Talk:Bicycle helmets in Australia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

"The Norwegian Claim"

Noticed a removal of the 14% statistic from Making Vision Zero real: Preventing pedestrian accidents and making them less severe because "the Norwegian report doesn't cite references for the 14% claim." While this statistic raises eyebrows in the context of other research, it looks like they do cite its source: Nolen and Lindkqvist, 2003? Nelsonsnavy (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed this again because it doesn't do what this page claimed it did. It was reported that Australian and NZ data showed an increase in injury risk amongst helmeted riders, which isn't true. The Norwegian report makes this claim without reference to Australian or NZ data and instead relies on another report. Can we find the original report that they're referring to and link to that directly with something to back up the claim? I don't think this page should be making an untrue claim about an unsupported claim in a Norwegian report. Dsnmi (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur that we should find the original source, particularly since I've never seen any other sources making that claim.Nelsonsnavy (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

After further research I agree and have removed the figure again. The publication itself is respectable enough, the figure is based on unexceptionable Australian and NZ figures, and Elvik also publishes the 14$ figure in a more conventional peer-reviewed jourrnal, but at no point does he actually give the workings for it. It would be WP:OR here to redo them and not Reliable to quote Elvik's personal communication. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Remove or rename the "Resource Site"

The external link is labelled a "resource site" when in fact it's a biased viewpoint which is specific to one state in Australia. It's an anti-helmet law site which makes no effort to address the issue impartially. It should probably be removed or at the very least relabeled appropriately. Dsnmi (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Would also recommend removal of this site since it is biased, argumentative, and makes unsubstantiated claims. I'm not sure sending readers there is going to be doing them any good service. Thoughts? Nelsonsnavy (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Surely it up to the reader to decide which sources they feel should be given the greater or lesser credibility? If you feel there are other sites that merit inclusion, or that offset what you percieve to be bias then why not include them? Wikipedia is only a starting point for someone researching a topic it is not means of defining an end point to a review of a topic.

213.233.144.74 (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Some history

This article discusses the effects of mandatory laws on cycling and cyclists but has no facts relating to the helmet laws themselves. I've searched online but found no information about actual legislation (what led them to be introduced, how they were enacted, who proposed them, what penalties apply for non-compliance etc). It would be great if there could be some sort of history, background and information about the laws to give them some context. Can anyone help out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnmi (talk • contribs) 23:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Data on ridng to work numbers

The data I've linked to from the Vic roads report is sourced from the Australian census data and clearly disproved the claim that cycling is currently at below the level it was before helmet laws were introduced. The graphic that I've omitted is not sourced and cant be constituted as evidence. Dsnmi (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Needless comparisons

This page should be about facts, statistics and information relating to bike helmets and their effect on cyclists and cycling in Australia. It's not a page for pro or anti helmet legislation propaganda. The comparisons to other country's are starting to muddy the waters, confuse issues and are frequently spuriously defined in any case. We should keep to actual facts and information and leave the propoganda to other sites and blogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnmi (talk • contribs) 22:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Some comparisons with other countries are required though, surely? For example, the article says that the Melbourne bike-share scheme sees 0.3 trips per bicycle per day. How bad or good is that? What is a typical value internationally for such schemes? I suppose one could regard a comparison with Dublin as unfair, given that it's extremely successful (up to 13 trips per bicycle per day), but what is a typical value for a scheme regarded as moderately successful? It's not much use giving raw data without context.Tomasrojo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC).

Wikipedia policy is not to include comparisons especially when comparisons can be selective. We don't include comparative data when we cite an album's sales or a sportsman's statistics. We just cite facts. It's especially inappropriate in this case when there is no directly comparable point of comparison since no city in the world has Melbourne's climate, road laws, population, size, topography etc so comparisons are meaningless. The attempt to compare the success of bike share schemes in two different cities and then try and use that data to draw a conclusion about helmet laws relies on speculation and supposition and not on actual evidence. Dsnmi (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What I had in mind was placing the Melbourne scheme's usage rate in the context of international rates, not comparisons with just one other city. I'm not aware of any official sources for usage rates in other cities internationally, but that's what I have in mind.

What is the actual wording of Wikipedia's policy on comparisons, by the way? The Wikipedia page on Michael Jackson's Thriller gives its total sales and also mentions that it's the best-selling album of all time, which is the type of comparison I have in mind: if the Melbourne usage rate were one of the lowest in the world, for example, that would be germane to include here.Tomasrojo (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It would only be germane if there was some evidence that directly linked usage of the scheme to bike helmet laws. If someone had done a report or study on the effect of bike helmet legislation on Australian bike share schemes then it would definitely be relevant but otherwise a comparison would only be here to support the writer's supposition that bike helmet laws are harming the scheme. There are hundreds of factors which could affect bike share scheme usage around the world (price, availability, climate, road laws, population density, topography, driver awareness etc) and providing a comparison without definite proof that the subject of this page is the reason the bike share scheme is under utilized isn't relevant. The Michael Jackson comparison is a good one. Thriller was released to a record buying public in the same way that other LP's at the time were and so the playing field was level. It's relevant to say Thriller is the best selling album of all time because it proves more people bought it than any other album. Comparing bike share scheme usage between cities doesn't prove helmet laws have a definite impact unless this is backed up with actual evidence. Dsnmi (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

With regret if the topic of a wikipedia article is a matter of published debate then the content of that debate and the nature of the arguments is a valid topic for the afticle. In your comment above you have formulated a rebuttal to the bikeshare comparison argument. The fact that you have formulated such a rebuttal does not change the fact that deleterious effects on bikeshare have been attributed to Australias helmet laws and are a valid component of an article on ths topic. You can if you wish try to have your rebuttal published somewhere and also include that in the article as a balancing argument. The bikeshare argument remains a fact that should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.144.75 (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I feel that we do have a Reliable source, admittedly at the low end of Reliability, for the connection of compulsory helmets with low usage of bike sharing. Separately, I feel it should probably be in the article, but that's a matter for debate and consensus. Personally, I'd keep it and look for better sources. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible cause for deletion of this page?

It would be good if we could keep this page and find a happy compromise between two obviously conflicting sides. Ideally it should start with some history of the laws and why they were introduced and what penalties apply for breaking them. There could then be a section that briefly discussed the possible effect in helmet laws (it's effect on injury levels and cycling numbers) with facts presented from both sides without extraneous interpretation and comparisons. Currently it reads as a very confusing attempt to discredit the laws and it reads like a persuasive piece of text and is not in keeping with wikipedia guidelines. If a comprimise can't be reached it might need to be deleted and it's salient points added to the bike helmet section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnmi (talk • contribs) 02:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. There is indeed an argument for deleting this page and merging it with Bicycle helmet laws, but shall we try saving it? I propose to do a bold edit that uses more subheaders to organize the page, and I propose to strip out editorializing by ourselves to give bald statements of findings. Maybe this weekend. I look forward to comments. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. I'd support a total revamp and I agree it needs to focus on findings and not editorializing. I look forward to reading what you come up with and will post my thoughts here in response. Dsnmi (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I leapt in and started fixing it up by keeping the focus on facts relating to the Australian law and its effects as documented in scholarly sources. I also found, partially quoted, and linked the national statute itself. Agree with the above that this article doesn't need any editorializing inspired by helmet debates, just facts from sources that meet Wiki standards. Nelsonsnavy (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is rough but not in terrible shape. On the bright side, it seems to include only sources relating to Australia itself. It could, as you say, use more subheaders to better organize the info and make a reader's job easier. Also needed: more info on the law itself--rather than its effects--such as any debate leading up to its passage and any economic or political ramifications. Probably best not to merge it with another article since Australia is often a starring player in bike helmet research and debate. Nelsonsnavy (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've spent several hours trying to improve this article and the result looks very different. I hope it's now better organized, focuses almost entirely on Australian information, does not editorialize, and omits more general debate on helmets which should be limited to Bicycle helmet. I still think that we should put in very brief reference to e.g. risk compensation since it does form part of the Australian debate, but for the moment it's out, leaving just the referenced comments on increased objective risk per cyclist. Per Dsnmi above I'd also support more detail on what the laws actually say, what the penalties are, how well they are obeyed and enforced across states and from time to time, etc. What does everyone else think? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Will look it over. Certainly appreciate the hard work and agree with your basic approach that "focuses almost entirely on Australian information, does not editorialize, and omits more general debate on helmets which should be limited to Bicycle helmet." I've been trying to do the same for the New Zealand helmet article, which, as I found it, made this one, in its previous form, look like a model of clarity, relevance, and objectivity :) My philosophy is that these are encyclopedia articles that should present factual, relevant info from quality sources, not be abused to play out thinly disguised debates. I will look for more statutory info and see if I can dig up some Parliamentary debate on it. Not sure why comparisons are being made to Dublin. Nelsonsnavy (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This segment needs review: "Bicycle usage and health." It's stated as a bald fact, rather than as a summary of someone else's research, and it seems quite a stretch from the actual article, in which "the possible effect of repealing mandatory bicycle helmet legislation on the frequency of cycling in Sydney is examined" and concludes "While a hypothetical situation, if only half of the 22.6% of respondents who said they would cycle more if they did not have to wear a helmet did ride more, Sydney targets for increasing cycling would be achieved by repealing mandatory bicycle helmet legislation. A significant proportion of the population would continue to wear helmets even if they were not required to do so."

We need to go through and double-check all links and summaries/interpretations of them. Nelsonsnavy (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge's rewrite

Thanks to Richard Keatinge's work in rewriting this page. It's much clearer, benefits from some useful additions and contains less editorialising. Outstanding work.

Thank you! Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a few suggestions which I would like to put up for discussion.

Bike Usage

We can't ignore the Vic roads report which shows a massive increase in cycling numbers recently. Especially when it's backed up by a huge increase in bike sales and other indications that cycling in Australia is on the increase.

Go for it. I have to say that, scientifically, the main points of interest are the comparisons with control groups and the only post-law change that would really interest me is if cycling levels rose to, say, Dutch proportions while helmet laws were in force. Cycling numbers will fluctuate with or without helmets and we don't need a huge section on them. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Using children as a case study in relation to the census data is too selective and doesn't back up the claim that "that the main effect of the law was to discourage cycling rather than persuade cyclists to wear helmets" If we're going to look at the effect of mandatory helmet laws on people's transport choices we shouldn't focus our attention on the one age demographic that doesn't get to make their own life choices. This article in The Age http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/a-chain-reaction-to-everdiminishing-cycles/2007/03/25/1174761282573.html discusses the reduction in the numbers of children riding to work and blames stranger danger, changing parental habits and other factors without mentioning helmets at all. I'd suggest removing this reference.

I probably wouldn't - though it is an uncontrolled comparison it does reference a step change immediately after the laws. Children don't make life choices? Ever had kids? :-) More seriously, we're not saying who made this particular choice, only reporting what happened. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Injury rates

The paper referenced that responds to the NSW study has been withdrawn by its author (Chris Rissell) because it contained errors in data. We shouldn't link to it here.

Agreed - can you find a reference for the withdrawal? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. The report that Rissell withdrew was an earlier one he co-authored which I don't think we've linked to here.

Feelings about Helmets.

It's important that the data from this survey is put in context. For memory helmets was the tenth most popular reason people didn't ride with safety topping the list by a huge amount.

I'd also suggest renaming this section to "Public attitude toward helmet use" or something similar.

Seems good to me. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Helmets and Melbourne's bike share scheme

This section definitely benefits from the removal of the non-constructive comparisons. I think the wording needs to change slightly: "Has been blamed" should possibly be changed to take into account the fact that there are dozens of other reasons which have also been put forward and no official study has been conducted to give the mandatory helmet laws any more validity than any other reason. The article referenced quotes a guy whose only authority is the fact that he blogs about bike riding who shares his opinions without any evidence to back him up.

I think the present comparison and comment is fair but it would also be fair to mention that other reasons have been suggested, if we can find reliable sources for them. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Cyclists hospitalized with different types of injury; comparing reported rates of helmet use

Could we include this section in with the section about Injury rates? It seems strange to include it on it's own.

Thanks, we may well need a better title. This section is about reviews that have little to do with the Australian experience and might in fact profitably be deleted - they are part of the wider helmet debate. They are however reviews by Australian groups and thus can be suggested to be specifically part of the Australian debate. They are reviews of one particular type of study, which does indeed take cyclists hospitalized with various sorts of injury and compare their reported rates of helmet use. I can't think of a better title at present; these studes have been called case-control but they don't quite conform to the criteria for that kind of study. Ideas would be welcome, as would opinions on removing or leaving the section in this article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair point.

One option would be to go back to the original sources they're reviewing and discuss those. Potential downside: that might end up weighting the whole article too heavily towards research summaries versus a balanced overview of all relevant topics.Nelsonsnavy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC).

There are some other minor edits I would like to make and some more information I'd like to include but I'd like to wait to hear what other people make of Keatinge's work before I make any changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnmi (talk • contribs) 22:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

dsnmi's edits

I've made a few edits to Richard Keatinge's rewrite and put them up here for discussion, criticism, suggestions and comments. I've tried to focus on additions and avoiding deletions wherever possible.

Introduction

I've added some direct quotes from the two papers cited in the interests of removing editorializing. I'm not usually in favour of posting blocks of qouted text but a lot of the study papers included on this page are extremely complicated and are being summarized in one sentence to suit a specific agenda.

Bike Usage and Health.

With the exception of the removal of the original sentence in this section (which can't be backed at all by the report provided) I haven't touched this section but I think it needs to be rewritten. We have to include data from the vicroads report http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/29A3CEDE-B1A0-492E-8158-2210C11E5D01/0/Report_on_Cycling_to_work.pdf which uses census data and shows a 175% increase in melbournians riding to work from 1996, putting participation well above pre helmet law levels. We should also mention the figures that show bike sales have soared recently and are significantly ahead of car sales in Australia and the boming nature of Ride to Work day which in Victoria has more than tripled it's participation in the six years since it was introduced.

I'm also not sure about the graph on this page. It's not clear how it collates the data and which data it's using. Is the red line an average of the data from the states it lists? And if so how does it appear to ignore the massive increase in cycling to work journeys from Melbourne which almost doubled? Can we find a better graphic?

Public attitudes to helmets

I renamed this section and included some further data from the report cited.

Helmets and Melbourne's bike share scheme

An article about the increased usage of this scheme was published in The Age during the week and I've included the data in this section.

Dsnmi (talk) 08:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This study may provide useful info for the article http://www.pcal.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/36785/Cycling_in_NSW_-_What_the_Data_Tells_Us.pdf "Cycling in New South Wales: What the data tells us" Nelsonsnavy (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There didn't seem to be any movement towards incorporating some of the suggestions and data Dsnmi mentioned above, so I took the liberty of doing so, as well as adding a few other sources and noting a couple problems that still need addressing.Nelsonsnavy (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Great work. Thanks. Dsnmi (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't get a chance to research and write about Ride to Work day, though, if you want to go ahead and include that info.Nelsonsnavy (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that changes from 2000 to 2009 tell us nothing about bicycle helmets. This info may be relevant for a 'Cycling in Australia' page, but it has nothing to do with bicycle helmets, so I've deleted it.

The current census graphic shows total numbers cycling to work as percentages of the total workforce. As the graphic suggests, total numbers cycling to work and the total workforce were obtained for a) Vic+NSW+SA+Tas vs b) QLD+WA+ACT. The increase in cycling to work in Melbourne from 2001 to 2006 (0.99% to 1.34%) was partially offset by a decrease from 1.75% to 1.62% in the rest of the state and diluted by no change in NSW (0.83% to 0.84%). The overall effect, for NSW+Vic+SA+TAS combined was an increase from 0.99% in 2001 to 1.12%, with the declining trend in Qld (from 1.65% in 2001 to 1.41% in 2006) dominating the change for Qld+WA+ACT. Data from the 2011 census will be available in June 2012. This will show the entire trends from 1976 to 2011. I think we have to be careful not to focus in on specific locations where lots of money has been spent on cycling facilities, but provide objective information for the country as a whole. (User Dorre) 25 February 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorre (talk • contribs) 23:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

"The problem is that changes from 2000 to 2009 tell us nothing about bicycle helmets. This info may be relevant for a 'Cycling in Australia' page, but it has nothing to do with bicycle helmets, so I've deleted it." To say that is to say, in essence, that any numbers showing changes in cycling levels will tell us nothing about bicycle helmets. If the long-term trend (versus a temporary "blip" potentially ascribable to other factors) is indeed towards greater cycling and commuting numbers, that needs to be noted because at the very least it calls into question the link suggested by data centered on the time the law was implemented. Plus, we should be using the latest reliable data sources we can find.

The problem, too, is that the data still presented in the article spans 20 years, 1986-2006, and doesn't focus on the immediate aftermath of the laws going into effect. Major changes in cycling during those years could primarily have occurred in years before or well after the law was passed, could be due to other factors entirely, etc. We need to include a balanced picture with the most recent data or remove both sections entirely.Nelsonsnavy (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

An excellent point. There are three groups of studies of possible interest in this area. The most important includes controls and so has reasonable validity in describing the results of the helmet law. There aren't many and they should all be in, as they are. The next describes changes "about the time" of the helmet law, which might plausibly be related to the law. What "about the time of the law" is can only be a matter of judgement and consensus. Finally there are figures on what has happened to cycling, cycle safety, etc. after the law; they do have some interest but can tell us rather less about the actual subject of this article. They are often mentioned in helmet debates so we should give a very brief account. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems dubious to imply any sort of causal link between cycling numbers and helmet law implementation. AFAIK, only by gaining some omniscient knowledge of who chose to start, stop, or never take up cycling exclusively because of the law could one posit causality with any certainty. Otherwise, we're merely left with potentially suggestive correlation. And from that, we could leap to the conclusion that the helmet law has actually increased ridership and cycle-commuting long term in Australia. As to where the article stands, we should consider renaming "Bicycle usage: studies with control groups" since it's largely not about studies per se.Nelsonsnavy (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The imputation of causality is a lot stronger in studies with control groups, and moderate for "step" changes in trends at the time of legislation. I agree that changes after the law show rather little about helmets, and I'd suggest they are only relevant in so far as they have been quoted in the ongoing debate. Various comments have been made to the effect that cycling levels have recovered after the law. A very weak argument and not one that I'd spend much time on, but it has been put forward and we should make some comment. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The data in this case is so limited and circumstantial as to render the whole argument suggesting causality a bit silly. But as you say, the partisans have opened the door on the issue, so it probably bears reporting. The problem then is that in fairness you need to report long-term numbers, which are just as ir/relevant, since some people will probably want to understand the long-term effects.Nelsonsnavy (talk) 13:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Cyclists hospitalized with different types of injury; comparing reported rates of helmet use

This section is becoming increasingly problematic. It now includes a rather elaborate argument about why the aforementioned studies might be flawed and even quotes a letter-commentary by one of the editors of this article in a footnote, which sets off alarm bells. (I realize Dr. Keatinge did not add that note himself.) If this is adding "balance," then in fairness, we need to add similar detailed arguments about why any/all the sources in this article could be flawed. Not an ideal course of action, I'd say.Nelsonsnavy (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

There is very good evidence about why some reports have flaws: "‘Behind-the-scenes’ documents obtained by a large Bicycle User Group in Brisbane (via an RTI request) show that this study was only commenced in early September, that CARRS-Q were only given 13 days to produce the document and that they were paid almost $35,000 to do the ‘research’. It was solely commissioned to counter the paper published by Prof Rissel in 2010, which has since been withdrawn due to errors, and to silence the groundswell of opposition to the bicycle helmet law as applied to CityCycle." See http://helmetfreedom.org/668/we-werent-born-yesterday/ for a link to the 'Behind-the-scenes' documents. I also heard that when Scuffham's NZ research failed to support the law, the NZ government funding bodies rejected the first two drafts, so it had to be re-written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorre (talk • contribs) 21:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I can see the advantages of rewriting this as a simple summary, for example: "Two government-funded reports use meta analyses of Case-control studies, predominantly non-Australian data, to justify helmet laws[refs]. Critics argue that the Case-control studies methodology is known to produce biased and misleading results[refs]." These reports don't base their conclusions on Australian data, so a simple summary with reference to where people can find more info on the debate, seems appropriate.--Dorre (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the three chief things we need to be careful of are 1) accurate representation of sources (I don't like block quotes stylistically but have used them a lot in my edits so the sources can speak for themselves) 2) avoiding even the appearance of bias or insinuation in the article's discussion of sources (or else the whole article loses credibility) and 3) not letting this (and the other helmet articles) devolve into endless he-said-she-said lists of who's objecting to what. My personal criterion for a cutoff on that sort of thing is: does the refutation or questioning come from a peer-reviewed piece of scientific research in a reputable journal, a neutral news source, or something with that level of (relative) professionalism and objectivity? And/or, has a source/study/figure actually been proven wrong, versus there merely being an argument that it's potentially wrong--because for that we could probably dig up arguments anywhere for anythingNelsonsnavy (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Since every source we're examining is using data gathered in the light of huge variables and speculation, we have to accept that every report trying is going to be easy to criticise and debate (and it's easy to claim every report ever written is guilty of bias of some kind). As we've pointed out on this page before, this entry needs to be free of editorializing or else it will become an unreadable mess. Dsnmi (talk) 01:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, sort of. Since we are documenting a controversy we cannot hope to avoid quoting arguments. We can and should present the controversy in an encyclopaedic manner; this means stating the most salient facts and elements of the controversy, insofar as these appear in Reliable publications. These should appear in a logical sequence and less-salient points can appear as references or (if they're side-tracks) not at all. This is after all an encyclopaedia article not a full formal review. All of this requires editorial judgement, which I hope we have, and consensus, which I hope we will achieve. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

And Dorre's suggestion above seems like a good starting point, certainly an improvement on the over-detailed version at present. I'd add a link to the main Bicycle helmet page. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've just done it. I hope everyone likes it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Empty Cells, Damned Half-Truths and Pseudo-Statistics ?

Anyone have a link to this paper so we can read it? Is there some physical copy or transcription we can access to verify its contents? See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources" Nelsonsnavy (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyone found evidence that this exists in published form, either electronically or physically? If not, it needs to be cut per Wiki guidelines, above.Nelsonsnavy (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I downloaded the published version before the PATREC website went down. Ian Ker, a very well known bicycle planner and advocate in WA, is Principal, CATALYST, Consulting in Applied Transport, Access and Land Use Systems. Why not ask him for a copy?--Dorre (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

There's also a link at http://www.cycle-helmets.com/ker-perth.pdf--Dorre (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The point is that Wikipedia requires the use of published sources that can be accessed by anyone without emailing the author.Nelsonsnavy (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Bicycle helmets in Australia#Bicycle_usage: trends before and after helmet compulsion

This strikes me as over-detailed at the moment, bearing in mind that changes in bicycle use happen all the time and only tell us something about helmet if helmet use is also changing. What about:

"Before helmet laws were passed, in the mid to late 1980s, cycling was increasing in popularity. In 1991, in metropolitan Melbourne, 1.3% of journeys to work were made by bicycle.

The enforcement of helmet laws in the early 1990s was associated with a drop of roughly one-third in the number of cyclists. By 1996, in metropolitan Melbourne, only 1% of journeys to work were made by bicycle.

Since then, the amount of cycling has increased again, especially in some metropolitan areas that have made extensive provision for cyclists. In metropolitan Melbourne, cycling trips to work increased to 1.6% in 2006.The population of Australia has increased more than the amount of cycling, and in 2011 the number of cycle trips per person over 9 was 24% lower than it had been in 1985/86.

The number of bicycles sold has also increased, with over 1.3 million bikes sold in 2010, a 67% increase over 2001. Half of Australian households now own at least one bicycle, and today, "more people in Australia are cycling than ever before", if only occasionally. 1.93 million people cycled at some point in 2008, "representing a 21% increase in cycling participation since 2005 and a 34% increase since 2001." There appear to be many more bicycles sold in Australia than are used. "

Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The main thing we need to remember is that the article is about bicycle helmets in Australia, not the changing number of cyclists. Short or long term, any changes could be attributable to a variety of factors. Almost all of the section, as it stands, could (and probably should) go since it revolves around implication and innuendo, with, afaik, only one scholar (Robinson) actually asserting explicitly that the law reduced the number of cyclists. Instead of trying to make or recreate some elaborate argument, I would just say, in essence, "One scholar claims the law reduced the number of cyclists; others (Hagel et al.) dispute that conclusion." End of story. Otherwise we get into an endless round of statistics that have no direct bearing on the topic of the article.Nelsonsnavy (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, some scholars find data that shows a reduction in cycling, though there's only the one controlled study (no data for any others). Hagel and Pless mention an "alleged" reduction, but that's about as far as that disagreement goes. They disagree at much greater length with the suggestion that this has implications for health. Not that I'd know, but, maybe, that many people did become that keen in in-line skating at that time.

There is no single right text in this area. Based on the points raised by others in the debate about bicycle helmets in Australia, I think the above is quite good; it very briefly gives the main facts used in this part of the debate. It's also a lot shorter than the present version. I do agree that, actually, the trends since helmet legislation tell us almost nothing about helmets, but, as I say, these figures are used as part of the debate. Anyway, thanks for your comment; I hope for a consensus and, possibly, an even better version. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the data presented for the near-term does not, in the sources cited, clearly establish a causal link; it's ultimately merely suggestive. Because of that, if the article is going to go the route of presenting cycling figures, we need in fairness to include equally detailed long-term figures since presumably some readers will want to know what, if any, long-term effects the law might have possibly had on cycling levels. Either way, I see our duty as editors not as that of reporting (or engaging in) a debate per se, but rather reporting on the topic at hand with relevant sources that meet Wiki guidelines. I.e., sources should not be restricted to or unduly emphasize those that partisans use in their arguments merely because they're part of the partisan debate. Nelsonsnavy (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The near-term effect of the helmet law is best demonstrated by the interviews, questionnaires and telephone surveys about how much the law had affected people's cycling, e.g. that 51% of NSW schoolchildren who owned a bike said they didn't cycle in the past week because of helmet restrictions, and the figure equal to 64% of adult cyclists in WA who said they would cycle more except for helmet restrictions. These results have been published in peer-reviewed journals.

The effect is also demonstrated by strong supporting information from observational surveys of cycle use immediately before and after the helmet law (to avoid confounding with long-term trends) at the same sites and time of year (64 sites in Melbourne, 120 in NSW), with observations taking place over several days to average out variation in the weather, and by the automatic counters on the bridges in WA. Observational surveys immediately before and after helmet laws are very similar to the results of the interviews, questionnaires and telephone surveys about how much the law had affected people's cycling.

I've no objection to reporting long-term trends. The main problem with Richard Keatinge's version above is that census data for any particular area (e.g. metropolitan Melbourne) can be heavily influenced by the weather, so potentially biased. The two most reliable sources of long-term trends are the census data for the whole country (to average out any local fluctuations in the weather) for trends in cycling to work, and the comparison of the 1985/85 and 2011 National surveys.

If the section needs to be abbreviated, I would argue that all references to small areas like metropolitan Melbourne should be dropped, with long-term trends illustrated by census data for the whole country, and by the National travel surveys of 85/86 and 2011.

Are some people trying to distort the facts? The Australian page reports: "In 2011, a national survey of cycling by persons aged 9 or over found a 21% increase in cycle trips between 1985/86 and 2011, compared to a 58% increase in the population aged 9+ years. The per capita increases from 1985/86 were therefore reversed, with a further 24% reduction in the number of cycle trips per person compared to 1985/86 levels."

The version on the 'Bicycle Helmet' page was changed to: "By 2010, the number of cyclists in Australia was at an all-time high. Cycle commuting to work and full-time study increased from 1.1 to 1.5% modal share between 2000 and 2009, and "2008 saw the largest ever increase in people riding their bikes," a 34% increase since 2001.[72] In 2011, a national survey of cycling by persons aged 9 or over found a 21% increase in cycle trips between 1985/86 and 2011. In the same period there was a 58% increase in the population aged 9+ years. Cycle trips per person was 24% less than 1985/86 levels"

Although the above is true, it's confusing - people have to think twice to realize that in 2011 the total number was higher than before, but well down on per-capita levels before helmet laws were introduced. Then Nelsonsnavy changes the date from 2011 to 2006!!!!! It's really sad to see all the important and relevant facts being distorted and deleted.

If, as Nelsonsnavy argues, the data as presented does not clearly establish a causal link, why not present the data that does - the interviews, questionnaires and telephone surveys about how much the law had affected people's cycling?--Dorre (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If I inserted an incorrect figure in a text, I apologize. I'm not sure what "2006" you're referring to, though, so I don't know how to fix it. However, as long as I'm quoting directly from a reliable source, that's valid information. As to single-city information from Melbourne that you suggest should be cut, recall that one of Robinson's articles drawing the conclusion that the law reduced cycling relies on data, in part, from two specific cities: one of them is Melbourne. So, do we cut references to her article, too?Nelsonsnavy (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No. This is an encyclopedia not a full academic review. But I echo Dorre's suggestion that "all references to small areas like metropolitan Melbourne should be dropped, with long-term trends illustrated by census data for the whole country, and by the National travel surveys of 85/86 and 2011." Let's keep it simple. If, as I suspect, editors are getting confused with more of the details then readers are almost certain to do so. Can Dorre suggest a brief paragraph? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

For this article, as I've argued before, we only need post-law trends insofar as they are put into debate.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding: this article is not about a debate, it's about Bicycle helmets in Australia. There's no reason whatsoever to limit ourselves to what some people have debated about; the goal is rather to report on the topic at hand in a neutral, encyclopedic manner using reliable sources. Certainly someone not involved in the issue and wishing to learn more from this article might well want to learn about both short- and long-term trends in cycling numbers from a variety of sources, regardless of who's debated about them or used them in a debate. As to the earlier point, it makes no sense to drop data for major metropolitan areas (e.g., greater Melbourne) given both their size and the fact that they have served as primary sources of data for at least one paper arguing that cycling numbers have fallen as a result of the law. What is good for the proverbial goose should be good for the gander, no?Nelsonsnavy (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

We are trying to write a reasonably compact encyclopedia article and it's not about cycling in Australia, it's about bicycle helmets. The post-law trends are not scientifically very illuminating about our present subject and limiting ourselves to a single national set of figures seems a reasonable editorial choice. Indeed if it wasn't part of the debate there would be a very good case for leaving this peripheral information out entirely. On the other hand it's entirely appropriate for the appropriate main article, namely Cycling in Australia, which could benefit from expansion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Not comprehensive

I appreciate that a lot of work is being done on this article, but currently is a real struggle for the reader to follow the line of thought and the lead does not provide a clear enough summary. I found the 5 February version clearer structured, i.e.

• (1) direct effect on head-injuries and other injuries as direct result of helmet usage (i.e. neck, etc),
• (2) indirect effect of increasing risk of accidents (less bicycles on the road, increased risk taking, etc),
• (3) overall effects: lost health and environmental benefits as result of less cycling.

The lead should at least mention that most evidence indicates the effect of reducing bicycle usage (1990s usage statistics before and after law introduction, 2010 Melbourne bike share helmet supply effects, 2011 surveys of potential users). --ELEKHH^T 00:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there isn't a huge focus and it's difficult for the reader to follow. But the edits you're suggesting strike me as exactly the kind of bias that the redrafting of this article is attempting to avoid. For example I'm not aware of any evidence that there is an increase in the risk of accidents due to Australian mandatory helmet laws. There are those who talk about risk compensation etc but that discussion belongs on the main article about bike helmets unless there is specific Australian studies that can be cited as evidence.

With regards to the effect of laws on cycling participation, the evidence should be presented equally on both sides since there is definitely no consensus. The drop in cycling after the helmet laws was enacted should definitely be highlighted but there is no actual evidence that the low usage of the bike share scheme is related to helmet laws. It's been put forward as one of a possible number of reasons but no actual evidence connecting bike helmet laws and Melbourne's bike share scheme has been published (to my knowledge).

The issue is clearly contentious but this article should stick to reporting facts as much as possible and not presenting a biased view one way or the other (and avoid editorializing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnmi (talk • contribs) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It strikes me as sheer blindness not to see the evidence: (1) the Melbourne bicycle share scheme has been described as the first in a country with compulsory helmet laws and also has the lowest usage compared to other schemes, (2) once helmets were provided at subsidised price (AUD 5.-) in convenient locations usage doubled, (3) in numerous forums in Melbourne people expressed that they are deterred by mandatory helmet laws and surveys confirm this. It is beyond my comprehension how can one pretend "there is no actual evidence".

The forums are basically anecdotal evidence but if there have been surveys taken by reputable sources and the data is available to link to here then it should definitely be included because it would constitute verifiable evidence that the helmet laws are adversely affecting the bike share scheme. Until this evidence is produced, blaming helmet laws for the low rate of the bike share usage is still just a theory and can't be presented as fact. The doubling of usage once helmets became available suggests it wasn't helmets but the availability of helmets that was the problem. At the moment the paragraph on the page related to the Melbourne bike share scheme covers the situation well. Is there any evidence that it's the lowest used bike share scheme in the world by the way? I know it's below average but I've never seen any data saying it's the lowest. Dsnmi (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding general knowledge about helmet usage (i.e. link between overall bicycle usage and accident rate, link between helmet usage and risk taking), if relevant to Australia, I don't see why exclude. Shouldn't be the article providing a comprehensive overview?

The article shouldn't be a comprehensive it should be specific to Australian bike helmet laws and usage and their impact on Australia. There is a separate page about bike helmets which should be a comprehensive look at helmets and their impact and there's not need to duplicate the discussion here. To compare to another controversial issue, the wikipedia page entitled Capital punishment in Texas focuses on the issue of the death penalty in Texas and doesn't discuss the pros and cons of the capital punishment, it links to the relevant page. Dsnmi (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

When you say "evidence should be presented equally on both sides" sounds like the aim is to spread doubt and confusion. I think all evidence should be presented with due weight. --ELEKHH^T 03:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Evidence should be presented with equal weighting on both sides because attributing weighting to some evidence constitutes bias. Who gets to decide which evidence has the most weight? The role of this page is to present the evidence and a link to the source of the evidence. The decision about weight should be in the hands of the reader not the writers of the article. Yes that does mean this page will be confusing but it's a confusing issue with no clear consensus. The important thing is that we present what evidence we can find and let that evidence speak for itself as much as possible. This page shouldn't be promoting the idea that helmet usage and mandatory helmet laws are good or bad, it should be presenting evidence as it stands.Dsnmi (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to agree with all concerned. The evidence that helmet laws reduce cycling is fairly good though imperfect - this is science we're talking about, science doesn't do certainty. I'm not aware of any significant evidence against the idea. (I'd be very interested to hear of any.) I'm also not aware of any serious scholarly criticism so, arguably, there is a scholarly consensus on the issue, and even a strong (Kiwi) advocate of helmet laws agrees that "more people would ride bikes if they did not have to wear a helmet". But there is a strong party line which opposes any reconsideration of the helmet laws. We can present the evidence and, as dsnmi says, leave the reader to decide, and this may be the simplest way to achieve an editorial consensus here. We could also, quite reasonably, introduce the evidence with a comment to the effect that "enforced helmet laws probably reduce cycling". Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that we should avoid duplication, so far as possible, and we should keep a comprehensive account of the main scientific points on Bicycle helmet. Duplicate presentations are a nuisance and not, I think, what a good encyclopedia does. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

To give an example of the potential problems Dsnmi calls out: one editor says, "The evidence that helmet laws reduce cycling is fairly good though imperfect." One could argue that all-age helmet laws are extremely limited worldwide, and scholarly peer-reviewed studies of the effects on cycling numbers on countries where they've been enacted are also thin on the ground. I.e., it's too early to draw that conclusion. Much of the argument re: Australia, for example, relies on two articles by the same author, at least one of which makes the blunder of confusing correlation with causation. So, right there we have two differing interpretations of the same thing.

What "blunder" would you mean? Bear in mind that the interesting thing about correlations is that when appropriately analyzed by the Scientific method they can provide evidence on causation. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

But as Dsmi rightly says, "Evidence should be presented with equal weighting on both sides because attributing weighting to some evidence constitutes bias...This page shouldn't be promoting the idea that helmet usage and mandatory helmet laws are good or bad, it should be presenting evidence as it stands." On an issue of partisan debate such as this, editors need to be doubly careful to present a broad picture from a variety of sources, whatever we think about the sources or their arguments. That's why this sort of thing: "We could also, quite reasonably, introduce the evidence with a comment to the effect that "enforced helmet laws probably reduce cycling" should not in any way be condoned. That would be entirely inappropriate.

It is possible to identify a scholarly consensus on this sub-point, with no identifiable disagreement, so it might be appropriate and would certainly make things clearer if we summarize that consensus. But we would need editorial consensus to insert it. I'm not quite clear why you object? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I object because a) it's an ongoing political debate with multiple viewpoints--i.e., the issue has not been "solved" and b) it is unclear that there is scholarly consensus here because the scholarship is apparently very limited: the relevant section of this article seems to reference peer-reviewed articles from recognized scientific journals by a mere two authors, Robinson and Cameron. That's not remotely a broad scientific consensus. To answer your earlier question: "What "blunder" would you mean? Bear in mind that the interesting thing about correlations is that when appropriately analyzed by the Scientific method they can provide evidence on causation." True, they can provide such evidence. That doesn't mean they automatically do based on limited data in one paper. Robinson's article on Australia rather jumps the gun.Nelsonsnavy (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

As to duplication, there is now much of it between this article and the main bicycle helmet article. We should choose one or the other for the main presentation of Australian cycling numbers.Nelsonsnavy (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Here, definitely, for the limited set of numbers that illustrate the debate on helmets. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Correlation vs Causation

If helmet laws are introduced and cycling goes down - that's correlation. But if, at the same time, people are asked, and they say they have reduced their cycling because of helmet laws, that's evidence of causation. I've summarized the results of the interviews, surveys and questionnaires as a separate section in order to make this clear.--Dorre (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a mess again.

This article spent a brief period of time coming close to conforming to Wikipedia standards but has blown out again to become a tangled mess with more opinion than fact. Clearly another rewrite is required.

Can we agree on the criteria before we start trying to redraft it? For what it's worth I think we should submit studies and data without including any criticism. Everything ever published about helmet laws has been criticised by a blogger or writer somewhere and then their criticism has been further criticised. I think it's best if we reference published studies on their own without needing to go into all the conflicting information.

We should also include the latest census data (2011) which has just been released.

Dsnmi (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

We should certainly get rid of straightforward opinion - for example, you correctly removed "The committee had made its decision prematurely." Perhaps a comment that the law remains controversial would be useful, there is no shortage of references for the existence of strong opinions. But we cannot have tendentious remarks made in Wikipedia's voice; they must go.

We should also give an account of the process that led up to the law, and here I think you may have removed rather too much. The quotations etc of those actually involved at the time could perhaps be put back in.

The global scientific debate is indeed best placed elsewhere. As criteria for including any of it here, I suggest: scholarly analyses of Australian data and substantive scientific discussion of those analyses in the Australian context. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I wondered about removing the process leading up to the law but concluded there was too much detail for a page about helmets in Australia. There is probably a happy compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnmi (talk • contribs) 05:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)