Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Bicycle helmets in Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Use of Cyclists Action Group web pages as references
Currently there are two instances in this article in which self-published, anonymous web pages on the web site of an organisation called the Cyclists Rights Action Group (CRAG) are used as sources for statements and assertions in the article. I do not think that such web pages meet the WP policy requirements for reliable sources, and instead fall into the self-published category. In particular, the "About US" page of the CRAG web site states: "The Cyclists Rights Action Group (CRAG) was formed at a public meeting in Canberra, ACT, Australia, on 30th January 1992, in direct response to the introduction of Mandatory Helmet Laws (MHL) for bicyclists, with the aim of protecting cyclists against undue interference by Governments and erosion of civil liberties. The current aim of CRAG is to oppose legislation compelling cyclists to wear helmets." As such, it is impossible to consider CRAG or its web site as a reliable, unbiased source with a neutral point-of-view - the organisation has an explicit agenda and thus should not be used as a source for material in this WP article. I propose removal of the references and the statements and assertions which they are used to support. Tim C (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The organization is used as a reference for one statement of fact (what was said by an official inquiry), and one of opinion. It is not peer-reviewed. While I note that a partisan approach does not disqualify sources (and if it did we'd have little to put in this article) this website is clearly inappropriate as a source for opinion stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. I have removed it. To re-insert anything like it we would need an appropriate source.
We could use this website for the statement of fact if we thought this appropriate and worthwhile, though a reference to some official source would be much better. (The original comments were made before widespread use of the Internet and may not be available on line - it would in this case be best to have a proper reference to the official publication and to use the website merely as a conveniently-available recension.) Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The CRAG site is clearly partisan and it is inappropriate to use it as a reference. By all means point to it as an example of an Australian anti-helmet law lobby group, but it falls well outside WP guidelines for reliable sources. Note that absence of a reliable source from the Inetrnet does not mean that unreliable sources can be substituted. The paragraph in question refers to a 1985 report from a 1978 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety inquiry. As such, copies of the report will exist in the National Library of Australia, the Parliamentary Library or possibly in Hansard. The report should thus be properly referenced, including the relevant page numbers. The Unreliable Source tag should remain on the CRAG reference until the proper reference is substituted (and can be verified). Tim C (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Please refer to the discussion about the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation. It is biased to dismiss factual information from a source on the basis of disagreeing with the source stated position. The same principle should apply for all. Because you disagree with someone position doesn't mean you can dismiss everything from this source. Opinions from biased sources have no place in Misplaced Pages. However, the facts they quote cannot be dismissed. The reference in question quotes parliamentary discussion, it is not an opinion. Unless there is a valid reason to believe it is inaccurate there is no reason to mark it as unreliable.Harvey4931 (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Citations Needed
I have added a citation needed tag to the assertion that in SA law may not have been enforced immediately. As noted on Talk by Jake Olivier on 27 Feb 2013, this claim is not substantiated by any analysis or given a citationLinda.m.ward (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The Marshall and White study was cited as the source for a claim of a decrease in the number of people over 15 who cycled at least once a week, from 12.0 per 100 people to 10.4. I could not find these numbers in the Marshall and White study so have added a citation needed tag. Linda.m.ward (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I have tagged 2 occurences of a 250% increase in cycling in Sydney. The citation provided was Robinson's 1996 study, which in turn cited the Ausbike 92 proceedings, which mentioned an RTA report, but did not provide a citation.Linda.m.ward (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
No reference has been cited for a claim of an increase in cycling from 300,000 to 400,000 between 1986 and 1989 in WA, so I have added a citation needed tag. Linda.m.ward (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not a place for advocacy or for over-detailed argument
Recent edits have left us with large numbers of claims, counter-claims and counter-counter claims that will leave most readers thoroughly confused. The details of these studies tell us little that is useful for an encyclopedic article, except that there is an ongoing debate.
This does not lead to a clear and informative Misplaced Pages article. The article has become much more confusing than it was two months ago. To re-balance the article, it might be useful to repeat what we did late last year:
Revert to an earlier version, perhaps that of 23rd January.
When working further, remind ourselves that we are writing an article in an encyclopedia, for the general reader.
We need to report on the fact of debates, and even very long lists of references may be useful as further reading, but we need to outline the main points of debate rather than rehearse every detail of every argument.Harvey4931 (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm against reverting to an earlier version and I think even if reverting received widespread support in the talk page there would be no agreement about which version to revert to. The page as it stands is a bit of a mess but can be redeemed.
I think the key is to agree on same basic guidelines in order to neaten it up. If we can establish an agreed set of rules that all future edits adhere to then there's no reason why we can't maintain the Neutral POV which this article now has (and hasn't enjoyed for a long time) while making the article less intimidating to a first time reader. Both sides of the debate need to accept that this page is never going to become a propaganda page for their own way of thinking and trust that a neutral presentation of the research relating to the issue will back up their side without their own need to editorialise and censor. Dsnmi (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Harvey - I agree with you completely. Some proponents of each side of the debate have put too much of the debate into the article. There's no point to that. Such content would belong in the as yet uncreated article Bicycle helmet debate in Australia. (Which I would rather NOT see created anyway. It would definitely create more heat than light.) Misplaced Pages is not the place to hold a debate. HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I am totally opposed to any reversion to an earlier version. A lot of effort has gone into this article over the last few months, both in bringing a much more NPOV to it by reflecting all POVs with a better balance, removal of editorialising, and in being much more comprehensive in its reference to the scientific literature (and lots of tidying up of poorly formatted and incomplete references, redundant references etc). The reality is that there is evidence published in reliable sources (scientific journals etc) that helmets protect the head and brain, aren't dangerous and that helmet laws increase helmet wearing and decrease head injuries. The fact that evidence exists must be reflected in the article in the same way that the work of Dorothy Robinson and Bill Curnow is reflected in the article. If some of the scientific literature which is relevant to this article is discussed, then all of it must be discussed in order to maintain a NPOV. Yes, that makes for a rather unencyclopaedic article, difficult, tedious and probably somewhat confusing to read. But NPOV trumps encyclopaedic in WP, I'm afraid. I am in favour of judicious restructuring of the article (discuss in Talk first!) in order to make it read better, and for greater use of footnotes in a balanced and NPOV manner. But hoping for a nice concise summary article is a pipe dream, simply because the range of views of what constitutes "the truth" are so different. What may seem like a fair summary to one person is a totally-biased bunch of misinformation to another. Tim C (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
That all seems to ignore my suggestion of a separate article for the debate, if you really must have it on Misplaced Pages. That would at least leave this article a readable one. HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
A separate article for the debate would have to overlap with this one to such an extent that they'd almost duplicate each other. I can't see it solving the problems we currently have trying to edit this page into something more readable. All it would do is create another page like this with a lot of overlapping discussion. Dsnmi (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree - article forking just compounds the problem. For example, apart from the main Bicycle helmet article, and this article, there is also a Bicycle helmet laws page which just rehashes some of the material in this article. Creating yet another article would be even worse. Tim C (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd also oppose a fork, indeed I might even support deleting Bicycle helmet laws, what does everyone else think? I do hope soon to present a bold and much more encyclopaedic version of this page, mainly by removing the argumentation (with apologies, but it is giving us an unreadable article), giving only the main heads of debate, and leaving the references. I hope to improve on NPOV too. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Richard, please note that large-scale edits or restructuring of the page need to be agreed upon by consensus (not majority) via this Talk page, allowing a reasonable period for comment. Any edit of the article involving a complete re-write is likely to be reverted because checking and editing a complete re-write imposes an unreasonably large and sudden workload on other editors. Changes need to be made incrementally. That's not to say that changes and re-structuring aren't possible or desirable - but they need to be done section-by-section, and for the larger sections, paragraph-by-paragraph or even sentence-by-sentence, allowing adequate time for response by other editors - at least several days between edits of a paragraph or smaller section. If that sounds like a tedious and slow process, well, I'd agree, but such is the nature of WP. Tim C (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll make sure everyone has time to comment first. While this article has improved in important respects it was too detailed previously and has now achieved more or less terminal unreadability. Something bold does need to be done. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Some contributors have missed the key issue: an encyclopedia is written for the benefit of readers, by providing a clear, concise, neutral and informative article. However, some helmet advocates seem to place promoting their points of view above that objective.
Helmet advocates seem too eager to quote studies that reinforces their beliefs, without considering the objectivity of the study quoted. For example, studies have been quoted, without disclosing that they were funded by a party with a conflict of interest. Those studies typically use flawed methodologies, resulting in misleading claims not supported by the underlying data. This inevitably leads others to fill in the gaps, pointing out flaws in the study. The resulting set of claims and counterclaims interests few people except avid helmet advocates keen to promote their point of view. The claim that this article has become more neutral after adding misleading studies is incorrect.
Helmet advocates mean well, however their misleading claims and the inevitable rebuttals do not belong in an encyclopedia. We could spend the next few years counter claiming and arguing about misleading claims, or we could revert to an earlier version of the article that is not loaded with misleading claims.
The bottom line is that Misplaced Pages is not an advocacy platform for people's causes. There are other outlets more appropriate for that.Harvey4931 (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
None of the claims you're making are exclusive to helmet advocates. Studies on both sides can be viewed as flawed and lacking in objectivity. Chris Rissell is a noted and vocal advocate for the repeal of mandatory helmet laws and speaks regularly at anti-helmet rallies. If we're going to remove all non-objective data then anything with Rissell's name on it should definitely be first on the chopping block (especially given his history with data anomolies).
You're correct the bottom line is that Misplaced Pages shouldn't be an advocacy for people's causes. For a long time this page was exactly that with the anti-helmet group promoting their side of the debate. The only way to maintain any neutral point of view is to present all the information without censoring certain data.
If there are specific surveys or research which are clearly biased, non-objective and totally flawed then they should be brought up in the talk pages where they can be discussed and debated and a consensus reached. If there are clearly misleading claims then name theme here and state a case. Reverting to a previous edit undoes a lot of the hard work that has gone into this page in recent months. We can't sacrifice neutrality for the sake of readibility. Dsnmi (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts dnsmi.
Have you noticed the asymmetry between the two sides?
Chris Rissell made a mistake. Upon the mistake being uncovered, he withdrew his claims. Contrast that with the government-funded studies where, despite having been rebutted, the authors of this misleading studies have not withdrawn their claims.
There is also a strong asymmetry in funding. The government has plenty of money to fund studies defending its policies. There are no well-funded vested interests on the cyclists side.
Helmet advocates are exploiting this asymmetry to push their point of view in Misplaced Pages, quoting misleading studies while trying to silence the rebuttals. It would be disingenuous to claim that cycling activists are using the same tactics.
No I haven't noticed any asymmetry. Chris Rissell withdrew his paper because it contained numerous data errors and erroneous calculations. I am not aware of any other report cited on this page that is also guilty of the same offence. If there is another paper referenced on this page in which they author has withdrawn their research due to mathematical errors then please point it out and it should be addressed. Government funded studies may have been rebutted but so has every study from both sides. There is a large difference between rebuttal and the author admitting the study is flawed.
I don't believe that because a study has been funded by government it is necessarilly suspect and biased towards helmet law advocacy. I don't beleive that it necessarilly a tenable position. Chris Rissell is definitely on the anti-helmet side of the debate and he seems quite well funded by the university he works for which recieves government funding as well.
I take issue with the term "cycling activists" in this case. There are a huge number of people who consider themselves militant cycling activits who also support mandatory helmet laws. You can't divide this argument into cyclists vs government. It's about helmets and their effectiveness and the law and it's effectiveness, cycling activists sit on both sides of the fence.
It's definitely not disingenous to claim those who are anti-helmets have been attempting to censor the opposing view throughout the course of the life of this page which I've watched for a long time. There was a period when this entire page read like it was lifted verbatim from one of the sites dedicated entirely to discrediting helmets and laws relating to them.
The only way to maintain a neutral point of view is to treat every study equally and to report it's findings in a neutral capacity without editorialising and censorship. This is an attitude that needs to be supported by both sides. Dsnmi (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Dsnmi's undo for inappropriate material removal and corrections to reference structure.
User:Dsnmi: The edits I made followed a long discussion on the talk page of Bicycle Helmets as I stated in the editing comment - start at the topic "Ding-dong over describing authors" which continues as "Attribution of articles published by the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation (BHRF) in this article". Apologies I thought the reference to the topic on the other page would be sufficient for anyone to follow and there was no need to repeat it all here. Many of the same editors of that page have edited this page and some of the same inappropriate attributions - clear violations of normal practice and Misplaced Pages guidelines - have been added here (not necessarily by the same editors of course). In making the edit I came across a number of structure errors in references (you can see the error messages inserted by Misplaced Pages in the article) and fixed then, your undo has also put all those errors back. Note that the same cleanup (though there was much less to do) has been done on Bicycle helmets in New Zealand. Kiwikiped (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Trying to isolate one issue so we can try to gain consensus, I have inserted a link to the page of the editorial board rather than a long list of members inappropriately described as authors. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
That is incorrect. At no stage were the BHRF Editorial Board members listed as authors - if you examine the edits I made you will see the names were added to the editors= attribute of the reference template, and when rendered appear as a list with a clear {Eds) after them: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia&diff=552806674&oldid=552639482 It is apparently unacceptable to you to be named as an editor responsible for referenced BHRF content for which no author is named. Tim C (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The editorial board page is there precisely to make clear the names of the editorial board (not quite the same thing as individual editors). The point is that a long list of names is un-necessary clutter. Indeed if I'd added it I would expect it to be removed on the grounds of clutter and self-advertisement. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Richard Keatinge & Tim C - The cleanup I did is exactly the same as performed on the Bicycle Helmets page after the long Talk thread there which both of you will have seen. The only problem here is a misunderstanding I created by not describing the reasons behind the edit enough, hence User:Dsnmi's undo to what looked like a massive edit out of the blue - so mea culpa, apologies again.
There is no need to start this again, we've all had enough of the merry-go-round. Richard unless you object I will later undo your edit and redo mine - simply as the two will undoubtedly conflict. If either of you then feel there is some special case why the same standards should not apply to this page as the Bicycle Helmets one and the rest of Misplaced Pages then that can be discussed. Kiwikiped (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Removal of inappropriate material now restored, along with the fixing of the other structural errors. (If anybody wonders why the character counts don't match it is (a) I think I missed one item first time around and (b) I spotted a strange activity termed "ycling" :-) so I fixed that as well). Apologies again for causing this misunderstanding. Kiwikiped (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Dihn's Letter to the Editor
I watched as one POV added Dihn's recent Letter to the Editor, followed by the other POV adding balancing material (from their POV), etc. yet nobody mentioned it was actually a Letter to the Editor, not a peer-reviewed published study... Am I wrong, are Letters to the MJA peer-reviewed? And then one side edited a reference adding during this time to make it clear it was a Letter, yet still restraint from the other size and Dihn's remains a "study" with the clear implication it is a peer-review publication in the MJA. Maybe I am wrong, but as far as I can see the Dihn reference is just a letter. Frankly I think this article is going (or has gone) the way of the main Bicycle Helmets one - far too long and unreadable - and all the stuff added by both POV's around the Dihn Letter could just go and the article would probably be better. However as a compromise I announce my intention to go in and make sure it is clear this is a Letter to the Editor, pending the response to this Talk item - unless of course whoever added (I can't remember) it would like to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwikiped (talk • contribs) 03:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you are wrong. Please see the section titled "Letter" at https://www.mja.com.au/journal/mja-instructions-authors-types-articles-published-mja It clearly says: "Research letters are peer reviewed." The Dinh et al. article is clearly a research letter, because it describes and reports on original research. A "letter" in older established medical journals such as the MJA is the equivalent of a "brief communication" or "short paper" in other journals. It is just a quaint tradition to refer to them as "letters". Tim C (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I suspected this might be the case, but when I looked missed that. But still not sure I posted here first, thanks for the reference Tim. Probably be clearer in the article to refer to it as a Letter, as that is what it is, and in the reference to comma separate the two pages numbers (if it was 3 pages long it wouldn't be a Letter), but that's just my POV :-) Kiwikiped (talk) 11:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
It is referred to in the article as a study, which is what it is. The page numbers given in the reference are correct as they are. Tim C (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
As I said, that was my POV, which was my way of saying that I wasn't going to make those edits. But I am a little curious (or mischievous :-)), how many non-article intervening pages are required before a page range becomes a list of pages? (Take that as rhetorical.) Kiwikiped (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Deletion of some material from the section "Health implications of bicycle helmets legislation"
User:Drmies has deleted some material from the section "Health implications of bicycle helmets legislation", with the edit note of "none of this content pertains to the content. if you wish to argue that helmet laws lead to more bicycle use and thus more health--well, that's probably OR )"
This post to Talk is not to take issue with the edit made - it is a useful pruning of the article, in my view. Rather it is just to note that I don't think any researcher or anyone else has ever suggested that bicycle helmet laws lead to more bicycle use. There is quite a lot of contention over whether bicycle helmet laws reduce cycling levels long-term, and if so, by how much, and the degree of any short- or long-term effects on various age groups etc. Unfortunately the available data on these questions is far from conclusive either way and the real picture is probably quite complex, and almost certainly varies from country to country. Related questions are: if helmet laws and/or helmet promotion do in fact reduce cycling, is the reduction in health (remembering that cycling is not the only form of exercise possible) significant and does it outweigh benefits due to reduced head injuries etc? Almost every aspect of these questions is contended, and for some aspects, there is a complete lack of research at the moment. Tim C (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, the matter is quite simple. There are two possible health benefits. a. wearing helmets makes people ride bikers and bikers live longer or something like that. b. wearing helmets makes you live longer if you have a crash. (or, just as bad, c. mandating helmets will make people ride bikes less and thus kills them sooner since non-bikers are unhealthier than bikers.) The first one strikes me as trivial--it would suggest a section "Health implications of X" for almost every article X, possibly including The Man in the Moone The second is...well, duh, to be handled in a few sentences. As for that research, or its lack--I don't see how that is a matter that needs to concern us here. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
WP is supposed to reflect current knowledge, and research, or in some cases a lack of it, is of central concern to us here. I agree, that research does not need to be described in excruciating detail in the article, but editors of the article MUST be familiar with it, or how else will they determine current knowledge and scientific thinking on the subject? Tim C (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. If a reliable source is available that summarises the studies then we should use that. We do not have to be bang up to date and the level of detail is indeed excruciating. This is bike helmets we're talking of here, so a sense of proportion might be applicable. - Sitush (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Just clarifying something here, and it is most definitely an opinion. WP is intended to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit but I see the other side of that coin as being an encyclopedia that anyone can read. It should be possible to make articles such as this accessible to the average reader but as things are at present it is mostly statistical gibberish. I was fortunate enough to undertake a post-grad course in statistical methods etc but I'm struggling with the detail that we are showing here. I'm pretty sure that most of it is unnecessary and unhelpful to the average reader. Maybe I am misunderstanding our purpose but I suspect not. - Sitush (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
My prune
I've just removed a lot of content from the History section. This entire article needs to be trimmed by about 80-90% and probably merged with another article. In its present state, it is absolutely ridiculous content for an encyclopaedia: far too detailed, and in particular far too reliant on contested studies and indeed studies, period. If people want to have an in-depth about the merits or otherwise of various studies and pieces of legislation then please go do it somewhere else. - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree that this article needs massive pruning but I don't think it needs to be merged with another article. The laws and situation in Australia are unique and I believe worthy of an article of their own. It's especially relevant since there isn't any other place on the internet which attempts to provide a fair and unbiased view of this contentious subject.
I think in fairness all studies probably need to be included (even though there are a lot of them) but I agree entirely that they don't need to be debated and discussed on this page. I think a study should be included with its findings and conclusion quoted directly and then all further discussion about that study's flaws, omissions and issues taken somewhere else. We run into problems if we start getting selective with which studies we include. Some studies back up one side of the argument and others back up the other and if we choose which ones we think are valid and which ones aren't we abandon the neutral point of view and start giving unequal weighting to one side.
It would be great if this was a quick and concise summary of the situation but if we're going to preserve the neutrality it has to be complicated by its very nature. Not as complicated as it is currently but it will definitely be a large and unwieldy article if it's going to fairly address both sides of the debate Dsnmi (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree entirely. As Einstein's Razor notes: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." It is important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But yes, there is a lot of very dirty bathwater in this article that can safely go down the plughole. Tim C (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Helmet law and the situation is unique to Australia? Really? Why is that not in the lead section? All studies should not be included: we are not qualified to assess them and the devil is in their detail, not their conclusions. Since most of the studies currently mentioned are not even studying within the same parameters, we are asking the reader to compare chalk with cheese. It is pointless. As I said before, if someone wants to write an precise of the studies etc then they should do so elsewhere and maybe see if an academic journal will publish the thing. Here, people should be able to see more of the wood and less of the trees. - Sitush (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Australia is one of only two nations in the world to have compulsory helmet laws throughout (so I believe). America is one of many countries that has capital punishment but it has a unique page for US capital punishment laws because the specific legislation and it's impact is worth discussing. The same thing applies here. If we decide not to discuss all studies and instead focus on a selection then I'd like to know how we determine which are the relevant studies and which are not. How do you determine which are the necessary studies to make this article worthwhile and which aren't? As soon as you delete a study that supports helmets you've taken sides in the debate and this article has lost it's neutrality. It would be futile anyway because there is no way to prevent one person from adding detail that another decides shouldn't be included. We'd be adding and deleting studies on a daily basis. Dsnmi (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah, so Australia is not unique and, of course, helmets are very noticeable in countries where they are not compulsory. We can always show no studies at all, or just provide a table listing the things - List of studies examining the impact of bicycle helmet legislation or some such. If people start disruptively adding/deleting studies without consensus then we get the article protected.
Since you are familiar with the article subject and seem to accept that it has excessive detail, perhaps you could start to remove it? Be bold. - Sitush (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
It's not unique but it is one of two countries in which helmets have been made mandatory. It is also (as this article notes) the main reference point for other nation's discussions about mandatory helmet legislation. It's an area in which the rest of the world looks to Australia and it needs to be discussed. If this page was deleted then the page on helmet laws would become so bloated with information on Australia there would be people suggesting it became a separate page within a month.
I've considered jumping in and being bold but this page has a very contentious history and I don't want to step on anyone else's toes. I have actually done quite major edit to clean this up a long time ago and deleted all editorial comments about studies. That didn't last long at all.
I don't know how we would make this article in any way relevant without focusing in some way on studies that have been conducted on the subject. This page would need to talk about the legislation, it's effectiveness at preventing injuries and it's impact on riding numbers. We can't ignore the work of scientists who have studied exactly this and published their findings. I'm all for simplifying the page by listing studies, quoting their findings and removing any editorial comments and criticisms from the site altogether and letting every study stand on its own merits. Dsnmi (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Once again, I agree with User:Dsnmi. All relevant studies and papers that have been published in recognised peer-reviewed journals should be included, otherwise there is potential for bias, and the allegations of non-NPOV editing will start. I propose the following criteria and rules:
Only studies and papers published in recognised peer-reviewed journals. "Recognised" means the journal or publication is indexed in Medline/PubMed, or Scopus, or one of the other scholarly indexing databases (as opposed to search engines such as Google Scholar or CiteSeer or similar).
Only studies and papers about cycling helmets in Australia to be included
Critiques of papers and studies which are not peer-reviewed content of recognised journals or publications should be excluded, in the interests of brevity and readability.
Each study or paper should only be referenced in the article a few times at most, ideally just once, to avoid the situation in which certain papers are cited repeatedly throughout the article.
Authors or research groups who have published several papers should be named as the author in the text, so that the reader is aware whose published views are being quoted, and avoiding or mitigating the undue-influence problem.
If we stick to those rules, the article will be a lot more readable, and avoid bias. In essence, journal editors and peer-reviewers will have decided what facts and views are worthy of inclusion, not random WP editors. Tim C (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree. These strike me as workable guidelines and if adhered to will produce a much more reliable page that will strike a balance between neutrality and readability. Dsnmi (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Robinson source
Can someone please give me the page numbers from the Robinson study that have caused us to write Before the law was enforced in Queensland, bicycle travel represented about 2.3% of total vehicle kilometres; after the helmet law was enforced in 1993, bicycle offence notices increased to 7.9% of traffic offence notices, implying that per kilometre, bicycle offence notices were about four times higher than all other traffic offences put together - speeding, drink-driving, not wearing seatbelts, careless driving or riding, etc. It is 13 pages of pretty dense statistics but at first glance what I am seeing is someone drawing their own conclusions from a source. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The one that is used as a source for that statement. It is 13 pages of stuff rather similar to our own article, ie: stats galore. - Sitush (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Second paragraph, right-hand column, page 472 of the paper. However, I would seriously question the utility of comparisons of "traffic offences per kilometre" between different modes of travel - I suspect that "jaywalking" infringements for pedestrians might also be rather high using that metric, simply because pedestrians tend to travel less far by foot than drivers do by car, or cyclists by bike etc. I've never seen the "infringements per kilometre" which Robinson calculates used anywhere else. Also, these data are from 1988 and 1993 in Queensland - that's over two decades ago. Do they really deserve space in an encyclopedia article? Tim C (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Lies and statisics
The first paragraph of the section titled Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia#Surveys_of_helmet_use_and_cycling_participation_before_and_after_the_introduction_of_helmet_laws seems to be a waste of space. Some guys conducted a study, came up with some numbers and said that there was a statistical problem because of a rally that was taking place but that excluding the rally element from the results would itself create a statistical problem (presumably, one related to size of the poopulation, chi-square tests etc). The figures that we show are for 1991 but at the end of the paragraph we show a re-analysis of that study, done by someone else and excluding the very thing that the original researchers said could not be excluded for statistical reasons. The figure given there is for 1992. So, we are comparing chalk and cheese (different years) and we are also getting involved in an academic argument regarding statistical viability. If the figures are not viable then we should not be showing them at all. The gist of it all seems to be that the number of cyclists in this small-scale study fell by maybe 27% or maybe a bit more, so surely it is acceptable for us to cut that entire paragraph, replacing with something like Analysis of data collected over the years 1990-1992 in Melbourne suggests that the number of cyclists fell by somewhere between 27% and XX%., where XX is whatever Finch's 1992 figure may be. We don't need all the numbers that are presently shown. - Sitush (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, pretty much the entire article can be summarised as "Studies of cycling at various places and times in Australia, both before and after the introduction of helmet legislation, vary widely in their conclusions. There are ongoing academic debates regarding the various statistical methods selected, the effect that natural events such as weather conditions have on the results and the impact of such considerations on the conclusions drawn with regard to levels of participation in cycling and the nature of injuries arising from it." If anyone thinks this saga will end in the next ten years, and maybe more, then they know noting about statistics.
Crikey indeed! Is that a reliable source? Most blogs are not and I have no idea of the reputation of The Urbanist. - Sitush (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
You can see a bit more about Alan Davies here: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/about/ Crikey is a well-respected media outlet in Australia - despite its name, it contains serious content and analysis of Australian politics, the economy, social issues etc written by professional journalists and professionally edited. The Urbanist is one of several blogs hosted by Crikey - they aren't personal blogs, they are part of the Crikey masthead and under Crikey editorial oversight. If you look at the material covered in Davies blog, you can see that it is all serious stuff, covering a wide range of urban issues, not just cycling, and definitely not just helmets. In summary, Davies is a professional, post-doctoral geographer who publishes carefully written commentaries in a professionally edited blog under the masthead of a respected commercial media outlet in Australia. His summaries of the available Victorian and NSW surveys are the best I've found, and make it clear that the message to be drawn is more complex and nuanced that just "helmet laws caused a 30% drop in cycling participation" as is asserted in so many places, nor can the message be that introduction of cycling laws had no effect on cycling participation. Tim C (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Actions on 31 May
On 31 May a number of changes were made, mainly deletions. The process seems inappropriate in that to undue would probably require some time.
(cur | prev) 18:59, 31 May 2013 Sitush (talk | contribs) . . (75,349 bytes) (-232) . . (→Injury rates: pedestrians/motorists are not relevant) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 18:15, 31 May 2013 Sitush (talk | contribs) . . (75,581 bytes) (-596) . . (→Bicycle usage: changes without concurrent control groups around the time of helmet compulsion: this is inference again - you have no idea whether helmets impacted on these figures) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 18:03, 31 May 2013 Sitush (talk | contribs) . . (76,177 bytes) (-112) . . (→Enforcement, fines and legal aspects of compulsory helmet use: fix repetition) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 18:00, 31 May 2013 Sitush (talk | contribs) . . (76,289 bytes) (-577) . . (→Enforcement, fines and legal aspects of compulsory helmet use: what the heck has New Zealand got to do with this?) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 17:35, 31 May 2013 LadyofShalott (talk | contribs) m . . (76,866 bytes) (-12) . . (→Public attitude to helmets: Quotes should not be italicized.) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 17:32, 31 May 2013 LadyofShalott (talk | contribs) . . (76,878 bytes) (-61) . . (→Enforcement, fines and legal aspects of compulsory helmet use: minor cleanup/copyedit) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 13:29, 31 May 2013 Sitush (talk | contribs) . . (76,905 bytes) (-5,354) . . (→Injury rates: no! this is about helmets in *Australia*, not issues relating to helmets generally - wrong article) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 13:25, 31 May 2013 Sitush (talk | contribs) . . (82,259 bytes) (-747) . . (→Injury rates: this article is not about head injuries related to road accidents: focus, please) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 13:24, 31 May 2013 Sitush (talk | contribs) . . (83,006 bytes) (-1,336) . . (→Surveys of helmet use and cycling participation before and after the introduction of helmet laws: am sure they have, but so what? we do our own summarising) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 13:22, 31 May 2013 Sitush (talk | contribs) . . (84,342 bytes) (-5,504) . . (→Bicycle usage: trends before and after helmet compulsion: remove: article is not about cycling in Australia & tying these stats into it amounts to an inference relating to helmets) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 13:18, 31 May 2013 AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) . . (89,846 bytes) (+378) . . (Rescuing orphaned refs ("RobinsonDL1996" from rev 557627921; "ReferenceB" from rev 557627921)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 13:03, 31 May 2013 Sitush (talk | contribs) . . (89,468 bytes) (-759) . . (→History: remove: the article is problematic enough without having unsourced claims in it) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 12:56, 31 May 2013 Sitush (talk | contribs) . . (90,227 bytes) (-10,034) . . (→History: big pruning: I am aware of concerns about this article, which is in a ridiculous state at present) (undo | thank)
~~Colin at cycling~~
It would take little time at all to undo what has gone on. But it would be a poor decision to do so. This article is very poor and it is not just the people you list who have said so. - Sitush (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Richard Keatinge, User:Harvey4931 and others have expressed concerns many times that this and related articles on bicycle helmets contain far too much detail, and have become unreadable and unencyclopaedic as a result. I share these concerns, although as User:Dsnmi has said, the whole issue of bicycle helmets (anywhere) is complex and messy, and contentious, and thus a very succinct article that is still accurate and unbiassed is probably unachievable. But it should be possible to go a long way towards that goal. Anyway, it would appear that the wished-for process of pruning the article and removing unnecessary detail has begun. I intend to let the process take its course, and when finished, if any really vital material has been removed, then it can be judiciously restored. But so far, the pruning seems useful and has improved the article. Tim C (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Certainly, I am doing some pruning but I can't resolve all of the seemingly-obvious issues without input from others. I know nothing about the subject matter and am approaching it as a "regular reader" who just happens to be familiar with quite a few of en-Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines and is, well, not stupid but not a professional statistician either. And the major problems with this article seem to revolve around its treatment of statistical issues. Over the last 24 hours or so there have been two people commenting here who seem to agree that there is a problem and that various unnamed things could be omitted. Perhaps they should either be bold and make those cuts but if they are not so inclined then they should at least give some specific examples.
My understanding via a recent report at WP:ANI is that this article may also be subject to conflicts of interest etc - it might be best if the regular contributors at least declare their position if there is any possibility of a COI. To that end, I will say that I am a Brit, have never been to Australia and, although I once cycled extensively and thoroughly enjoyed it, I'm long since past even being able to get on a bike - too many screws, plates and pins in my leg (due to a non-cycling incident). - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
The report at ANI - see details here - was about ongoing personal attacks on an editor (me) alleging bias and undeclared COIs, when all my potential COIs with respect to this and other related bicycle helmet pages were set out explicitly on my profile page at User:Tim.churches soon after I began editing these articles a few months ago (and in any case, I use my real name here, so COIs with respect to papers and article I have co-authored are obvious). Obviously personal attacks, or even comments, about editors are against WP policy - you can only discuss the merits of edits, and of content, but not the merits or otherwise of editors (well, you can praise editors, but you are not allowed to attack them, criticise them as persons, impugn their integrity etc). I have urged several other frequent editors of this and related pages to also declare any COIs they might have with respect to papers and articles cited here (COIs such as being the author of those cited papers), but with nil or evasive responses. I find that frustrating, but apparently it is not WP policy to require such COIs to be declared - it is purely voluntary. Anyway, I have declared mine, and I urge others to do likewise, even if purely in the negative, as in "I have no COIs with respect to this article nor any of the papers or other material discussed or cited in it." Tim C (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks to User:Sitush for braving the swamp and taking the time to remove so much noxious over-growth, and inspiring others to do the same. There is still more weed removal to be done, but the prunings of the the past few days (by various editors) have already transformed the article into a MUCH better quality product than it has ever been before.
I have made a number of additions to the helmet article/s, I wish to declare that I have no COIs with respect to this article, nor any of the papers or other material discussed or cited in it (as noted on my user page, I am a biostatistician at a health research organisation that does not engage in any helmet-related activities). Linda.m.ward (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Graphs
I removed a couple of graphs, which had also received a bit of flak in the recent ANI report. They are, in my opinion, confusing rather than helpful. Furthermore, they are the work of one study (which makes them undue weight) and I remain concerned that we do not have the correct permissions to reproduce them here. - Sitush (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
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-Misplaced Pages. - 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 Misplaced Pages. The image needs to go. - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 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)?
I have been reverted here. We say that Robinson criticised something because it ignored similar trends found in pedestrians. The figures that have been reinstated are unnecessary stats: they add nothing to the statement that is of significance.
Look,folks, we really, really need to make this article more accessible and it is not being helped by throwing all these stats around. I get the impression that a fair few of the major contributors are professional statisticians etc and they may be unaware of just how daunting it is for the average reader to comprehend such a mass of figures. - Sitush (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree there's far too much detail. Editors have tended to focus on tiny detail like the census stats for one city (usually Melbourne), or trot out the stats for every single city (but ignore the rest of the country despite the much higher cycling rates in regional areas) when the bigger picture of what happened in the entire country is far more important. I reverted the information on pedestrian injuries (until we get some consensus here), because the comment said that changes for pedestrians weren't relevant, even though there was a 75% reduction in pedestrian concussions. On the other had, the next sentence "In 2013, Vicroads reported "Two years after the legislation was introduced, there was a 16% reduction in head injuries in metropolitan Melbourne and 23% reduction in head injuries throughout Victoria"." is confusing in that most readers won't realise it applies to all road users. There are many examples like this that need to be fixed up or deleted. Dorre (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Forget the edit summary and concentrate on the edit itself because edit summaries are just that, a summary in a limited amount of space. Prior to your revert, the article said Robinson criticised this study on the grounds that it ignored the similar trends for pedestrians. You reinstated detail relating to that which is not needed - we'll have enough stats about cyclists without adding detailed stats about pedestrians. The pre-revert statement adequately reflects what you said in your criticism (you are Dorre Robinson, aren't you?). - Sitush (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
In that case, Dorre is a potentially misleading name for a WP:SPA account because a person called Dorre Robinson does much more than just "cycle for transport". I'll probably raise the issue at UAA or COIN when I get home. - Sitush (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
This is difficult. For any scientific analysis the experience of the control group - the pedestrians - is fundamental and leaving it out is clearly and absurdly POV. On the other hand, we do have far too much detailed argument here. We need to tell the story simply, with minimal figures, but we certainly don't need deletion of the major part of the argument. So long as we have detailed argumentation - not much longer I hope - we do need both sides. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I do not understand this at all. Robinson notes that there were similar trends for pedestrians - there is no need for the stats to reinforce a point that has already been made. And please do not accuse me of POV as, by the looks of things, I'm practically the only person involved here who has absolutely no connection with the topic area. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
As an aside to the initial point of this thread, Dorre and Richard Keatinge both seem to agree that there are too many stats. Why not do something about it, then? I realise that one of you (Richard) and probably both have conflicts of interest here but you could at least explain exactly which stats you mean and propose changes here. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I have been watching the current flood of edits in the hope that both sides would eventually see the error of their ways; my off-Wiki consultants (family and friends) agree that the article has become unreadable with a rash of statistics which no normal reader will plough through. My Wiki time has been limited of late and I have not felt inclined to argue about the overdose of additions (often accurate and cumulatively probably helping NPOV, but in aggregate hopelessly un-encyclopaedic). I hope to see, or possibly be involved in, a major rewrite so that this article again becomes attractive and readable for the encyclopaedic reader.
You may well be the only editor with no prior connection / opinion! I, for example, was an early adopter of bicycle helmets and quite enthusiastic about them until the evidence started to come out. Just to make it clear, I have a long-term interest in the subject and a relevant qualification (in epidemiology), but I don't have any conflict of interest at all. In fact my life would be somewhat easier if I were to drop NPOV and go along with a certain POV. And I'm sure you and others are doing your best to achieve NPOV. I do appreciate your help and I hope that you are willing to assist with the rewrite that this article needs. What it doesn't need is bits trimmed off in such a way that, if any reader were to get so far, would leave them with an inaccurate and POV impression. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
If you are referring to the Robinson pedestrian statistics, please explain why removal of the detail makes the article POv-slanted; if you are referring more generally, please elaborate where I am exhibiting POV. If you can find a diff of the article at its previously optimum state then I'd appreciate it: I'm not afraid to do a restore to that version if needs must because everyone seems to be agreeing that it is a mess now. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but no, its previous state wasn't optimum and I doubt if a revert would command consensus, a lot of people have a stake in the recent changes. In a smaller way it still had too many statistics and it wasn't clear enough, and on balance the recent flood may have improved NPOV. In my judgement we need a rewrite.
No, to repeat, I'm confident you're doing your best with NPOV in a very difficult area. I apologize if I have given any other impression. The specific edit reverted here removed information on a control group which is essential to interpret the facts. We may not need any of that particular sentence in a rewritten version (the concept is important but the detail isn't), but we don't need part of it, shorn of an essential detail. We are better off with a more complete version of the sentence for the moment. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I still don't see why the detail is important now. I also note that we seem to be comparing chalk with cheese in that paragraph. MUARC analysis showed a 23% and 28% reduction in the number of bicyclists killed or admitted to hospital who did not sustain head injuries in the first and second post-law years, respectively." but Robinson criticised this study on the grounds that it ignored the similar trends for pedestrians, in particular that numbers of pedestrians with concussion fell by 29% and 75% in the first and second years after the introduction of the bicycle helmet law in Victoria. Concussion is not death and it is not all types of head injury. I'm not wading through the two sources right now but either Robinson is was not comparing like with like (which would be their problem) or we are misrepresenting one or both of the sources. I suspect the latter, and removing the excess detail would also have the effect of removing the misrepresentation, if that is what it is. - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
The site gives readers an insight into the problems, claims were made of a 70% reduction but 3 years later in the Monash report they claimed they could not tell if the reductions were due to less cycling or helmets and by 2013 Vic roads claim a reduction of 23%. Including info on pedestrians helps readers to appreciate the level of changes occurring. The primary purpose is to reflect information, if easy to read great, but the detail is important. Bearing in mind if the reduction of 23% is lower than the reduction in cycling activity, the risk per person increases. The information provided reflects various reports and provides a sort of balance. To evaluate them on wiki appears to be heading for original research. Colin at cycling (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
You've avoided my query and points again. I'm not a stupid person and if I cannot fathom out what is going on in the article then the average reader will not. As I've said before, if anyone wants to write an academic summary then they are free to do so, but not here. If we are comparing apples and oranges/chalk and cheese then we are doing the reader a dis-service, especially if they are ill-equipped to wade through all this crap and merely speed-read it. - Sitush (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I was maybe a bit hasty, but concerned that the following sentence: 'In 2013, Vicroads reported "Two years after the legislation was introduced, there was a 16% reduction in head injuries in metropolitan Melbourne and 23% reduction in head injuries throughout Victoria".', would then have been interpreted as applying to cyclists, rather than all road users. The following sentence 'Road safety improved substantially with deaths reducing from 776 in 1989 to 396 in 1992.' also needed to be edited to make it clear the numbers refer to all road users in Victoria. I would also question the need to report the effect of the law in the first 2 years, when there was a follow-up study showing no effect of the law in the third year, and then a study over 4 years. These are explained immediately below the text we are discussing.
"Newstead et al. 1994 provided details of TAC claims (from motor vehicle/cyclist accidents) with the percentage reduction in severe bicyclist casualties relative to the 1989/90 financial year. For Melbourne bicyclists without head injuries fell by 4% and 12% for the years 1990/91 and 1991/92. Clarke asserted that, because the Melbourne helmet wearing surveys reported reductions in generally cycling of 36%, compared to the reported 4% and 12% reductions in non-head injury rates in cyclists, this indicates that accident involvement increased by 37% to 50%.
"A final MUARC report on the helmet law in Victoria (published in 1995) reported that after taking into account changes in the funding arrangements for publicly funded hospitals, cyclist non-head injuries dropped by about 25%, and serious and severe cyclist head/brain injuries dropped by 40%. The report noted improvements to road safety and increased availability of bicycle paths. They mention "we were unable to include any reliable measures of exposure, and thus it is impossible to distinguish between reductions due to helmet wearing and reductions solely due to possible reductions in exposure".
Given the above, I was a bit concerned over the whole string of sudden changes (that I hadn't seen before), and that the whole section needed to be fixed up, rather than just removing one bit with the justification that pedestrians weren't relevant. Dorre (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to propose a rewrite of the entire paragraph, hopefully based on the concept that less is more! I did some big cuts and am now wandering around excising smaller pieces while I get a better feel for the various positions etc. I deal more with history-related stuff than with current subjects but, as a general rule, new research from respected academics (who are presumed to have digested the prior research) will always carry more weight. That, of course, makes the assumption that those academics are impartial and in the context of history it can, for example, lead to odd outcomes unless the contributor is aware that X or Y is a Marxist historian or similar. Doubtless, the same fundamental issues will exist here. - Sitush (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
If I were to re-write the paragraph, I would start with WA because the graph shows the trends for all road users. By explaining this first, the 2-year, 3-year and 4-year studies in Victoria can be explained more simply and concisely. Is there general approval to do this? Dorre (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
If you mean the graph that is disputed in the section above or any other based directly on census data then no, I do not approve of it because you don't know why the figures have changed. You can't use primary data to infer something that is not said explicitly, and I'm becoming fed up of repeating myself as much as, I am sure, you are becoming fed up of reading it. - Sitush (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I meant the graph showing the trends in percent head injury to all road users - cyclists, pedestrians & motor vehicle occupants in Western Australia. Dorre (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
You cannot extrapolate from one region to an entire country unless a reliable source has done so. If there is such a source then that is what should be used. Adding info about a single state when similar info is not available for other states using the same criteria amounts to excess weight, although it would likely be fine if you wanted to create an article about, say, travel-related head injuries in Western Australia. You certainly could not use any summary based on that graph to explain the situation in Victoria. Honestly, people here are completely misunderstanding how Misplaced Pages works: it is not a perfect environment for the dissemination of knowledge and we have to reflect sources very closely, whereas academic papers can spread the net more widely. - Sitush (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
You're absolutely right about extrapolation. Giving a concise graphical presentation of what happened to ridership or head injuries in relation to helmet laws in Australia (or Western Australia alone if that's what's available, but more comprehensive is better), based on a thoroughly reliable source, strikes me as so obviously useful to this article that I am still puzzled by calls for its removal. Coming back to your earlier points in this section, no we don't need all the detail now or indeed ever, but we really don't need half a point pruned to leave only the other half. Getting rid of the lot might be defensible, and getting rid of the present verbiage and giving a nice neat account of the whole story would be really good. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Showing figures just for WA is undue when the article concerns the entire country/continent. I do not understand your puzzlement but I'm beginning to think that the solution here is simply to remove everything that exists subsequent to the section explaining the law. There is far too much POv, there are far too many dubious statistics and there is far too much comparison of apples and oranges. Sure, if sources do not agree then we can reflect the alternate opinions but if sources are disagreeing based on parallel datasets rather than common datasets then any such comparison is worthless in the Misplaced Pages context. - Sitush (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Just to set the record straight, my comments were not intended to imply any extrapolation from WA to the rest of the country. The aim was to show that the existence of trends in the WA data that are common to all WA road users. Having established that, the casual reader is more likely to understand what a trend is, and therefore the totally independent research and references to trends in Victoria. I was not suggesting anything radical, simply re-ordering what is already there to make it easier for the average reader to follow. However, you seem to be arguing that you can't show a graph for WA without showing identical data for other states. That would be a tall order and conflict with your desire for brevity. Biases can be created by omitting relevant, neutrally presented information. I would have thought that readers want some information to help them make sense of the conflicting POV. The important issue is to agree on how to report it simply and with a NPOV. If the problem is that the article refers to the whole country, then perhaps creating sub-headings for the different states could avoid the problem of anyone possibly misinterpreting it as an intention to refer to the whole country? Dorre (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
That WA graph should go (there are already 2 mentions in the text of similar trends for cyclists and other road users). Linda.m.ward (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd strongly suggest keeping the graph, which is a much better presentation of more and better-sourced information, but getting rid of the other mentions if needed for clarity. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Many casual readers don't know what a trend is and would have difficulty understanding the meaning of text about "similar trends in percent head injury for all road users." However, when they see the graph a lot more people will be able to understand. I don't think it will be possible to successfully simplify the article without such illustrations. Dorre (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
"Vandalism" by addition
That sensational title is one way of summarizing the changes to this (and the bicycle helmets) page over the past several months. So much detail has been added that it's impossible to see the wood for the trees. Most casual readers are not interested in what happened in individual states, or cities within individual states, but the effect on the whole country. However, it's very difficult for a single editor to delete this additional material without being accused of vandalism. Consider, for example the long and detailed description of the weather in the Melbourne survey where 2011 cyclists were counted in 1991:
"Although surveys conducted on weekdays had similar weather, there appears to have been some differences for counts conducted on weekends. About 32% of weekend observations in the pre-law survey were affected by rain, compared with about half in 1991 but only 14% in 1992. Counts in 1992 were also inflated by a bicycle rally passing through one of the sites in 1992. Finch et al. noted that from a statistical point of view, it would not be valid to exclude that site. (Excluding the site would have excluded cyclists who would have been cycling anyway, but through a different site, had it not been for the rally.) A study by Robinson that re-analysed the data from the Finch study, excluding the site with the rally, concluded that 27% fewer cyclists were counted in 1992 than 1990."
Most people would agree that there's not a great deal of difference between 27% and 36%, and that the detailed description of the weather isn't too important because the pre-law weather was about the same as the average for the 2 post-law years (slightly better in 92, slightly worse in 91). So why all the complicated detail? A cynic would say that it's to hide the relevant information about numbers counted and helmet wearing. Pre-law, 1293 teenagers were counted, of which 272 wore helmets. A year later, 670 teenagers were counted, of which 302 wore helmets. The insightful comparison of the drop in teenage cycling (632 fewer teenage cycling) with the the increase of 30 in the number of teenagers wearing helmets gets lost because of the long and detailed discussion of the weather.
The small numbers observed in these surveys contrasts with the 100,000 people cycling to work on census day in 2011. Cycling is seasonal, so surveys taken at the same time of year generally have the same weather and are comparable. Comparing the results of surveys taken at different times of year (e.g. the pre and post-law survey of adults in NSW) is generally a lot less reliable.
The graphs of the census data is important because provides a reasonably consistent series from 1976 to 2011 for the whole country, illustrating the difference between trends unrelated to helmet wearing and the effect of helmet laws. This simply cannot be put into words.
This article's problems were compounded by the addition of new sections that effectively duplicated existing ones. For example,'Surveys of helmet use and cycling participation', effectively repeats (with many additional details to) the information that was in an existing section 'Bicycle usage: changes without concurrent control groups around the time of helmet compulsion'. Such edits added to the repetition, making the article longer and unreadable. The last time the article was pruned, there was consensus on the talk page to go back to the version as at Nov 28, 2012. Because the current article is so confusing and difficult to read, anyone who wants to prune it should consider reading that version and then see what additional material is relevant and informative. This might provide sufficient insight to help distinguish the wood from the trees. Dorre (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I have my eye on a lot of what you mention above but am conscious that my knowledge of the detail is slim and that the umpteen sources are highly technical. I'm off for a couple of days into a bit of Wales that has no easy internet access, during which time I will be having a bit of a think about where to go from here. It would be great if I turned up here at the weekend and found that someone had done that bold thing. There does not seem to be much disagreement that big changes are needed. - Sitush (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
MUARC 4-year study
I have great difficulty with edits that make exaggerated claims about the benefits of helmet laws. Although, as a member of the editorial board of the BHRF, some people might consider I have a conflict of interest, the data on head and non-head injuries shown on the BHRF website Head and non-head injuries over time is not consistent with the quote added by Tim:
"A 1995 study by Carr et al. found that cyclist admissions to hospitals in Victoria in the first four years after helmet legislation was introduced were 40% below the number expected on the basis of pre-legislation trends, and that the severity of cyclist head injury had also declined subsequent to the helmet legislation."
Some balance is necessary. Tim didn't like my direct quote from the report stating the fall in head injuries, but indicating that some of the reduction might be due to reduced cycling. Does anyone therefore have a problem with a counterbalancing direct quote from the BHRF web page noting that "Both head and non-head injuries fell substantially"? Dorre (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah! I think that I may begin to understand your point and the problem we have been having lately. I'm sorry to be so slow, but of course the Hall of Valence Mary is junior to Peterhouse and I can only accept my consequent inferiority. You are of course quite right in the strictest sense; what happens to control groups, or to non-head injuries, is not directly relevant to bicycle helmets in Australia. However, if we take this article to include scientific studies into the results of head injury legislation in Australia, then it is absolutely essential to produce a text that fully takes into account the use of scientific controls, such as non-head injuries. Dorre references a graph which gives an excellent idea of what happened to the numbers of injuries to cyclists over a period including the law. If you take a quick look at it and spend a moment thinking through its implications, it will be clear to you that head injuries did reduce after the law. And so, more or less identically, did other injuries. The obvious scientific implication is that the overall exposure of cyclists to danger reduced, consistent with other studies which do show a reduction in cycling after helmet laws. But no obvious effect of mass helmet use on head injuries is supported.
Now, this leaves us with some choices for this article. We could perfectly well leave all the scientific stuff, apart from a very very brief summary and maybe a couple of graphs, to the Bicycle helmet article. Or we could ensure that our comments reflect a fuller view of the science; this doesn't mean putting in every possibly-Reliable comment but implies that we should give a cautious and balanced view of the Australian science; this will inevitably duplicate some material from Bicycle helmet. I'd follow your guidance to either of those two choices. But it is absolutely unacceptable to cherry-pick figures and quotations that give a one-sided view, then omit graphical presentations of data from reliable sources that give an unbiased, clearer and more comprehensive idea to the reader. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
It is nothing to do with educational establishments/perceived inferiority and everything to do with focus. This article is about bicycle helmets in Australia. If someone wants to write an article about head injuries to motorists, cyclists, pedestrians (... skateboarders, horseriders) in Australia then they're welcome to do so and there might be a justification for including such an article as a See also link from here.
If someone wants to include a graph here then it must involve precisely zero original research, be in focus and ideally not have been created by anyone who has a stake in the academic dispute. Indeed, we may be entering the realms of WP:MEDRS and might not even be in a position where we can invite people to draw a conclusion, as you have invited me to do above. My suspicion is that, as some people said around the time of the ANI report, this article has no real reason for existing because the content that matters can be dealt with via a merge with an article about helmet legislation worldwide. - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I tend to agree, with apologies to all and especially anyone from Australia. There is some material about the introduction of helmets, the law, support and opposition and so on that is directly apposite to this article and could possibly form a respectable article on its own, but we seem to be moving to the idea of removing all of the scientific debate from this article. What do others think of this proposal? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
When there are no cyclists, there are no cycling injuries, but it has nothing to do with helmets. The issue of whether how much of the effect was due to reduced cycling and how much to increased helmet wearing cannot possibly be irrelevant to an article on bicycle helmets. Perhaps Sitush can elaborate on why this is considered irrelevant. I think most casual readers are capable of understanding this difference. In discussing the future of this Wiki page, I would certainly agreed that no information is better than an article that attributes reductions in head injury from reduced cycling to helmets. But is no information better than one with intricate detail? That is a very hard decision. We were discussing how to simplify the information to make it accessible to the casual reader. Striking a balance means following Einstein's maxim - everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. Dorre (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure that Einstein did not digress. When there are no cyclists, there is no relevance to this article. I cannot make it simpler than that. Any meta-level stuff needs to be said elsewhere and why people cannot see the elephant in the room is beyond me, although the obvious reason is being blinded by vested interests. - Sitush (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I do see your point. You may be less mystified if I tell you that the full and proper use of control groups - agreed by all sides to be scientifically necessary to the debate - is a central element in the longstanding scientific disputes about, in fact, the effects of bicycle helmets in Australia. Your response makes a further argument for removing almost all of the scientific debate to Bicycle helmet, leaving here little more than a remark that it exists. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
If, after looking at the WA graph, somebody (eg. Richard Keatinge) thinks that the reduction in cyclist head injuries after the helmet law was 'more or less identical' to (head) injury reductions in other road users, and that 'no obvious effect of mass helmet use on head injuries is supported', then the graph has been misunderstood/misinterpreted.
The accompanying text states that "A 1996 analysis by Bruce Robinson used information on head injuries, recorded for hospital admissions in Western Australia (WA) since 1971, to show the remarkably similar trends for all road users, and noted that a divergence between the injury rates from 1991 was unexplained, suggesting that it might just be random variation."
However, the graph has been reproduced from (figure 1 in) a 1999 analysis by Hendrie et al..
Curiously, prior to my addition of the results of the Hendrie analysis, there was no reference in the text to the Hendrie analysis. The text I added re the Hendrie analysis was "The WA data were later analysed by Hendrie et al., using a statistical model to estimate the effect of the helmet law on cyclist head injuries, after taking the downward trends in both pedestrian and cyclist head injuries into account. The model showed that the divergence was not due to random variation (p<0.001); that before the helmet law the proportion of cyclists with a head injury was on average 6% higher than the proportion of pedestrians with a head injury; and that after the law the proportion of cyclists with a head injury was on average 16% lower than the proportion of pedestrians with a head injury. (This divergence can be seen on the graph, where the green/pedestrian line crosses the black/cyclist line the year before the helmet law is introduced.)".
On Bruce Robinson's graph (fig. 8 in http://www.bhsi.org/veloaust.htm), the 'divergence' is much clearer. (When I reproduced Bruce Robinson's graph, and added the cyclist and pedestrian data points from the extra 3 years from the Hendrie graph, and the 'divergence' became even more obvious and consistent, and clearly does not appear to be 'random variation'.)
The Hendrie (figure 1) graph is being misused/misinterpreted (ie. it is misleading, in the context in which it is being used), and should be removed. Linda.m.ward (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Mmm.To quote from Robinson (your Hendrie URL doesn't seem to be accessible): "The divergence between WA pedestrian and cyclist rates in 1991 (before the legislation) is so far unexplained..." (http://www.bhsi.org/veloaust.htm). The above gives further reason to remove the main dispute from this page. I would note that there are published graphical representations of indisputably-reliable figures that all should agree are relevant and which would probably be useful here as residual introductions to the issue. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we should list all areas and consider where general agreement exists. Basically the topic runs for 30+ years, 1980 - 2013, many reports can be accessed. What to include, built up to legislation, did Governments act properly, has legislation provided a benefit to Australia, effects on individuals, reporting the evidence etc. Reporting areas of scientific debate would help readers to appreciate why debate occurs. If the article ends up being long and slightly complicated in a few parts but accurate, reliable and balanced this may provide the best approach for understanding the topic.
"removing all of the scientific debate" may not be a good objective,
"this article has no real reason for existing because the content that matters can be dealt with via a merge with an article about helmet legislation worldwide"
many country seems to vary their approach to helmets or legislation and trying to include all the details into one report may mean missing out important information. Colin at cycling (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Why? You will just be repeating what has already been said. None of us can comment on whether governments "acted properly" or whether legislation" provided a benefit to Australia" and we already know that as soon as we try evaluating it then all the conflicts of interest turn the article into one of the most messy, trivial and incomprehensible pieces of writing that many experienced uninvolved people have had the misfortune to see. I really do think some contributors here would benefit from having a wider experience of the many subjects that Misplaced Pages presents: you, Colin, for example, appear to be a single-purpose account and that is rarely ever A Good Thing. Spread your wings a bit, seen how we do stuff generally and learn from it. - Sitush (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Road safety, cycling levels, enforcement approaches, cultural aspects all vary with countries. Even within a country variation in both type of enforcement or just promotion occurs. Readers may end up not knowing which country or part of that country is being discussed. Many wiki contributions could also occur and trying to have one article and explain each aspect to both readers and people contributing may be vary time consuming.
I think we have different points of view. I have some concerns that a useful balance is being missed. The risk level of cycling v helmet effects. The 1991 article by Ron Shepard provided details of the relative risk, Ron had given evidence to government in 1986. Robinson's 1996 paper provided data on risk per million hours. The issue of wearing protection is about risk v effects. Ron Shepard's article was removed and this would not help readers. The article probably fails to adequately balance risk against effects, to help readers have a good understanding.
Colin at cycling (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The article is not about risks vs effects and if it were then the data as presented would still be useless as an aid to understanding. Seriously, I'm giving this no more than another 24 hours and then I am going to pull all the allegedly scientific content unless someone can square the obvious circle. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
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." 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 Misplaced Pages, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." The aims of Misplaced Pages 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)
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 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)
.svg){kind=logo}
wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance._pictogram.svg){kind=small}
