Talk:Bicycle helmets in Australia/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

My Tidy Up - Redux

[The following edit relates to an article edit in relation to the "My Tidy Up" topic, though the reasons given refer to the reasons given relate to the unconnected "Information on enforcement" topic - see the "Unfortunate Confusion" topic below. As additions to this section are continuing, I have inserted the above "My Tidy Up - Redux" topic header to separate it from "Information on enforcement". Hopefully this will help folk navigate and allow the "Information on enforcement" topic to continue without being usurped by this one.

I will return later to respond to the comments below. Kiwikiped (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)]

I've reverted you again. This is an encyclopaedia, not an essay-hosting website. We are supposed to be authoritative and to present all points of view. If we cannot do that then we should say nothing. Phrases such as "For example" are classic of the essay style that should be avoided, as is your rough-draft disclaimer in the message just above this one. If there is doubt, say nowt.

If someone wanted to write the article Bicycle helmets in New South Wales then the info might be due weight there; it is not here. - Sitush (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry Sitush, what on earth are you talking about? What rough-draft disclaimer? What has this got to New South Wales? Are you confusing Colin at cycling proposed inclusion of fine data with the few lines bringing the article up to date? What has been written is certainly not an essay! If you are now making the argument for no references (a version which you also reverted, that time on the grounds of lack of discussion time), then please do so. I'm sorry but your actions just don't make sense, what am I missing? Kiwikiped (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The rough-draft disclaimer is ... by including wording along the lines of "Information for other States and Territories is not readily available, and may be higher or lower than those quoted." The NSW thing I mentioned was because Colin was citing figures for NSW and not for Australia, giving undue weight and loss of focus. "Essay" is not necessarily about length but about style. I'm afraid that I am away in Wales again from early-ish Friday (GMT+1) until late-ish Sunday - web access is pretty much limited to a smartphone. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Sitush the things you mention are all to do with this topic "Information on Enforcement", the edit you have reverted is to do with a different topic altogether! I think your confusion arises as you originally reverted two different edits on different topics by different editors - that is now covered here in Talk in two separate threads.

Can you please undo your accidental reversion.

We can discuss issues over "Information on Enforcement" separately, like Richard Keatinge I think you are wrong on this one and this needs to be resolved. But let's sort out this accidental reversion first! Kiwikiped (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, maybe even probably. It has been a long day and my meds may have kicked in a bit more so than usual, for which my apologies would be due as it would be entirely my fault. Trying to determine your "see talk" with a message from you that references New South Wales etc probably didn't help things, but shit happens. Nonetheless, the phrasing is still wrong and the conclusion is not justified. Find a source that says they were not organised/are much better organised. WP:OR and, yes, essay-like - we should not use phrases such as "for example and we should not draw our own conclusions. - Sitush (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Apology accepted, but you really need to revert. You are in danger of adding the extra RD to BRD that is warned against. The edit draws no conclusions, that is the whole point - indeed one early comment was that is was balanced when it should not have been! The discussion has all centred around the selection of the references. The edit doesn't mention NSW at all! And I know of no objection to the phrase "for example" in an encyclopaedia, especially as used here to refer the reader to other sources of information on a controversial issue in a neutral way. Kiwikiped (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has reached no consensus about anything and when there is no consensus you should not add the material to the article. What has happened is that people have gone off on tangents, mixing multiple issues in one thread. That has been a feature since your arrival here a couple of weeks ago. I have been consistent in saying that people need to find a source that summarises multiple research papers etc, that the research needs to consider Australia as a whole, that we cannot arbitrarily select a couple of papers when there are so many saying so many different things, and that we say nothing unless there is consensus. Indeed, the saying nothing is precisely why I removed a large chunk of the material just prior to your arrival here. I can't find any such overview using Google but there must surely be one: Australian newspapers are a likely source but very few seem to be available online, perhaps due to paywalls. - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

[The convention is to always thread/nest so that the flow of posting can be seen. However we are already a few levels deep so at this point I am resetting to the left edge to make things easier.]

(With apologies in advance to Tim C ;-)) Sigh.

What is it about this topic which so encourages going around in circles, stubbornness, etc., etc.? Previously when faced with the endless merry-go-round so beloved of editors in this forum I've ended up resorting to a detailed analysis and history to make the games and rule violations obvious, and fortunately we've been able to move to conclusion. I considered doing so again, but frankly I doubt it would help with the particular three positions now prevalent.

Let's see if we can really wrap this up. So much trouble over three (currently two, one at best postponed till a later date) sentences! To keep things short I'll comment on just two things Sitush writes:

That [confusion] has been a feature since your arrival here a couple of weeks ago.

Seriously?? Sitush nixes two edits, on different topics, by different editors, and starts confusion. Later he nixes a later edit, giving reasons completely off topic, and places the Talk comment in a different topic. On his talk page Sitush writes "Whether confused or not, I'm still correct." And then after having apologised, making reference to medication, indicating he will be away for a few days, comes back after a few hours, continues with multiple postings, and implies that somehow the identity of the person whose edit he reverted caused him to start all the confusion? Words fail. Probably violates a Wikipedia policy, or three, as well but let's skip the legalese.

Sitush continues:

...people need to find a source that summarises multiple research papers etc, that the research needs to consider Australia as a whole,....

The argument simply does not stand up, Australia is a federation of States and Territories, they have their own laws, their own priorities, etc.; but they are all Australia and share federal law. Does an article on America, with a similar arrangement, have to only quote sources which cover all 52 States? Of course not.

We will soon have a Federal election [1]. If, say, Tasmania decides to run a referendum at the same time with the question "Do you support the continued existence of the bicycle helmet legislation" should that and its outcome be reported in this article? Surely yes? Except by the rules Sitush is choosing to impose, and I see no consensus for this position, it will not be allowed. This appears to make a mockery of Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia.

In my opinion, in dealing with this topic, given the strong opposing views, one needs firmness, but not stubbornness - accept in being resilient to the inevitable slings and arrows, in the pursuit of NPOV. I fear a kind of inappropriate ownership WP:OWN is being enforced without consensus - there are now three distinct positions held by regular editors of this article.

Let's move to the topic at hand, a brief history of the edit:

1. On visiting this page after some time I found it much improved, I wrote:

It's good to come back to this page and see it vastly shrunk and more readable. The edits have resulted in a few rough edges

2. These rough edges were things out of order, a few wrong words, a duplicate reference, etc. So I tidied up. Just a litte janitorial effort.

3. Once the janitorial work was done I noticed that there was a chronological omission, the article did not report the present day situation. I thought I could address that with three short NPOV sentences... Yes, as I've had cause to remark on this forum before, I am a fool sometimes...

And the merry-go-round started up...

However we need progress, not continual blockading, so...

Let's move forward!

I am going to make another, so-called "bold", edit based on the following reasoning:

A. The article has a chronological gap, it does not report the present day situation. Wikipedia should be up-to-date.

B. It is incontrovertible that Australian academics/researchers continue to produce research whose conclusions fall into too broad categories - research that is supportive of helmets laws, and research that is unsupportive. The debate continues in Australia (as it does elsewhere, but that is not for this article to mention).

My proof, as if one is needed, that this is the case: Forget CARRS-Q and de Jong for now; and Rissel, and Olivier et al; let's just pick two others: Church and Robinson.

Church & Robinson both are Australian academics/researchers and have peer-reviewed publications in this area, one tends to conclude that helmet laws work the other that they do not. And if that is not enough, both Robinson & Church (order swapped to be fair, I'm expressing no preference) have produced work critiquing work by other authors whose conclusions tend to be opposite to that of their own work. For them to be able to do this there must be work for them to critique! The debate continues (among all the above named and others, not just Church & Robinson). QED.

C. Sitush expresses a strong dislike for providing any actual examples unless they meet his own self-imposed criteria. While this does not follow normal Wikipedia practice, where references are made to support the facts presented, he is most insistent on this point - indeed to the point of appearing to claim the right to veto the article contents in possible violation of WP:OWN. While the motivation for this position may be for the good, I disagree, and think Wikipedia will be the poorer for it, but such is life. No examples will be included.

Of course I've offered a version without references before and it was vetoed with the remark "BRD is the argument" - which might be fine accept that WP:BRD makes it clear that BRD is not an argument in itself but a process... Kiwikiped (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunate Confusion

Above there are two separate threads "My Tidy Up" and "Information on enforcement" on different topics relating to text by different editors. Unfortunately the issues started with some confusion as Sitush reverted both separate edits as a single action, and while the threads were separated there are still comments in the wrong thread after that point. To err is human and collectively we did so here.

Unfortunately when the BRD process for the first thread came to its natural end and I added the resultant text, which was the original text, into the article Sitush unintentionally reverted that edit giving as reasons issues to do with the second, unrelated topic. Sitush has apologise for this confusion, referring to a medical issue, but his ongoing comments do not fully add up (e.g. ongoing references to NSW). This is a somewhat delicate situation, Sitush has made a valuable contribution to this and other articles on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not the place to be discussing his personal circumstances. On the other hand we cannot have the BRD process confused and edits revoked with invalid justification. Sitush has also indicated he will be away for a few days. I am sure we all wish him well and hope he is feeling better by the time he returns.

On his talk page Sitush has suggested that he intended {{Essay-like}} rather than WP:ESSAY in doing the reversion, but if I have untwined the threads correctly and then he might have been meaning {{Tone}}, but I of course cannot be sure of that. This is in relation to the final part of the edit only, which refers to the recent organisation by the opposition which pairs with a comment in the History section. If that is the issue, while it should have been raised in the BRD process, it is down to my choice of language and it can certainly be dealt with. I will look at rewording keeping that in mind, even if {{Tone}} is not a concern there should be no harm in such a rewording.

I will separate the edit into two, one on the continuing academic debate closed by the BRD process above, and one of the organisation of the opposition. Kiwikiped (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

AGB McNair survey

Is this the "1989" AGB McNair survey that is currently tagged as requiring a full citation? - Sitush (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments on "My Tidy Up" and "Information on enforcement" Threads

In re-instating the de Jong reference, Kiwikiped appears to have overlooked my comments of 30 June:

"As previously noted by TimC, the Newbold paper was a critique of the de Jong paper, and was published on the very next page to the de Jong paper . . . I agree with TimC and dsnmi, who have previously noted that the de Jong paper should not be cited without also citing the Newbold paper, and that neither paper should be mentioned in this article." Linda.m.ward (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Why must people on this thread insist on playing these games? Linda.m.ward anybody reading these talk pages can scroll back up to the "My Tidy Up" topic, see that you raised this issue, it was not overlooked but responded to in detail and you were invited to propose an alternative paper. You choose ignore that response and inivatation and the thread fell silent for almost a week. Wikipedia has rules about continually bringing up the same points and using the Talk forums to stymie progress on an article. Please stop playing games. Kiwikiped (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

In asking (at 22:28 on 30 June) "Are reliable cyclist-population counts available to pair with fine counts?", Kiwikiped appears to have overlooked this info I had posted about 10 hours earlier: "According to ERASS surveys, in 2010 there were 603,500 cyclists aged 15 and over in NSW. 6,537/603,500=1.1%".

Dorre had previously commented: "I'm not sure everyone would agree that 10,000 cyclists receiving fines every year in a state of about 4 million people represents a tiny fringe."

According to the ABS data I have been using, the population of NSW was about 4 million in 1991, and about 7 million in 2005 and 2010.

I have been unable to find any info on the total number traffic infringement notices (TINs) issued in NSW, some rough calculations using the limited data I have been able to find:

• In 2006, the NT had a population of about 300,000, and 40,265 TINs were issued (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mediareleasesbytitle/7B014525F342327DCA257212001A210A?OpenDocument).
• According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle#Australia, in January 2011, the car ownership rate in Australia was 73%. So there would have been about 73%x300,000=219,000 cars in the NT, and about 1 TIN per 219,000/40,265=5.4 cars.
• The 6,537 helmet fines issued to the estimated 603,500 cyclists in NSW (in 2010) works out to 1 helmet fine per 92 cyclists.

Linda.m.ward (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, onto the "Information on enforcement" topic. Linda.m.ward I did not overlook what you posted, indeed as you know I went on to write to Colin at cycling:

"Furthermore any figures quoted should be the latest available, for example Linda.m.ward has pointed out that there are more recent figures for NSW, these clearly must be used rather than older ones."

If my wording of "Are reliable cyclist-population counts available to pair with fine counts?" was confusing my apologies, and I will clarify: Are reliable cyclist-population counts available to pair with fine counts for which there is consensus agreement? Numbers of fines issued will be an official count, they are either available or not. Cyclist population counts probably come from surveys or are estimated some other way, and it is quite possible that the validity of such surveys/estimates may be questioned by one party or another. So the question is are there cyclist population figures for which there is consensus agreement on their reliability? I am simply trying to find whether there is something that the various editors can agree on. Kiwikiped (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Kiwikiped claims that my request for a declaration of any interest/s with respect to the BHRF is filibustering, and that I have "gone off on a tangent", introducing some of my "pet whipping posts, which are completely irrelevant". Around the time that Sitush was pressing Dorre and Colin at cycling to declare any relevant interest/s, Sitush noted that "Dorre is a potentially misleading name for a WP:SPA account because a person called Dorre Robinson does much more than just 'cycle for transport'. I'll probably raise the issue at UAA or COIN when I get home." Asking that Kiwikiped declare any interest/s with respect to the BHRF is neither filibustering nor (completely) irrelevant. Linda.m.ward (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Back to the "My Tidy Up" topic. Raised and responded to. I selected two papers as representative of recent academic work in Australia that has come to different conclusions - anybody can read the conclusions and see that. I have repeatedly stated right from the start that is the only reason they were selected, that anybody can suggest alternatives and if there is consensus over them they may be used. I have made it clear that I am not arguing that either paper is right or wrong, I am not pushing any barrow. Yet you keep trying to divert attention away from the issue at hand. Please stop playing games it does you no service. Kiwikiped (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You do not have consensus to add even those which you have selected. When another single-purpose account turns up at this controversial article after a long gap and starts making bold edits then, especially given the fact that there are already numerous overly-involved contributors, suspicions are inevitable, WP:AGF or no AGF. That's human nature, although I've no idea whether there is any rational basis for it. Me? I'm not concerned about potential motivations but am rather just trying to keep the focus and prevent this thing deteriorating once again due to subjective selection of sources. Whether now or in six months' time, we'll just end up having this source selection debate all over again unless we find a way to keep a lid on it. And the optimum lid is an overview. So, please find that overview source rather than - randomly or otherwise, well-intentioned or otherwise - selecting a couple. - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

See "My Tidy Up - Redux" above, no need to repeat stuff here. Kiwikiped (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Kiwikiped has accused me of choosing to ignore the invitation to nominate an anti-helmet paper that would merit being referenced in the article. This claim is as arrogant as it is baseless. I was writing a response explaining why none of the 'anti' papers that I am aware of hold up to scrutiny, when 'somebody' cut through a fibre link (in Queensland), and Darwin dropped out of cyberspace for several hours . . .

With respect to Rissel

• The BHRF site claims that Rissel's 2010 paper showed that "Helmets were not the main reason for the drop in head injuries in Australia since helmet laws were introduced. General improvement in road safety from random breath testing and other measures were probably the cause.", however this paper was retracted more than 2 years ago (due to numerous errors identified by Tim Churches).
• The (2011) paper by Walter et al., using the same methodology, and data from the same jurisdiction (NSW), found that helmets were indeed (p<0.05) the main reason for the drop in head injuries.

(Given that errors identified by Tim C resulted in the retraction of the Rissel paper, and a whole-of-article corrigendum for the Elvik paper, Kiwikiped's previous description of Tim C as a "seeker of insignificant errors" seems more than a little odd.)

In various papers, Robinson has claimed that

• cycling reduced by 30-40% as a result of the helmet legislation
• after taking injury reductions in other road users (eg. pedestrians) into account, cyclist head injuries did not drop by as much as the drop in cycling

In the 2006 article, Robinson cites injury data from an SA study by Marshall et al., but fails to note that participation data in the same study showed that

• consistent with the findings of the Finch/Vic study there was no reduction in the level of adult cycling as a result of the helmet law
• consistent with the findings of Finch et al., there was an approximately 40% reduction in cycling to school
• there was no drop in overall cycling, because the reduction in cycling to school, which comprised only 20% of cycling in that age group prior to the helmet law, was accompanied by an increase of equivalent size in cycling to/around other venues.

Injury data from Vic, NSW and SA all indicate that there was (little or) no reduction in cycling as a result of the helmet law. As does the census ride-to-work data, and the SA cycling participation household surveys. Povey et al. made the point that contrary to a claim by Robinson that the helmet law reduced cycling, there was no evidence of any such reduction in Kiwi-land (NZ). (An analysis by Kiwi BHRF editorial board member Nigel Perry used injury data for all Kiwi cyclists, even though the helmet law applies only to on-road cycling, did not take injury severity into account, and concluded that the helmet law failed to improve cyclist safety. This finding is at odds with the results of the Povey study, and data from another Kiwi study by Tin Tin et al..)

Robinson's 2006 article also contained a number of 'inaccuracies' with respect to the study by Carr et al.

• In noting a 40% drop in the number of cyclist head injuries, Robinson claimed that "the authors could not tell whether the main cause was increased helmet wearing or reduced cycling because of the law".
• Carr et al. had in fact noted that after taking into account a number of factors that may have influenced cyclist head injuries, the major part of the reduction in both number and severity of cyclist head injuries was attributable to the helmet law.
• Robinson claimed that "Non-head injuries bell by almost as much as head injuries, suggesting the main mechanism was reduced cycling, with perhaps some benefit from reduced speeding and drink-diriving".
• The hospital admission data in the Carr study actually showed that pedestrian head injury dropped by 20%, cyclist non-head injuries dropped by 25%, cyclist head injuries dropped by 40%, the proportion of serious/severe cyclist head injuries dropped by 40%, and the number of serious/severe cyclist head injuries dropped by 60%.

With respect to the study by Marshall et al., in addition to failing to cite the data that indicated that there was no reduction in (overall) cycling, Robinson

• Failed to note that Marshall et al. had found that after accounting for changes in exposure and hospital admission policy, the helmet law could be linked to a 12% reduction in cyclist (potentially preventable) head injuries in the year after the law compared to the year before the law, and a 25% reduction when the 2 years either side of the law were compared. (As pointed out by Hynd, failure to take severity into account would under-estimate the actual reduction.)
• Instead, expressed cyclist head injuries as the proportions of cyclist injuries, to support the claim of "no clear response" with respect to helmet wearing. Given the (large) reduction/s in concussion admissions due to the policy changes (which Robinson did note), expressing the head injuries as proportion of total injuries will produce a biased result that underestimates the actual helmet effect.

Curnow's outrageous cherry-picking with respect to cycling participation has recently been highlighted by Tim C, a further example is contained in Robinson's 2005 paper: "Curnow (2005) compared 1988 (before any helmet law) with 1994 (when all states had enforced laws); cyclist, pedestrian and all road user deaths fell by 35%, 36% and 38% respectively; head-injury deaths fell by 30%, 38% and 42%. Thus, despite helmet legislation, the reductions for cyclists were no greater than for other road users." It beggars belief that a "senior statistician" cited/accepted without question, a single year comparison either side of the law. ATSB data shows that between 1992 and 1994, compared to 1987-1989, the number of pedestrian fatalities fell by 28%, and the number of cyclist fatalities fell by 45%.

Robinson's 1996 analysis found that the risk of dying of head injury per million hours was 0.19 for cyclists, 0.34 for pedestrians, and 0.17 for car occupants. The finding that cyclist are less at considerably less risk than pedestrians, and are at about at the same level of risk as car occupants is hugely at odd with a (2010) study by Tin Tin et al., and data published by the UK Department for Transport Statistics (DfTS). Tin Tin et al. found that in NZ between 2003 and 2007, the average number of serious (AIS>2) injuries per million hours spent travelling was 6.2 for cyclists, 1.0 for pedestrians, and 0.8 for car/van drivers. The UK DfTS data shows that in 2011, cyclists comprised 1.0% of the kilometres travelled and 13% of reported road deaths and serious injuries; cars/taxis comprised 78% of the kilometres travelled, car occupants comprised 37% of reported road deaths and serious injuries. This data suggests that the risk of death or serious injury per kilometre travelled in the UK is 27 times higher for cyclists than for car occupants.

(In Robinson's 2001 article, Robinson claimed that Povey et al. "did not fit a time-trend in their models". Povey et al. noted that cyclist limb fractures reflects both the amount of travel done by cyclists and changes to the cycling environment, which include changes in the nature of cycle use and safety improvements in the overall road environment". It seems that Robinson did not realise that including a limb injury effect in the model was doing what Robinson describes as "fitting a time-trend'. The only time I have enountered an expression such as "fit a time-trend" is when it has been used by Robinson. In the modelling methodology I am familiar with, and teach, trends are not 'fitted', models are fitted, trend effect terms are included to improve model fit.)

As (more recently) noted by Tim C, the fact that de Jong resides in Australian is irrelevant, the evaluation does not include any Australian data.

Linda.m.ward (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back to cyberspace Linda.m.ward. Now I know you did not suggest this, but let me assure you anyway, it wasn't me who cut the fibre ;-)

Levity aside, I'll let the chronology speak for itself.

You have given a long replay detailing your POV, and I know and respect your passion for your POV. But there is an opposing POV as well. In both POV groups there are academics, medical doctors, and probably bakers etc. And we all know there are folk in the POV opposite to yours that could write a long and detailed statement pointing out errors, omissions, etc. in the output of your POV group. And even if we exclude all output which solely pokes holes in particular output of the opposing POV, there is still research with opposing conclusions. This is why the debate continues in this one corner - the efficacy of helmets and/or helmet laws - and the debate is actually wider than that - people make arguments and disagree with each other over, for example, legal and rights issues in this area. Denying there is such a debate is just untenable and not something Wikipedia should do - this article needs to be NPOV.

Now, and I've said this before, both POVs lose the plot in Wikipedia - its a human trait, especially when views are held so passionately, but one we must strive to curb, particularly when it descends into attacking the people rather than the arguments. On this occasion the POV opposite to yours choose not to lay into CARRS-Q and demand it not be referenced, and I'm sure they could write an argument against it if they so choose - just as detailed and passionate as the ones against de Jong made by you and TimC. But this is not the place for such debate and original research by either POV camp.

Of course this part of the discussion is now moot - there is a third POV in the ring now, and that person has vetoed CARRS-Q as well. I would have given both POVs one reference, it is usual Wikipedia practice to provide references to support the facts, but I've been overruled and there are no references - which at least meets neutrality. Time to move on.

And, permitting myself a POV statement, a single cable up to Darwin? It's meant to be a network, one cut should not isolate Darwin. Go demand a second - I'll back you! Kiwikiped (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Nix The Whole Article?

(Added a header, I think Colin at cycling is starting a new topic. Kiwikiped (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC))

I am not at all sure the topic is suitable for Wiki to cover. As far as I know Wiki reports topic where the evidence is clear. Some of the evidence relating to bicycle helmets in Australia is not very clear in one way or another. I would probably suggest deleting the whole topic. In any case the present article is not a NPOV in some respects. It does not cover issues properly and fails to convey points where agreement has not occurred. It could be better to bin the article than mislead the public. A few examples may help. No info on fines or changes in cycling levels caused by imposing legislation, it mentions the claim that helmets reduce injuries by 40% or conveys indication that they may but the claim came from 1987 when most helmets were hard shell, no longer in common use, but it does not explain this aspect. Issues via Wiki seem to be suppressed rather than resolved. Wiki cannot provide original research so it cannot make real progress. Details of articles supporting legislation are included but little information conveyed directly of any opposing view. what does Wiki say about covering topics were the evidence may be unclear in some respects?Colin at cycling (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The evidence is clear and we can all agree that there are mandatory helmet laws in Australia, which I believe is enough to warrant an article. The fact that there are helmet laws isn't disputed so the nature of the laws and a history of their introduction and implementation should be agreed upon.

Obviously what's not clear is the exact impact of those laws on cycling numbers and on cyclist safety. This article needs to find a way of addressing this with a NPOV. That's the challenge but it's definitely not worth deleting the entire article simply because it's a big challenge that we haven't rise to yet (but have taken great steps towards). Dsnmi (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The article doesn't have to address the impact of the laws. Really, only those opposed to the laws want it to do that. THAT'S where all our POV problems come from. HiLo48 (talk) 06:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Much of the articles relates to the helmet laws and several papers have been published together with various other reports. looking at the sections and contents, e.g.

'Because Australian bicycle helmet laws came into effect before such laws were enacted elsewhere, much of the data about mandatory bicycle helmet use comes from Australia'

'History: lead-up to the laws'

'Two Decades On[edit] Two decades after the introduction of the first mandatory helmet laws in Australia the debate is still ongoing as to the merits'

Research[edit] 'Empirical studies of helmet use by injured cyclists were published from the late 1980s, some in Australia, both before and after helmet legislation.'

'Legal requirements'

Clearly if all references to the helmet laws are removed there is not much left.

Seriously, to report the issues is not that difficult.

They expected reduced fatalities and injuries, based on claims of halving the fatality rate and 85% / 88% reduction in head or brain injuries, both claims later revised down considerably. They did not take account of the health implications if people cycled less. They assumed that seat belts and motorcycle helmets were similar in some way to cycle helmets. They had vested interests who could gain from being the first to legislate and gain a potentially larger market share for helmet production. Cycling groups were not sure that legislation would be enforced even if introduced. After legislation the authorities noted that cycling had been reduced so limited surveys and made the issue less clear than it could have been. e.g if all none wearers stopped cycling there would be a 100% wearing rate but focusing on the wearing rate of 100% would take attention from the reduction in cycling. Victoria published results from 64 survey sites in Melbourne, representing 640 hours of surveying. NSW had extensive surveys. Only one report used survey data and related to accident data in the immediate years following legislation, Robinson 1996. The data presented strongly indicated that safety had been reduced, Australia does not have annual survey information on overall cycling activity levels therefore they cannot be sure about the accident rates per billion km. Road safety, age profile of cyclists have tended to change over time making it difficult to evaluate helmet effects in isolation. Added to this the accident rate appears to have increased with helmet use. Plus extra provision for safe cycling has been provided and cycle training has increased. Thousands of fines had to be issued and the level of fines increased substantially to deter people from riding without helmets. Australia failed to provided a full health and safety assessment of the changes that occurred. 20 years on the vexed issue continues because the safety case is questionable, high fines are imposed, civil liberties reduced and around the world most countries can enjoy their cycling without having to imposed legislation. Australia does not want to admit it was a mistake.

One problem is that helmet believers or supporters do not accept the facts and wish to avoid providing the details, that is why so much is disputed. Colin at cycling (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You really need to be more careful about what you call facts. I like the old expression "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". Many here avoid the second of those criteria like the plague. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Despite repeated requests to declare any relevant interest/s, Colin at cycling has avoided like the plague stating whether it is true that he is Colin Clarke (long-time Brit anti-helmet campaigner). Clarke's (NZMJ) article, purportedly about the effects of the helmet law in NZ, 'overlooks' many facts that do not support his claim that the helmet law did more harm than good. (Having encountered such material in their literature review, a competent and objective researcher would have reported these critical facts in their article.)

Clarke's NZMJ article

• Cites census-type data from 1989-90 and 1997-98 as evidence that the helmet law as responsible for a drop in cycling, yet provides no data from around the time that the law came into effect, in 1994.
• Fails to note that before/after surveys designed specifically to measure the effect of the helmet law showed no evidence of any reduction in cycling as a result of the helmet law. (Povey et al. noted that the surveys showed a 'gradual' 20% decrease in cycling in the 2 years PRIOR to the law. Pucher and Buehler have noted that in the UK between 1982 and 2006, per capita cycling (kms) reduced by 40%.)
• Uses injury data from a study by Tin Tin et al. to show that between 1998 and 2006, cyclist (overall and serious) injury rates (per time unit cycled) increased by more than pedestrian (overall and serious) injury rates (per time unit walked).
• Fails to cite injury data from the same study by Tin Tin et al., which shows that

• for serious injuries (AIS>=3), between 1998-91 and 1996-99

• there was a 62% reduction (p<0.05) in the cyclist serious traumatic brain injury (TBI) rate for injuries with no motor vehicle involvement (MVI)
• a 76% reduction (p<0.05) in the cyclist serious TBI rate for injuries with no MVI
• no reductions in cyclist arm injury rates (with or without MVI)

• for less serious (AIS<3) hospitalised cyclist injuries, between 1996-99 and 2003-07, there was

• a 33% reduction (p<0.05) in the TBI rate for injuries with MVI
• a 51% reduction (p<0.05) in the TBI rate for injuries with no MVI
• a 273% increase (p<0.05) in the arm injury rate for injuries with MVI
• a 222% increase (p<0.05) in the arm injury rate for injuries with no MVI

Colin Clarke is a campaigner with the CTC (http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaigns/right-to-ride/rep/mr-colin-clarke), a British cycling organisation that has "long campaigned against helmet laws" (http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaign/cycle-helmets-evidence). It would be rather detrimental to the (British) anti-helmet cause if the "truth were to be let out of the bag".

Linda.m.ward (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The above is useful for Wikipedia in that it emphasizes the lack of any scientific consensus. Plus, the unlikelihood of Sitush's unbiased review turning up any time soon. I don't think it amounts to an argument for deleting the whole article, but we do need some NPOV way to deal with any scientific issues. Sitush, do you have any better ideas for dealing with the situation? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Right now, my only idea is that Kiwikiped needs to slow down. They've refactored stuff on this talk page, they obviously think they know more about policy than their contribution history would suggest is likely, they have breached BRD on several occasions and I'm now completely confused about who is saying what and where. This is probably the worst intervention I've ever experienced by someone who clearly knows what they are doing even though their contribution history is minimal. The refactoring, in particular, is a nightmare. I'm almost tempted to take it to WP:SPI or something similar. There is a nasty smell, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It has been stated several time that Colin@cycling has no substantial conflict of interest in regards to the article. Anyone opposing helmet laws will probably not gain from possible reduced helmet sales or is unlikely to gain in any other way.

If the ID is provided by one person should it not be provided by all wiki editors? I am happy to use my name if a Wiki requirement applies for all editors. I think a clear Wiki policy is needed to avoid some from using pseudonyms and others using their own names.

Details of a NZ report I would suggest could be a distraction from the topic.

Colin at cycling (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

'Large' deleted - 2 citations provided were to Vic 1991, Walker NSW. In NSW 25% wore helmets pre law and for Vic about 30% roughly, using 'large' may give a wrong impression. Colin at cycling (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Colin, people know who I am in real life and, yes, I have bugger all interest in cycling. I'd be surprised if I've ever contributed to any discussion about cycling anywhere in my 50 years, other than childhood chats related "big" expeditions from my home to that of my uncle some 70 - 80 miles distant. You could track me down easily enough but if you want confirmation of who I am then ask some [former] admins, such as Drmies, who have some past involvement in my on-wiki activities. And, for your records, Simon Tushingham, Manchester (UK), born 1962, degree in history-without-statistics-or-advanced-maths, once-keen walker ('til my hip blew up), liked my bikes until my ankle got screwed in my late teens, on-wiki interests primarily related to the Indic sphere. Happy now? Take a trip over the Pennines and get my signature if you wish - there are wikimeets in Manchester from time to time. Indeed, I am in this photo at one.

As for your comment regarding removals, any studies restricted to one state are dangerous things in this article: different laws, different times etc. I've said all this before and, frankly, am getting fed up that people riding various hobbyhorses cannot see the blindingly obvious point that this article is not about X or Y state/territory and thus that selecting certain areas is bound to be undue weight. Your conflict of interest may not be commercial but it is represented through your advocacy role with the CTC and your extremely obvious POV. - Sitush (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Sitush you might be "fed up that people riding various hobbyhorses cannot see the blindingly obvious", but unfortunately that is because you are yourself riding a hobbyhorse - and, while it's nothing to do directly with the subject of this article, it is effecting the content of this article and will undoubtedly over time raise the ire of both the pro-law and anti-law camps. There is nothing in the subject of this article which requires the nature of Australia to be treated differently. Australia is a federal system consisting of a collection of States and Territories where:

state parliaments retain all residual legislative powers, including those over schools, state police, the state judiciary, roads, public transport and local government

(Emphasis added, Territories are slightly different in that their actions can be overruled, but this difference is not essential to this argument.)

This article is about Bicycle Helmets in Australia, which in turn is a collection of States and Territories with their own laws and priorities etc. One consequence of this is that central government was not able to introduce bicycle helmet legislation itself, it had to ask the States and Territories to do that - and, yes, there is even controversy over how they did the asking! The various bicycle helmet laws are not even the same, well enough how they are viewed and enforced. E.g. If Tasmania wants to determine the effectiveness of its child care system it doesn't initiate, either itself or through the cooperation of the other States and Territories, a nation-wide analysis - it looks at its situation. If Queensland decides to run a campaign against drink drivers and measure the results it doesn't require it is nationwide. Same goes for bicycle-related issues.

Sorry, but it is you that is failing to understand the realities, not others failing to see the "blindingly obvious".

You have introduced a third POV, and at some point or other you're likely to receive the ire of one of the other two, and it could well be justified. If, say, a report is published which throughly analyses the helmet legislation's effect over the last 30 years (pre & post to show the effect) in Victoria one of pro/anti camps will want it mentioned and the other will want to publish all the holes that have been found in it. It is hard to argue that such a report, if it is ever produced, should not be mentioned, but your POV would block it.

Now of course, given the opportunity, each of the pro/anti camps will "cherry pick" results that they like. That is not a reason to demand the impossible based on a false understanding of Australia, but to monitor and make sure they do not - hopefully they are self monitoring most of the time, by working through issues in Talk. When one camp picks an out-of-date number, and the other camp points this out, you can remind the first of their obligations - you will probably be criticised of course, just don't take it personally. If some State/Territory hasn't looked at some issue you don't allow the inference that it has. Hard? Yes. Slings and arrows? Plenty.

You have done sterling work in cutting out the dross, for which you are to be applauded - while I noted the mess previously, I wasn't prepared to take it on. But you are now in danger of marring that legacy by enforcing your own POV, which far from being "blindingly obvious" is in fact quite the opposite. Kiwikiped (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the details provided, your point of view is made even clearer and this helps in understanding. I tend to agree with a slow approach. Unfortunately what exist are mainly state reports about their helmet laws. A few national reports may be accessible. They are state laws. It would be like trying to write a wiki page ‘bike helmets in GB’, but Wales or Scotland or NI may have different histories, trying to lump them together may not be the best approach.

You say; Your conflict of interest may not be commercial but it is represented through your advocacy role with the CTC and your extremely obvious POV.

The CTC position is not anti helmet but pro choice. Most countries or states/provinces are either pro choice or some pro legislation for children. My position is strongly pro choice, like the CTC but I can take my own position. I do not see a conflict of interest in a person taking this position, at least less conflict of interest than being pro helmet or pro legislation. They would be advising either using a product that has some know risks or supporting removing freedom of choice, again with know public health potential disadvantages.

I do not really agree that having a pro choice point of view or writing reports on helmets or helmet laws constitute a ‘conflict of interest’, it primarily slows an interest in the topic and supporting civil liberties. Admittedly Wiki publishing information that conflicts with an author’s view may lead to disputes. It is part of the difficulty in dealing with the topic but all information should be considered. For Wiki to provide a NPOV it should be aware of all points of view.Colin at cycling (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You are obfuscating again. Pro-choice equates to anti-legislation, and that is precisely what your edits have been reflecting. That you then also deploy such an emotive term as "civil liberties" makes your position even more evident. You really, really should not edit the article again: get consensus here and then ask someone else to add/remove/amend the info, just as happens in WP:BLP situations.

I have already said - and probably more than once - that if someone wants to write an article about, say, bicycle helmets in NSW then the reports relevant to NSW might be applicable. Note: might and note that you almost certainly should not write it. - Sitush (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If possible the focus needs to be on the subject and not the editors, but your comments have been noted.Colin at cycling (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, I presume you meant to write that Linda.m.ward, Dorre, Tim C and Colin at cycling (and others) should all not edit this article again. So you are proposing that the article be deleted after all?

None of these people (and others) should be required to withdraw, between them (and others) is a huge amount of knowledge. Sure they each have a passion for their POVs, and passion blinds sometimes, but they just need to focus that passion on seeking consensus and balance to achieve a shinning example of NPOV cooperation. Sure, the article went off the rails, nobody seems to disagree with that. Stage 1 was acknowledging that, stage 2 was cutting out the dross - and Sitush you swung the scythe with vigour. Stage 3 is carefully filling in any gaps, smoothing out any rough edges while continually striving for consensus and balance. And keep it concise and readable folks! Kiwikiped (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Kiwikiped, I've changed the position of your response because yours came after Colin's and yet, for some reason, you chose to place it above his, making his comment look somewhat odd.

Dorre should certainly take care and I've said that previously (again, in part because they chose to obfuscate their advocacy); Linda's efforts since my involvement seems to be almost entirely on this talk page, which is appropriate if there is a POV on the scale of, say, Colin's; similarly, Tim seems mostly to confine contributions to this page. I have said that if people keep adding without consensus then I will seek full protection, and you would be advised to bear that in mind given that you are continually attempting to insert unsourced or poorly sourced information. I have never said that this article should be deleted nor would it ever be because it is clearly a notable subject - I've no idea where you got that impression from because it is ludicrous. - Sitush (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, you misunderstood: these experts (and the others not mentioned by name) make the bulk of contributions here, sure reaching consensus on Talk first is good, but if they're all enjoined not to make the final actual edit then you could end up with an empty article... hence the clearly failed light-hearted remark before I went on to make the argument in the following paragraph. My fault, badly worded levity, apologies.

As to "continually attempting" and papers from QUT and Macquarie being "unsourced or poorly sourced information"... And did I not propose right at the start to delete the references to papers and you rejected that? Words fail, again. Kiwikiped (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

History: lead-up to the laws

One part states; A report from the Australian Department of Transport in 1987 examined cycling accident victims and found that "of the unhelmeted cases involving severe head injury, over 40 percent would definitely have had an improved outcome if a substantial bicycle helmet had been worn". It also found that, while "children do have substantial protection from impacts to the head when wearing a bicycle helmet, it is likely that substantial head deformation occurs in a major impact due to the stiffness of the bicycle helmet liner in the Australian Standard bicycle helmet." It recommended changes to the standards, in particular softer foam, which were not implemented.[17]

I have expanded the details to include information allowing the reader to understand the claims better.

A report from the Australian Department of Transport in 1987 examined 171 cycling accident victims and reported 19 to be serious. Helmets used at the time were mainly hard shell heavier types that are no longer in common use for cycling. It estimated that of the unhelmeted cases involving severe head injury, over 40 percent would definitely have had an improved outcome if a substantial bicycle helmet had been worn, 8 cases from 19 serious. It also found that, while children do have substantial protection from impacts to the head when wearing a bicycle helmet, it is likely that substantial head deformation occurs in a major impact due to the stiffness of the bicycle helmet liner in the Australian Standard bicycle helmet. It recommended changes to the standards, in particular softer foam, which were not implemented.[17]

I think this explains the findings better, any suggestions to make it clearer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.121.28 (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

We have recently had a long, tedious debate about ideas such as yours. Basically, it is not going to happen. If the current statement should be removed then that is a different issue, but we are not going to start re-introducing loads of statistics any time soon. - Sitush (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Given your location, I suspect that you forgot to log in. Please try to remember. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the auto log on stopped working, not sure. The 1987 report was discussing mainly heavy hard shell helmets that are no longer generally used and it could be removed. Any views?.Colin at cycling (talk) 00:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide definite data that the helmets in question are no longer used? Can you provide a wikipedia approved reference that shows the number of heavy hard shell helmets used in 1987 compared to the number used today? Dsnmi (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Corner 1987 report page 87 provides details of the 18 helmets, approximate mass , 8 at 550 grams, 2 at 740g, 1 at 400g, 5 at 300g, 2 at 190g. From the table it appears that 16 of 18 had hard shells. Current standards have a limit of 700g. I will fish out other information shortly.Colin at cycling (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Curnow reported in 2008 "In 1996, a leading Australian manufacturer said, “The helmet industry has certainly changed over the past 16 years and bicycle helmets are now a consumer product. Heavy, bulky style hard helmets have virtually been replaced by the lightweight aerodynamic micro shell styles that we see today. In fact the bicycle helmet industry has become almost a fashion industry and this is all related to consumer demand. The original Rosebank Stackhat outer shell thickness is 3 mm whereas the products manufactured today are approx. 0.7 mm thick.”[49], see page 156, 'Bicycle helmets: a scientific evaluation',Curnow WJ. Transportation Accident Analysis & Prevention, Nova Science Publishers, Chapter 6. 2008. Other information could probably be found but would take a little time on another day.Colin at cycling (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Mildly interesting. Perhaps I could ask, is there anyone apart from Colin who thinks a brief remark on this subject to be a worthwhile element of this article? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

From a Wiki point of view it does not want to be providing information that may tend to mislead. E.g a reader may assume that helmets provide about 40% protection, but this estimate was for the older hard shell helmets in 1987 and only applied to 8 from 171 cases examined. It could be changed to being more representative of the findings or it could be replaced with something like. Research from Australia and elsewhere indicated that helmets may provide protection to that part of the head covered and their use was intended to reduce serious head injury or deaths. There is probably no need to refer to the 1987 report.Colin at cycling (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so the proposal is to cut the paragraph down to something like :"A report from the Australian Department of Transport in 1987 found that, while "children do have substantial protection from impacts to the head when wearing a bicycle helmet, it is likely that substantial head deformation occurs in a major impact due to the stiffness of the bicycle helmet liner in the Australian Standard bicycle helmet." It recommended changes to the standards, in particular softer foam, which were not implemented."

Cutting down seems a more promising approach. Any comments on this idea? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The Corner report of 160 pages covers a number of issues. Two bits are selected for Wiki. It was not a critical report in promoting helmets but it probably contributed towards legislation. Dorsh 1987 probably had more influence. The 40% estimate needs properly explaining if included and the soft foam is unclear why it was not included in the standards. So, why include Corner at all? I would suggest something like - "Research from Australia and elsewhere indicated that helmets may provide protection to that part of the head covered. Helmet promotion and later legislation appeared to have the combination of potential gains from injury prevention and commercial aspects from manufacturing and sales." In Victoria they included cost estimates for both elements in their pre law report. Walker detailed that pre law 72% of cyclists in NSW did not have lights at night, if safety had been the key driver for legislation, why would they allow 72% to ride without lights, a legal requirement.Colin at cycling (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

That strikes me as unsupported conspiracy theorising. "Helmet promotion and later legislation appeared to have the combination of potential gains from injury prevention and commercial aspects from manufacturing and sales." What you mean is that it appears that way to you. There is no evidence of any nexus or association between the surgeons and injury researchers who were pushing state governments to introduce the helmet laws, and the helmet manufacturers or importers or retailers. Nor is there any evidence that any Australian government was trying to create a market for bicycle helmets in order to make "the helmet industry" (or "Big Helma" as one anti-helmet activist refers to it as, by analogy to "Big Pharma" pharmaceutical industry attempts to influence doctors). This sort of stuff doesn't belong in WP. Tim C (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The (2013) analysis by Bambach et al., of the (6745) cyclist collisions with motor vehicles in NSW between 2001 and 2009 where helmet use was known, suggests that if the 40% is misleading, it is because it underestimates the protective effect: "Helmet use was associated with reduced risk of head injury in bicycle collisions with motor vehicles of up to 74%". Linda.m.ward (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Can Colin at cycling provide a reference that contains evidence to support the assertion of commercial gains? Linda.m.ward (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. So, taking one point at a time, would anybody object if I cut the paragraph down as above? Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, obviously I object to inclusion of any stat-based material of this type. This is bloody stupid and is just going to result in still more POV pushing. Go do it somewhere else. - Sitush (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to repeat myself, I am trying to glide lightly over the disputations while extracting any useful encyclopaedic points that may happen to arise; may I remove the clause indicated? Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I've just removed the lot: no consensus = no mention, and there is clearly no consensus for inclusion practically any stats in this article. In the unlikely event that agreement is reached regarding weighting, phrasing, reliability etc then they could be reinstated. I think flying pigs (with or without helmets) are more likely. - Sitush (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to try and provide some answers to the above comments. http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7manuais/colin_clarke_cycle_helmet.pdf, appendix B5 mentions the gains expected to manufacturers in Victoria, $7.9 million in the first year and $2 million thereafter. Any person can buy shares in helmet producer, medical professionals may have know that legislation had been given a green light before the general public or had a better understanding or events. The details of who had shares in helmet producers is never likely to be made public and not suitable for Wiki to discuss perhaps - best left alone.Colin at cycling (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

So, User:Colin at cycling, you are suggesting that the surgeons and injury researchers involved in lobbying for mandatory helmets in the 1980s may have engaged in insider trading? If so, could you please make those suggestions somewhere else, not on WP, not even on these Talk pages. The BHRF web site carries material that impugns the integrity of researchers - see for example the reference to Hynd et al. on this page http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1047.html which describes their work with the words "Despite attempts to manipulate the results..." - they might be willing to publish your suspicions. Tim C (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments summarized as "manipulating" the results were originally made by one of the researchers involved. I hope this helps. Now, back I trust to comments that actually progress this encyclopedia... Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources under "Research"

The material reinstated by Kiwikiped is not acceptable. There are 2 Robinson references, yet no mention of the MUARC, NSW/RTA, SA DoRS, UWA or UNSW studies. As noted by Sitush, there is no consensus, the material should be (re-)removed. Linda.m.ward (talk) 09:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Linda.m.ward, Sitush deleted no sources, therefore I added no sources in reverting his edit. The sources that are there date back sometime, offhand I've no idea of their origin. If you wish to make an argument here that the list of 7 sources should be revised then do so and seek consensus for a change. Kiwikiped (talk) 10:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it. Also feel free to resolve some of the tags that are present - I inserted them some time ago, raised at least one of them here on this talk page, and yet people are so obsessed with one particular aspect of this that they are not seeing the wood for the trees. Go fight the pro- and anti-helmet battle some place else. - Sitush (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Information on enforcement

I included the following information on fines, with 3 citations, that was removed without sufficient reason being provided, please explain.

"Victoria issued more than 19,000 fines ($15 each) for not wearing helmets in the first 12 months of their helmet law. In 2005 almost 10,000 cyclists in NSW were fined for not wearing a helmet but that number has reduced. In 2013 fines are now $176 in Victoria and lower in other states. Colin at cycling (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

For starters, why did you select only these areas? - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You may have questions, but having questions is not sufficient reason to undue posts. If you asked the questions first and did not obtain reasonable information then perhaps it would give grounds to undue a post.

The article states: "Mandatory helmet laws were first introduced in Victoria in July 1990, followed in January 1991 by laws for adult cyclists in New South Wales and all age-groups in Tasmania." The first piece of information related to Victoria and the info is on the web for anyone to check out. "Victoria issued more than 19,000 fines ($15 each) for not wearing helmets in the first 12 months of their helmet law.

The second reference: "In 2005 almost 10,000 cyclists in NSW were fined for not wearing a helmet but that number has reduced. can also be checked

The info on fines provides a useful comparison between when the law was first introduced and current levels.

If you can provide sound reasons why the information should not be included we can discuss these. No reasons have been provided so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin at cycling (talk • contribs) 17:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sitush (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC wrote "I've reverted your latter change and the likely more problematic survey added by Colin, who has a considerable POV. Surveys are problematic and need discussions before addition, as per my previous comment in the section above. I'm now away for a couple of days, so that should provide some time for people to talk. - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)"

it stated "A survey in Victoria reported that eighteen percent of respondents did not know that legislation was being introduced. A lower awareness amongst adults was noted."

A survey in Victoria from 61% of respondents who already owned a helmet, reported 84% in favour of mandation. Eighteen percent of respondents did not know that legislation was being introduced. A lower awareness amongst adults was apparent. Thirteen percent reported they would either cycle less or not at all. AGB Bike helmet survey published May 1990. The articles states "Opposition was fragmented and ineffective; no major cycling groups opposed the law in public" It is good for the public to be made aware that a proportion of adults did not even know that the law was being introduced. Therefore it is understandable to a degree that opposition was fragmented. It raises the question about the public consultation process and if the public were given suitable information or the topic suitably discussed in the media. Again if good reasons can be provided why this information should not be included they can be discussedColin at cycling (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

With no good reasons provided why the information, ""A survey in Victoria reported that eighteen percent of respondents did not know that legislation was being introduced. A lower awareness amongst adults was noted." I intend to reinsert shortly.

Similar with no good reasons being provided for not including the following information, "Victoria issued more than 19,000 fines ($15 each) for not wearing helmets in the first 12 months of their helmet law. In 2005 almost 10,000 cyclists in NSW were fined for not wearing a helmet but that number has reduced. In 2013 fines are now $176 in Victoria and lower in other states. Colin at cycling — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin at cycling (talk • contribs) 08:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Colin, you have a POV and you have previously demonstrated a selective approach on matters relating to this article. You'll have to excuse me if I do not assume good faith but I think it is a reasonable position in the circumstances. Asking a question was a perfectly valid thing to do and removing the content while awaiting an answer was equally so: you have brought these misfortunes on yourself. So, I ask again: why did you choose those particular regions? And I say again: those surveys are not going back in this article because there was no consensus as recently as a week or so ago. - Sitush (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, I cannot assume that you act in good faith because you have shown bias in my view with your previous comments and replies. Prior to you joining the discussions a lot of material was being discussed and the contents were lengthy at more than 9000 words but included significant details. Quite a few people had worked on the contents. You admitted not knowing what was right or wrong but taking bold steps with your view and in your assumptions of good faith. You removed most of the content to arrive at a short version of a few aspects, not covering the issue properly, at currently 775 words. The points I raised;

1 “ Victoria issued more than 19,000 fines ($15 each) for not wearing helmets in the first 12 months of their helmet law.” No one has disputed this information in the Talk section or in previous discussions.

2 In 2005 almost 10,000 cyclists in NSW were fined for not wearing a helmet but that number has reduced.[9] No one has disputed this information in the Talk section or in previous discussions.

3 In 2013 fines are now $176 in Victoria and lower in other states.[10] No one has disputed this information in the Talk section or in previous discussions. I explained; “The article states: "Mandatory helmet laws were first introduced in Victoria in July 1990, followed in January 1991 by laws for adult cyclists in New South Wales and all age-groups in Tasmania." The first piece of information related to Victoria and the info is on the web for anyone to check out. "Victoria issued more than 19,000 fines ($15 each) for not wearing helmets in the first 12 months of their helmet law.[4]” Data for some regions has been included in reports or published by the press. National data is generally not provided, so only a portion of the data is available. Wiki can only report data that has been published.

4 The other point I raised “A survey in Victoria reported that eighteen percent of respondents did not know that legislation was being introduced. A lower awareness amongst adults was noted.” You asked to be discussed in the Talk pages, I posted information without reply. The survey I mentioned “Bicycle helmet study AGB Spectrum May 1990” had not previously been discussed. You assume that no agreement on this survey could be found when in fact it had not been discussed.

So, really you are off the mark, in your approach and judgment, together with the underlying bias. I suggest the 4 points go to an independent evaluation to consider if they should be included. Colin at cycling (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yet again, I have to mention the issues of focus and weight to you. This article concerns Australia, not NSW or Victoria. What are the figures for the other areas? - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

After some days away it's good to see the standard of debate as well as the article itself improving. My spare time has been consumed (possibly I should declare these as indication of my outside opinions) by commenting on the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan on behalf of Beicio Bangor and Safe Streets Anglesey. I can speak to a couple of recently-raised points:

I originated the description of opposition to the laws as "fragmented and ineffective". I have no reference for it but I think it's pretty indisputably accurate and in combination with information from polls gives a useful picture of the situation at the time.

I agree that some comment should be made about the current state of opinion on helmet laws in Australia - solidly for in officialdom and its offshoots (civil servants of course must support the official view and are very unlikely to support any academic or group that even hints at opposition), large majority for among both general public and current cyclists, split among academics, strongly anti among small groups which in these days of the Internet I would no longer describe as obviously fragmented. For such a description I would suggest reference (maybe with a couple of important poll results) to: one leading academic paper for, one against, a couple of official remarks, at least a couple of polls (nationwide if possible, more local if not), and to Sue Abbott and maybe one other activist website.

Sitush, we may well find informed editors who are prepared to do their very best to achieve a good NPOV article. I hope that I am one myself. But I've yet to meet anyone at all who took a serious interest in this subject and came out both informed and totally neutral. The situation is even worse among those who are prepared to try evaluating the scientific papers; Occam's razor requires us to come up with a reasonably simple idea about whether helmets and laws are good/effective, the science (none of it methodologically perfect) gives very different answers depending on the details of methods used, and it's only possible to support such a reasonably simple conclusion by arguing that invalid methods have been used in studies that disagree. (Or, especially when connected with officialdom, by simply ignoring any work that disagrees with the official POV, not a promising habit for anyone trying to edit an encyclopedia.) Coming to such a judgement is the essence of what scientific training is all about. This is not a situation that conduces to interpersonal harmony and good will. Personally I suspect that true consensus will be reached only when everyone now arguing is dead and bicycle helmets are a very small footnote in specialist history textbooks. In the meantime I can only repeat to all concerned the famous request, as a matter of good scientific practice, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." Please, before making any edit, think how you might write it differently if you had become convinced that your original point of view had been wrong. In view of the difficulties this subject presents, I'm particularly grateful to Sitush for ongoing help with this article.

It would be difficult to dispute that figures illustrating the amount and impact of law enforcement are relevant to this article. Weight and focus are indeed important and all-Australia figures would clearly be best if we can find them. This is problematic since the laws, their enforcement, and any data collection are done by States/territories and not Commonwealth-of-Australia-wide. I do suggest that, until we can produce all-Australia figures, it's reasonable to include a small selection of figures from individual States or even smaller areas. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Figures and comparisons exist for at least 3 states - Victoria, NSW and Qld, where a majority of the population live. Dorre (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

We are not going to use different surveys/papers conducted at different times in different places and involving different laws, different weather conditions etc. Nor are we going to highlight certain states when the article is about an entire country. Sometimes articles just cannot be written in the way that you want them to be - live with it or go write somewhere else. End. Of. Story. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Rather than reopening the science argument here - there is an excellent argument for omitting it - I had in mind Colin's figures on the impact of law enforcement. He wrote "Victoria issued more than 19,000 fines ($15 each) for not wearing helmets in the first 12 months of their helmet law. In 2005 almost 10,000 cyclists in NSW were fined for not wearing a helmet but that number has reduced. In 2013 fines are now $176 in Victoria and lower in other states." These figures are limited in time and place, but they do give some idea of what the law meant on the ground, and they don't reopen the scientific issues. I'd have thought it desirable to include them or something like them. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

If you can find comparable figures for the other states, they had identical laws and fines, applied them with equal stringency etc then that would be ok. Otherwise, it isn't for exactly the same reasons I've been saying here for ages now, ie: (1) apples and oranges and (2) inference of cause and effect. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I do apologise for failing to make myself clear. The suggestion above includes no inference of cause and effect and no comparisons. It is a straightforward and, I think, uncontroversial description of certain things that happened as a consequence of bicycle helmet laws in Australia: some people were fined for not obeying the laws. I agree that all-Australia figures would be better, but in their absence I suggest that we could reasonably use what we have. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:DUE. Why the first 12 months for one place, 2005 for another. Why mention the value of the fine in one place but not another. Did the two places apply the same law and in the same way? (I seem to recall that the article suggested otherwise at one point). What proportion of the total cycling population do the figures represent? And so on. - Sitush (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't make myself clear either. We were talking about numbers of cyclists fined for not wearing helmets. I thought it was clear that numbers of cyclists fined (which, as I mentioned above have been reported for at least Vic, NSW and Qld) had nothing to with surveys. They were collated by the police departments, and have no more to do with weather etc the annual numbers of motorists fined for drink-driving! You were concerned that the 19,000 cyclists fined per year Victoria weren't representative of the entire country. Peer-reviewed research does indeed show that Qld had much higher rate of issuing penalties, but I'm happy with Richard's suggestion to report the figures for Victoria. I find it a bit weird that people argue Wiki shouldn't report indisputable facts on the numbers of cyclists fined for not wearing helmets. Any relevant, simply-presented info is better than nothing. 22:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorre (talk • contribs)

But you are still comparing apples and oranges, and you are giving no real context. Laws are introduced and people get caught in breach - that's the way of the world. Why the info about fines for one place but not another, why no explanation of the reduction in numbers etc. It is borderline sensationalism. No-one is denying the facts here: it is the context and the inference that is my concern. Plus, it is not even strictly necessary - go write an article for each state and then these figures and a lot of the surveys would have relevance in those specific articles. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy for info on fines for any/all states. My argument is simply that some relevant info is much better than nothing. Dorre (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Sitush, I think you're clearly wrong on this one. The suggested text gives the conveniently-available and reliable data on the mechanism and effects of enforcement of the law. Such information is an obvious component of an encyclopaedic article on any criminal law whatever. It doesn't make any inferences (correct me if I'm wrong but I don't see any.) Nor does it make any comparisons, nor as far as I know are any such possible comparisons a matter of dispute. In the spirit of WP:DEADHORSE I'll drop the matter at this point, but I do ask you to reconsider in your own time. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of falling of the right edge of the screen (you folks have had a busy few days) let me try to suggest a compromise. The article is about Australia, but to not report anything unless data is available from every State & Territory is a little extreme. Contrawise to report for for just a few locations leaving open (or maybe even hoping) for an unsound inference to be made is also not good. Would it not be appropriate when Australia-wide information is unavailable to state that, maybe with reasons? Now I don't know why fines data is currently only available for certain States Or Territories so the following text may be wrong but how about something along the lines of "Information for other States and Territories is not readily available, and may be higher or lower than those quoted."?

Some have mentioned the number of fines vs. the size of the population, a reasonable point surely. This seems harder to address in an NPOV way - is %age of the population or rate of issue more important? E.g. 10,000 fines might be a small or large proportion of the population, it's also - given that we all sleep - around one fine every 30 minutes. Quoting any of those is likely to be seen as biased by someone! As in just about the whole of this debate, what and how you count and what you deem important decides what results you produce. Are reliable cyclist-population counts available to pair with fine counts? Any consensus on what additional, if any, contextual information should accompanying fine numbers? Kiwikiped (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sitush has noted Colin Clarke's 'selective' track record, in response Colin has accused Sitush of bias and lack of good faith, and included this quote from some of the disputed material: 'In 2005 almost 10,000 cyclists in NSW were fined for not wearing a helmet but that number has reduced.[9]'

Dorre has argued that "I'm not sure everyone would agree that 10,000 cyclists receiving fines every year in a state of about 4 million people represents a tiny fringe".

A more complete quote from the cited reference, which was written in 2010, is

'The overwhelming majority of penalties have been issued to riders for not wearing a helmet . . . The number of cyclists who have been fined has been decreasing from more than 13,000 in 2005-06, to 10,807 in 2007-08 to 8866 last financial year, the latest figures from the government's fine collection office reveal. The figures also show that in 2005 almost 10,000 cyclists were fined for not wearing a helmet but that number has dropped to 6537".

According to ERASS surveys, in 2010 there were 603,500 cyclists aged 15 and over in NSW. 6,537/603,500=1.1%, I think that anybody not wearing BHRF-tinted glasses would probably think that 1% DOES represent a tiny fringe. Linda.m.ward (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Basically Australia has states helmet laws, the levels of fines vary and are open to the police discretion if they give a ticket. Some of the number of fines have been detailed for some states and for a selected years. Australian data covering the whole country has not been reported as far as I know because they are state matters subject state laws. The article has only two main section 'Legal requirements' being one but then it provides no information about the enforcement aspect. Some data has been published. Williams RESEARCH NOTE 17/94 EVALUATION OF THE NSW INTRODUCTION OF COMPULSORY BICYCLE HELMET LEGISLATION Meredyth-Ann Williams Page 13 Table 2 provides data for 1991, 92, 93, fines were 5.8K, 15.2k, 14k respectively. For Victoria the most widely quoted figure has probably been the 19k. Wiki can provide an indication of the enforcement aspect and this was my intention. It is one of the aspects that can be considered a fact, x fines were issued. Accident data can change due to several factors. Wiki would be providing facts on this issue. My view is of course this would be worth including.Colin at cycling (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

ps If I had been selecting data with the intention to focus on the least favourable data then the 1992 data for NSW would probably have been used but I mentioned more recent data indicating less than 10k fines, "In 2005 almost 10,000 cyclists in NSW were fined for not wearing a helmet but that number has reduced" In any case, I wanted just a brief mention and not heaps of detailsColin at cycling (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Colin at cycling, I made a suggestion above as a way forward on this impasse. To address Sitush's concerns any edit must avoid the possibility of invalid inference by including wording along the lines of "Information for other States and Territories is not readily available, and may be higher or lower than those quoted.". Furthermore any figures quoted should be the latest available, for example Linda.m.ward has pointed out that there are more recent figures for NSW, these clearly must be used rather than older ones. Are you willing to propose wording meeting these criteria? Or make an argument the criteria are wrong? Let's wrap this up! Kiwikiped (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Most comments indicates that some information on fines should be included and I suggest the following. "Fines for not wearing helmets vary from state to state and national data on the number of fines has not been published. One report detailed Victoria issued more than 19,000 fines ($15 each) for not wearing helmets in the first 12 months of their helmet law. A newspaper reported that in 2005 almost 10,000 cyclists in NSW were fined for not wearing a helmet but that number reduced to 6537 in 2009. http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/cyclists-getting-an-easy-ride-20101208-18px7.html ref>'Cyclists 'getting an easy ride' SMH http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/cyclists-getting-an-easy-ride-20101208-18px7.html</ref> In 2013 fines are now $176 in Victoria and lower in other states. Colin at cycling (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted you again. Aside from the simple fact that you should not be editing the article, your addition was still not policy-compliant for reasons that I have previously given. You should note that consensus is not a majority vote: any arguments for or against a position that do not comply with policy are invalid, as for example is Kiwikiped's suggestion added at 19:37, 4 July 2013. - Sitush (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Colin at cycling, my apologies. I know I joined this topic to see if I could help find a consensus acceptable to the three POVs represented here, and I did not ignore your last comment above. However what time I can give to this article has been spent recently on the last (as of writing) two topics on these Talk pages. I am hopeful that those two topics are on the cusp of consensus. After that I'll return to this one and see if I can help move towards that consensus. Apologies for not adding this note sooner. Kiwikiped (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I note the comments 4 July and above with thanks. I do not think the claimed COI is of sufficient merit to prevent me from editing in a NPOV. In some respects I am more aware of the pros and cons of published material having provided several reports, this is helpful in providing a NPOV. I think the last addition to the article was sound in reflecting recent information published for NSW and old information for Victoria. One reflecting the approach in the early years and how from a moderate approach to fines a change to high levels has occurred. Most comments reflect some information should be included. I detailed on Talk what was going to be included and suggested to discuss on Talk if any issue. Just reverting without suggesting improvements does not take us forward.Colin at cycling (talk) 06:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Colin at cycling, my apologies, its taken some time to come back to this. Hopefully other issues have now moved forward and we can move on to other things. From what I recall one group feels strongly that some reference to the level of fines is important, while another does not want numbers from different states for different years etc. I tried taking a step back and asking what does the issuance of a fine tell us? Well it means *at least* one person disobeyed the law,without telling us why of course. The "at least" tells us we have a lower bound - there may be more people fined but there certainly are not less. Furthermore one fine in, say, Tasmania is also one fine in Australia - so the fines in any State are a lower bound for the whole country so by using lower bounds you bypass the issue of not having fine numbers for a particular State/Territory. Whether using lower bounds for the Country will produce meaningful data I don't know, this is just something for you to explore. It will certainly depend on how much data you have - if it has been collated the fine data should be a matter of public record, so filling in gaps may be possible. Apologies for not offering much and taking so long. I am willing to work with all the editors here to try to find something you all are happy with if that helps you all. Kiwikiped (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Kiwikiped for mentioning this aspect again. I have not contributed for some time to this discussion. The article appears to be in a sad state. no details of the points being debated, no details of fines, no mention of civil liberties and the removal of personal choice, no details of cycling levels or the lack of national and state surveys to match pre law surveys, no information on accidents or head injuries. Incorrect information published. Probably misleading information provided. What a mess. With much of the evidence being disputed this means no agreement and omitting useful information. The article may never provide a proper balance and provide a worthwhile contribution but then I may be mistaken and something useful may appear one day.Colin at cycling (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)