducted for the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority',,
'The (1995) report by Williams noted',,
'A 1995 SA study by Marshall and White found that',,
'Automatic counters installed on two key cyclist bridges over the Swan river',,
A short summary could be included that helmet wearing rates pre legislation ranged from about 10% to 47% depending on the type of cyclist and location, e.g. a recreational teenager cyclist in country Victoria compared to adults commuting in Melbourne (ref Vic Bike Strategy 1991).
Robinson noted that for children, the decrease in numbers of cyclists counted in New South Wales and Victoria)was greater than the increase in numbers wearing helmets, suggesting that the main effect of the law was to discourage cycling rather than persuade cyclists to wear helmets.[12]
This could effectively sum up the changes in cycling levels for Australia and avoid graphs.
As an optional extra, including the Clarke graph or similar with a suitable caveat, if required, would make it clearer to the reader but this aspect could be considered as an extra.
Colin at cycling (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Colin, Table 1 in the Curnow paper that you mention only shows data for children, and even worse, it cherry-picks the worst data from the children age categories. All those surveys included adults as well, but those results are completely omitted from the Curnow table - possibly because they most show that the helmet laws had a far less effect on adult cycling levels. Look at the row in Curnow's table for Victoria - it only shows teenagers, but completely excludes the data for younger children and adults, which show much smaller decreases post-helmet laws than teenagers. The same applies to the NSW and SA data. Excluding relevant data from the same sources like that is unforgivable. Tim C (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Of course it's totally unacceptable. Many of the strong opinions were generated when MUARC did exactly that - claiming "the 1990 survey did not cover adult bicyclists" and claiming increases in adult cycling despite the fact that the matched pre- and post-law surveys counted 29% fewer adult cyclists. Then there's the the bicycle rally in the second year. As Richard points out it's a safe bet what would have happened had that occurred pre-law instead of post-law. So I agree that it's unacceptable to exclude relevant data (whoever does it), but still don't understand your comment about adults in NSW - the surveys were conducted at different times of year so clearly incomparable. Dorre (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
In stating that MUARC claimed that "the 1990 survey did not cover adult bicyclists", Dorre appears to be confusing cyclist counts with (timed) exposure. According to the (1992) Cameron report "Bicycle use was measured in billions of seconds . . . represents total cycling time . . . As bicycle use data for adult cyclists was not collected in 1990, a comparison between the 1987/88 and 1991 results for the adult group was made instead".
In another recent talk post, Dorre claimed that the article contains "gross errors . . . including . . .statements such as "Hospital admission data in a 1995 Victorian study by Carr et al. showed that in the 3 after the helmet law, compared to the 3 years before the helmet law". The (4) tables of injury admission data shown on pages 17-20 are labelled as Jul87-Jun90 (ie. 3 years) for pre-law and Jul90-Jun94 (ie.4 years) for post-law. I agree that the article should be tweaked to reflect that the fact that the post-law data covered 4 years, not 3.
Some errors with respect to cyclist non-head injuries . . .
A reference I added about a week ago was (hastily) removed by Dorre, who incorrectly claimed that "Williams didn't infer cycle use from injury data". Dorre has subsequently referred to "speculations from non-peer reviewed sources that injury rates can be used to infer the amount of cycling". Some of the other material (hastily) removed by Dorre included a reference to an article by Povey et al., which noted that cyclist non-head injuries are a measure of changes in both cycling exposure and the general road safety environment. It seems that in the haste to remove the (offensive) material, Dorre has overlooked the fact that the Povey study was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (AAP, in 1999).
A further error re what was in the Povey study is Robinson's (2001, in AAP) claim that "Unless voluntary wearing is 15 times more effective in reducing head injuries, it seems likely that the apparent effects (as described by Povey et al., 1999) were an artefact caused by failure to fit time trends in their model." In fact, Povey et al. included a cyclist non-head injury term to control for time-trends (in the modelling terminology I am familiar with, models are fitted, not trends, trend effect terms may be included to improve model fit).
Re Dorre's response to TimC exposure of Curnow's cherry-picking: "Of course it's totally unacceptable . . . I agree that it's unacceptable to exclude relevant data (whoever does it)" . . .
On 5 June I noted that between 1986 and 1991, when jurisdictions with helmet laws comprised about 70% of the Australian population, cycling to work fell by 6.9%, and bus travel to work fell by 14%. My post also noted that between 1991 and 1996, when the remaining 30% of the population was also subject to helmet laws, cycling to work fell by 38%, and walking to work fell by 36%.
On 6 June Dorre posted some material arguing that 'there is no hint of a difference in walking to work in states with and without enforced helmet laws.'
I posted a response (about 7 hours later) noting that re WA/Qld/ACT between 1991 and 1996, cycling to work in the ACT increased, in Qld train decreased by the same amount as bike, and that in WA bus decreased by exactly the same amount as bike. (Prior to re recent pruning, the article noted that between 1991 and 1996 train travel to work in Perth skyrocketed, and travel to work by bus and bicycle both had big drops.)
On 16 Jun (at 05:59) I noted the 'eerily similar' drops, across Australia, in various travel to work modes in the post-law v pre-law censuses: cycling to work dropped by 21%, bus travel dropped by 21%, and train dropped by 19%. (The accompanying graph showed that ferry/tram travel dropped by 29%. Something not mentioned in my post was that walking to work dropped by 6.4%.)
On 16 Jun (at 08:09) Dorre posted some material to her user page, including a graph showing that cycling to work had dropped by (considerably) more than walking to work. People are entitled to post whatever they like on their user pages, however this material is extremely 'misleading' . . .
The areas that comprised only about 30% of the population, but had the biggest drops, namely WA/Qld/ACT and the capital cities, are shown on the same scale as the smaller drops in the larger areas (ie. undue prominence to the larger drops in areas that comprised about only 30% of the population). The accompanying text states that ' . . . decreases in cycling to work, aggregated over all states which had enforced helmet laws in 1991 . . . no such change in walking to work, suggesting that . . . helmet laws . . .'.
Re the line showing the drop in cycling in Vic/NSW/SA between 1986 and 1991, it is 'unacceptable' not to 'show' that
in Vic, cycling to work dropped by 22%, ferry/tram dropped by 28%, bus dropped by 26%
in NSW, cycling to work dropped by 12%, bus dropped by 11%
in SA, cycling to work dropped by 14%, ferry/tram dropped by 28%, train dropped by 30%
Re the line showing the drop in cycling in WA/Qld/ACT between 1991 and 1996, it is 'unacceptable' not to 'show' that
in WA travel to work by bus and bicycle both dropped by 35% (train increased by 115%)
in Qld bicycle dropped by 28% and train dropped by 69%
(I was prompted to look at Dorre's user page after reading Richard Keatinge's comment that it had occurred to him that 'argument on talk sites, letter columns, etc. is probably a better indicator of possible COI than published papers.)
Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion
In an area full of strong opinions and COI affecting virtually everyone who rides a bike (and indeed governments with a desire to justify laws to win elections), the best hope of achieving a consensus is to report facts, not opinions. For every published argument in favour, another one can be added against, leading to an ever-increasing indigestible mass of words. But there is no dispute about the data, only its interpretation. Instead of discussing how to present relevant facts (which I personally find hard to interpret without graphs), much time has been wasted on attacking sources of factual information (e.g. the BHRF, of which I serve on the editorial board) or individual editors, many of whom, like myself, ride bikes and so could be considered to have major COI. While these disputes have continued, as I have noted on the talk page, the current article contains factual errors. It's time to move beyond the strong, personal opinions and try and achieve a consensus on what facts should be presented. Dorre (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Suits me fine. It means that we will show nothing about the various allegations regarding the effect of the legislation, all of which seems to cherry-picked and biased and much of which seems to have its origin with people who have contributed to the article. Until someone does an Australia-wide study of now and somehow reconciles the gaps in the pre-legislation study, none of this crap deserves to be mentioned here. - Sitush (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the section on Opinions, which contains individual opinions, should be replaced by results of opinion surveys on helmets from reputable sources (there are several such surveys published). Questioning the BHRF as a reliable source was entirely valid, for all the reasons previously stated: it is a single-issue organisation, the material on the BHRF is relentlessly anti-helmet and anti-helmet promotion/laws (yes, I know that there are pages for almost every study that has found helmets to be beneficial, but those pages then attempt to tear those studies to pieces - but there are no such pages on the BHRF site which are critical of studies that cast doubt on the effectiveness or utility of helmets or helmet promotion/laws), several of your fellow BHRF editorial board members run anti-helmet (or anti-helmet-law) lobby groups and web sites (including Bill Curnow), and frankly, some of your fellow patrons of the organisation are at the very fringe of road safety thought - in particular Gerald Wylde and John Adams, both of whom still argue in public fora that seat belts increase the road toll and should not be compulsory. Tim C (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Until there is consensus for inclusion of material, it should not be in the article. For that reason, I have removed a huge chunk from it - it is clear from this talk page that people cannot come close to agreeing which surveys are appropriate to use, how to show them etc. I suspect that there is a bit more that should be removed. If anyone wants to expand again then they will need to seek consensus here first, and I am prepared to seek full protection of the article in order to force that to happen. - Sitush (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Long time observer of this article here. I'm 100% with Sitush. It's obvious that several editors want to use this article primarily (if not exclusively) to promote their point of view on the issue of bicycle helmets. They MUST recognise that is their position, and that it is unacceptable here. To maintain the credibility of both themselves and the article they should decline to edit this article any more. HiLo48 (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I strongly endorse Sitush's action and his recommendation to seek consensus before making any changes. The article is now arguably incomplete, but it has acquired the immense merits of being readable, referenced, and relevant. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
My view is that the scope of the article should be left as it now is - it covers all the aspects of bicycle helmets in Australia that are unique to Australia. It is inappropriate to cover bicycle helmet effectiveness in this article, because that it not unique to Australia, and it makes no sense to cover just Australian studies of helmet effectiveness, divorced from the context of similar overseas studies. The same argument applies to surveys and studies of the effects of mandatory bicycle helmet laws - Australia may have been the first country to introduce such laws, but that was two decades ago, and now it is far from unique in having mandatory helmet laws, and there is a lot of evidence on the effects of helmet laws on both cycling participation (how many people ride bikes) and on injury rates in cyclists from jurisdictions other than Australia, including NZ, Canada, Spain, the US and Sweden. Thus it makes little sense to examine the effects of just the Australian helmet laws in isolation. My feeling is that the effectiveness of bicycle helmets and related topics (including risk compensation theories) should be covered in the main Bicycle helmets article (they are already), and that promotion of helmet wearing and mandatory helmet laws, and their effects, should have its own article, but one which encompasses all jurisdictions and countries (perhaps with country-specific sections if required). And all these helmet articles should be part of a broader set of article on bicycle safety, helmets being only one aspect of cycling safety. Tim C (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
TimC's observation that "the material on the BHRF is relentlessly anti-helmet and anti-helmet promotion/laws" is not a "distortion", it is entirely consistent with the views expressed by a number of editors in response to the BHFR RfC. Some examples:
"all the stories are about how bike helmets are a bad thing"
"a website which clearly exists to promote one point of view"
"If the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation wants to be seen as a reliable, scientific, objective source it should stop using such a deceptive name. I would suggest the "Anti-Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation."
During the RfC,I noted a number of factual errors with respect to material on the BHRF site. That was about 3 months ago, and at least 4 BHRF editiorial board members would have seen those comments. I don't think any of those corrections have been made (1 correction was to remove the reference to an anti-helmet paper that was retracted more than a year ago). Refusal to accept facts is 'not conducive' to consensus. Linda.m.ward (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
You are correct. I mean a balanced article that reflects the facts from a neutral point of view. I will see if I can suggest some changes to help. Colin at cycling (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
My Tidy Up
Latest comment: 11 years ago28 comments5 people in discussion
It's good to come back to this page and see it vastly shrunk and more readable.
The edits have resulted in a few rough edges, e.g.: "The 1978 inquiry" - what inquiry? A reference listed twice (15, 18). A rather strange summary on a list of references from both sides of the debate "These consistently show..." - if they were consistent with each other there wouldn't be a debate! Some of the dates don't seem right/out-of-order. Other odds'n'ends. So I'm going to try and clean these up. It will probably look like a lot more than it is as some bits seem out-of-order so I'll move them around, but the length shouldn't change appreciably. Regarding the 1978 inquiry and its report I'll just insert [full citation needed] - there appears to be no details of what the inquiry was or its report, unless I've missed them... Indeed the whole para contains one reference marked as unreliable, maybe it should just go? Kiwikiped (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Reading the page there was "History" but no "Now" so I've added a very short section "Two Decades On" (rather than "Today" as it dates better!). In that I have simply referenced one recent paper from each side of the debate and one of the groups formed in opposition to follow up on the comment in the history section about the opposition being initially fragmented. The papers were not chosen as they stand out (and I do not know the authors of either personally), the group was picked based on its recent formation as an Australia-wide collaboration and hence indicative of the recent increase in activity. If people wish to substitute any one of these for one other, without analysis/argument/discussion/original research etc. then that should be OK. Kiwikiped (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted your latter change and the likely more problematic survey added by Colin, who has a considerable POV. Surveys are problematic and need discussions before addition, as per my previous comment in the section above. I'm now away for a couple of days, so that should provide some time for people to talk. - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I was about to revert the addition by User:Kiwikiped (but User:Sitush has already done that) for the following reasons:
WP articles are not supposed to provide "balance" between "opposing views", they are supposed to reflect the consensus of scientific or other scholarly research, while still mentioning conflicting findings (but not fringe theories or opinions of lobby groups). There have been quite a few studies of the effects of helmet laws in Australia, most finding a positive effect on injuries, a few equivocal, and then there are papers by Robinson and Curnow claiming those were all wrong. Thus picking "one of each side" is not consistent with WP guidelines.
the edit was inaccurate: the benefit-cost study by de Jong was cited as finding that helmet laws in Australia had a negative cost-benefit. Sorry, that's NOT what the de Jong paper says - please read it - it only evaluates benefit-cost for North American and some European countries (includng Britain). Neither Australia nor New Zealand are evaluated in the de Jong study - they do not appear anywhere in de Jong's results. Tim C (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Tim writes "they are supposed to reflect the consensus of scientific or other scholarly research" - there is no consensus, we have "scientific or other scholarly research" coming to opposing conclusions. In the light of that simply referencing two papers, from Australia, with opposing conclusions, is a reasonable summary of the current situation. Where they the best papers to pick as representative of the two opposing conclusions? Quite possibly not, and above I carefully wrote "If people wish to substitute". I'm afraid Tim your objection comes across as "my POV should carry more weight" - I was careful to give neither POV weight just state they both exist.
Sitush, not clear to me you gave a reason to revert the change (you gave a reason to revert one by Colin).
The change was small and brought "History" to "Now". Maybe I should put it back but without any example output. Why should the article not make it clear that the debate continues, has anyone got a good reason to exclude that fact? Kiwikiped (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I have reinserted the small section without referencing any particular papers as examples. If folk think it is better with examples say so. If folk would like to propose replacements for the two I selected then please do so here.
I avoided commenting on Tim's erroneous claim regarding de Jong above, but least avoidance be misinterpreted let me make it clear - Tim's objection is original research. I neither state that I agree, or disagree, with de Jong's work, that is not my role as a wikipedia editor. It is merely used as an example of a paper by an Australian professor working at an Australian university whose conclusion is not supportive of helmet legislation. The abstract of the paper starts:
This article seeks to answer the question whether mandatory bicycle helmet laws deliver a net societal health benefit.
And it's conclusion contains:
Using elementary mathematical modeling and parameter estimates from previous studies, leads to reasonable bounds for the net health impact of a mandatory bicycle helmet law. ... A (positive) net health benefit emerges only in dangerous bicycling environments under optimistic assumptions as to the efficacy of helmets and a minor behavioral response. Resolution of the issue for any particular jurisdiction requires...
The conclusion does not either include, or exclude, any country, state, region, city, county or parish. The research was published in a peer reviewed journal. Are the conclusions valid? It is not for us as wikipedia editors to decide, the paper is referenced purely as an example of research supporting one side of the debate. The CARRS-Q paper is reference as an example of research supporting the other side of the debate - are its conclusions valid? Again it is not for us to decide. To claim that de Jong does not apply to any land mass touching the Tasman Sea is original research. Tim, borrowing a phrase from Sitush, I acknowledge you are someone "who has a considerable POV" and are very passionate about it; but you know better than to do original research in wikipedia, behave. Kiwikiped (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot: Sitush, if you have an argument that no statement giving the current state of play should be included at all then please elaborate on your return. I obviously don't see one and felt the article was lacking without it, but will consider the case if you have one to present. Kiwikiped (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Well Sitush deleted the new version rather quickly and says they will be back in 28 hours with the simple note that the argument is BRD - so he presumably has an argument to present that the current state of play should not be noted. While it might have been better to make it when the deletion was made, I understand it was a rush. We await... Kiwikiped (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Am viewing with a tablet on a mobile connecyion - crap. You added, I reverted, a couple of people whovhsfe been pushing one POV have responded but there are some regulads here who have not AND yet you only gave a short time for discussion to develop. So I reverte again. If you hsve nit resd this mess of a tslk page then you pergaps should. - Sitush (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry about typos. It had gone quiet, but if a couple more days is indicated that's fine. Not sure why you thought the edit was Bold (...RD), it was crafted to state the current state of play in a short and uncontroversial way - but in this POV-imbued environment uncontroversial is a challenge :-( Anyway, wait till you're back, no hurry. Kiwikiped (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Gosh, the typos were bad! That the debate continues in the real world is not disputed by me. Some time ago, I suggested that we could do with a source that says just that and is not yet another survey. As soon as we start using surveys, we hit all sorts of problems - which do we use, how do we stop survey bloat and so on - and it is for that reason I massively pruned the thing recently. There was, after all, no consensus regarding what was suitable and the state of the article was shocking.
I've no interest in this subject matter and have read only a very few of the sources, so your general amplifications and your corrections to long-standing errors etc were welcome. Surely, there must be a reliable source that is completely independent of the various governmental bodies and the various sides in this argument? Even a newspaper report would be better than taking our finger out of this dyke? Just about every regular contributor to this talk page seems to have an emotional (and frequently intellectual) investment and I'd rather we tried to avoid any encouragement of it. - Sitush (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Sitush, the article was indeed shocking, the cleanup long overdue. When I returned I was pleased to see it so short. On reading it I noted that things were not quite in the right chronological order etc. so I did the first edit - just a tidy up. Then, as noted above and just now in response to Linda, on reading the result I noted the chronological gap. The challenge was to bring the article up to the present day in as few words as possible without triggering a backlash from one or other of the POVs in this forum - in that I clearly failed :-( I selected two papers (not surveys, have you confused the references with those made by Colin?) from Australian Universities which have come to differing conclusions. Yes, the one from QUT was funded by the Queensland Government, and they themselves have stated they did so in part to counter research coming out of other Universities, so somebody could argue it is biased. But it is being referenced as an example supportive of the legislation, we trust Universities have a certain academic integrity, and since I posted it here no one from the opposing POV has objected to it. Why the other selection, from Macquarie, got the reaction it did is hard to fathom - but then so much of the "argument" on this forum is :-( - but the arguments against it are, what should I say, lacking in substance maybe?
I don't know, and please correct me if I am wrong, of any meta-analysis relating to the current state in Australia (well enough one that would be viewed as impartial by both POVs); or a newspaper article doing the same. When I first posted I invited others to substitute one-for-one (yes, no taking the finger out of the dyke!) other suitable references, I've no attachment to the two I selected - any reputable recent paper representative of one of the opposing conclusions would suffice as an example (and best not authored by any of the editors here if possible - that is a "cat meet pigeon" invitation). My second offering was to remove the references to particular papers and simply state that Australian Universities were publishing research coming to opposing conclusions. While I do think supporting references are better, better to report the current state of play than to not report it because people are fighting over the papers to reference.
As I see it now one reference has received no comments against it and the other an insubstantial "original research" comment from the opposing POV. Give it a bit more time for discussion and then add one of the versions in? I think the article would be better with the first, but what is the consensus? Kiwikiped (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
As noted by TimC, WP articles are supposed to reflect the consensus of scientific or other scholarly research, while still mentioning conflicting findings, but not fringe theories or opinions of lobby groups. Also as noted by TimC, most studies have found a positive effect of helmet laws in Australia, and that the papers by (BHRF editorial board members) Robinson and Curnow claim that all the studies with positive findings were wrong.
Kiwikiped has previously been scathing of the theconversation.com, describing a critique (by Dr Jake Olivier, Senior Lecturer in Statistics at the University of NSW) of an anti-helmet 'study' (by Colin Clarke) as 'an opinion expressed in a non-reviewed web forum discussion', and deleting the reference to the critique.
"The Conversation is an independent source of news and views, sourced from the academic and research community . . . Our team of professional editors work with university, CSIRO and research institute experts . . . Access to independent, high-quality, authenticated, explanatory journalism underpins a functioning democracy . . . All authors and editors sign up to our Editorial Charter . . . We only allow authors to write on a subject on which they have proven expertise, which they must disclose alongside their article. Authors’ funding and potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed. Failure to do so carries a risk of being banned from contributing to the site".
Kiwikiped has previously bemoaned the BHRF being 'denigrated', and has argued that it is a superior source to theconversation.com (because the BHRF has an 'editorial board').
Kiwikiped should declare whether Kiwikiped has any interest/s with respect to the BHRF.
When I clicked the freestylecyclist link added by kiwikiped, I was taken to a page where I could 'sign' an anti-helmet petition. The page included some code to enable other anti-helmet sites to collect collect signatures for the petition, at least 2 other sites (http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet_petition.html and http://helmetfreedom.org/) have heeded the call.
The petition has apparently been going for about a year, and currently has 1,272 'signatures' from Australia, with 563 of them from Victoria. Bicycle Victoria, Australia's largest bike riding organisation, with almost 50,000 members, supports the helmet legislation.
Whilst there may be 'a number of groups dedicated to the abolition of the legislation', they represent only a tiny fringe, use of the word 'debate' is akin to claiming that a mouse weighs as much as an elephant.
I'm not sure everyone would agree that 10,000 cyclists receiving fines every year in a state of about 4 million people represents a tiny fringe. Dorre (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Linda, I am afraid your comments are just filibustering, as you know - why is less clear.
In recent years academics at a number of Australian Universities have published papers related to bicycle helmet legislation. Those papers do not all agree, some have come to conclusions supportive of helmet legislation, others conclusions that are unsupportive - that is a core element of the debate that is occurring. To provide examples I sought two papers from Australia, one supportive, one unsupportive. What that has to do with the BHRF, BHSI, Robinson, Curnow, or the fact that The Conversation is a web blog is absolute zero as you well know. And considering just the two papers I choose, to suggest that Macquarie University is a mouse and Queensland University of Technology and elephant is bizarre - they both rank in Australia's top 10.
I am aware that a number of groups have sprung up in recent times around Australia which are anti-helmet law. The history section of the article ends with a comment about the opposition being fragmented and ineffective at the time of introduction (and I had no part in writing any of that). Given those two it seems appropriate to bring that up-to-date. I understand that Freestyle Cyclists held a national launch last Oct (it was covered in the media and discussed on various bicycling related websites), this appears as an attempt by those opposing to be less fragmented. I've no idea whether they will be successfully, but they seemed to be a suitable pick as representative of this movement - so I wrote "One thing that may have changed is increasing organisation among those opposed to the legislation". To inject a very rare personal comment, frankly I don't think their website does them much credit (looks unprofessional), but it is not for me to judge but to report.
Linda, as with Tim, I acknowledge your passion for your POV (and Colin's for his - both POVs have passion), and there is nothing wrong with being passionate about something, far from it. But this is an encyclopaedia article. The fact is there is continuing debate, and there are clear attempts at growing organisation amongst those opposed. I added the small section simply because after reordering the existing material into more chronological order I noticed the omission in chronology - the article ended before the present day. Kiwikiped (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The "fragmented" phrase was in there when I did the clear-out. I have no idea of its origins. Do we have decent sources both for that and for your "growing organisation" comment or are one/both in fact a case of drawing conclusions? I wince at bit when I read things like this but presumed that with all the eyes upon this article by members of various POV camps, the "fragmented" statement must have been correct. - Sitush (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I've no idea of the origin either, but I don't think it is in any way controversial - though I open to correction on that. I wrote "maybe" becoming more organised as there is a reported attempt to become more organised, but whether that attempt will be successful is as yet uncertain (early days) as far as I know - as is of course what such organisation might achieve. There was a national launch of Freestyle Cyclists last Oct which is why I picked it (quick google just now turned up this article in The Age written before the event - though it doesn't call it a "national launch", but a certainly much smaller paper The Moreland Leader does).
That there are a growing number of anti-law sites/blogs/groups/individuals/whatever is clear, and some have garnered a certain amount of attention (e.g. The Freedom Cyclist probably due to Court cases). Whether any of this is significant or will result in pro-law groups emerging to counter them who knows? And its not for wikipedia to speculate either!
I understand that the earlier statement is factual, so like you I'd leave it. Given it is there it seemed right to bring it up-to-date - while not introducing any opinion either way as to the merits of these groups! The section can of course omit any reference to organisation among the opposition and just make reference to the ongoing debate apparent through work of the various universities. Is there a consensus that it should not be included? Or that some other group should be used as an example?
Re the de Jong paper, as previously noted by TimC (on 28 Mar), de Jong's evaluation only included data from North American and European countries.
I do not know what Kiwikiped means by 'I avoided commenting on Tim's erroneous claim regarding de Jong'. What IS erroneous is the claim added to the article by Kiwikiped with respect to the de Jong paper: 'research from Macquarie University found the costs outweighed the benefits'.
As previously noted by TimC, the Newbold paper was a critique of the de Jong paper, and was published on the very next page to the de Jong paper. Some salient points from Newbold's study:
"I focused on estimating the exercise health benefits of cycling, because this is a crucial ingredient of the health-risk tradeoff but was not examined in detail by De Jong. I appliced the forumula using cycling statistics from the United States and found that mandatory bicycle helmets laws seem to have positive net public health benefits there."
"I also will caution against drawing overly broad policy conclusions from these results, and I will emphasize the need for more research on several key behavioral responses and the importance of estimating the model parameters on a case-by-case basis at the jurisdictional level where mandatory helmet laws typically are passed."
I agree with TimC and dsnmi, who have previously noted that the de Jong paper should not be cited without also citing the Newbold paper, and that neither paper should be mentioned in this article. Linda.m.ward (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Linda, let's try tackling this another way.
I picked de Jong as an example of a published research by an Australian academic which comes to one particular conclusion. Whether folk who favour research which comes to the opposing conclusion find fault with this work is both unsurprising and not relevant in this context. I strongly suspect the folk of the opposing POV to you find fault with the CARRS-Q paper which was selected as an example of a recent Australian paper supportive of legislation - but again that is not relevant in this context.
The question for you is there any recent paper by an Australian academic which is unsupportive of legislation that you would be happy for Wikipedia to reference? If you can present an alternative paper, or an argument why no such paper can be referenced, then please do so. I've no axe to grind as to the selection of de Jong or CARRS-Q, they were just picked as examples of the opposing conclusions coming from different Australian academics, and I said from the start appropriate substitutions can be made. Indeed, though I think it less informative, I offered a second version of the text which included *no* references, just reported the fact that today there are Australian academics producing papers coming to opposing conclusions. Given your passion for your POV I would understand your position if you expressed a wish that these academics would "see the light", but I wouldn't accept your position if you argue that the very existence of their work should be suppressed - any more than I would accept someone from the opposing POV arguing that the work of academics supportive of your POV should be suppressed! Kiwikiped (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Kiwikiped has said 'Linda, I am afraid your comments are just filibustering, as you know - why is less clear'.
I am afraid that I do NOT 'know' that my comments are just filibustering, the reasons I sought the declaration include
During the BHRF RfC, Stuart.Jamieson commented 'The fact that a number of members of the BHRF are editing this article is worrying they should familiarise themselves with our conflict of interest policy'
Sitush has previously expressed (well-founded, as it turns out) concerns that Dorre and Colin C had some undeclared interests, and pressed them for declarations of any relevant interests
Linda, I could write a long and thoughtful response, but frankly I don't want to add fuel to your fire. In short: If someone does not show support for your POV it does not follow that they are pushing the opposite one. You are filibustering because you've gone of on a tangent introducing some of your pet whipping posts which are completely irrelevant to the topic under discussion. Its a tactic used by both POVs here, indeed IIRC Sitush mentioned it once (I can't remember who was the culprit at that time)... Argue the topic, don't play games. Kiwikiped (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
BRD Process Wrapup
Sitush initiated a BRD process for this small addition to the article to bring it up to the present day. No specific reason was given. Regular contributors: (Linda.m.ward, Dorre, Tim C and Richard Keatinge (Note: the latter's comments appear in the following thread - this thread started off as one as Sitush reverted two different edits at the same time); representative of both major POVs editing the article have contributed to the discussion. Over a week has transpired since the discussion started and no additions have been made for 5 days.
Concerns were expressed over one of the two references selected. These appear to be have sprung from a genuine misunderstanding of the purpose of the references, which is simply to be examples of recent work by Australian academics which have come to opposing conclusions. From the start it was made clear that alternative papers could be suggested, no such suggestions have been made. Also no objections to including references have been made, though an alternative wording along those lines was presented by me early on it found no supporters.
BRD requires us to move the process along. Based on the above the edit is being reinstated in its original form. Should folk feel that other references should be used, or other changes be made to the wording, it is strongly encouraged that such changes be posited in the Talk section first and consensus achieved. Kiwikiped (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
As stated earlier, the de Jong paper is not about Australia - it does not consider the Australian or NZ situation, and nowhere in it are parameter values for Australia used to evaluate benefit-cost in Australia. The fact that it is written by an Australian-based research is irrelevant. The text in the article to which I am referring is: "For example: the Queensland University of Technology, in a report commissioned by the Queensland Government, found the legislation to be beneficial[22]; while research from Macquarie University found the costs outweighed the benefits.[23]" It is very difficult to read that in any way other than suggesting that de Jong evaluated the Australian helmet laws. He didn't. Even then, it is inaccurate. In fact, de Jong found that the laws had a positive benefit-cost ratio in some countries (USA and Italy from memory) under some parameterisations, and thus to summarise the de Jong paper as "found the costs outweighed the benefits" is incomplete at best. Furthermore, a paper by Newbold on the very next page of the journal in which the de Jong paper was published critically examined the de Jong model, suggested improvements, and using better evidence-based estimates of parameters for it found that the model indicated a positive benefit-cost ratio for the US. But Newbold also cautioned that both his and the de Jong model on which it was based are at best preliminary and that more research is needed to better characterise various crucial parameters, such as exercise-sibstitution (i.e. if people don't ride bikes because they are forced by law to wear helmets, what proportion of those people then fail to engage in some other form of physical activity instead - no-one knows what that proportion is, it has never been investigated, but it is vital to any benefit-cost model of helmet laws). Tim C (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Tim C you have raised this issue before and it has been dealt with in detail. We do not need to go round in circles, the BRD process gives the warning that it is not a BRDRD process. Having said that, as before there in no investment in the choice of the particular papers representing the different conclusions academics are coming to. Anybody is welcome to propose in these Talk pages an alternative for either paper and if consensus is reached such may be substituted. Kiwikiped (talk) 04:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Tim C in adding the text to the article I have sought to address your concerns that my summary of de Jong's findings missed an important issue. While it is clear that de Jong places no geographic constraints on his results - to argue that is original research as explained previously - I had, without any negative intention, omitted the part about benefit in dangerous environments under optimistic assumptions. This really seems unnecessary detail to me but as far as I can see it does not favour your POV so if that is what you wish I will not object (even though I wouldn't put it in by choice) - others may object of course, we'll see! If you prefer the original shorter version I'm also happy to revert it. Kiwikiped (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
