Talk:Bicycle helmets in Australia/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Two Decades On - Redux

OK, we all know what this is about by now. After a tidy up I noticed a chronological gap which I sought to close with a short NPOV section. I included two references, one from each POV, and there was much discussion over one of those. An early proposal to delete both references was nixed.

Eventually a new version, without any references, and with modified wording was made - a new "bold" edit in Wikipedia terminology. As this was not a reversion but a new edit it terminates the previous BRD process, but is open to a new BRD process. We've since seen a proposal to add additional information to the new section - still under discussion. However Sitush has just reverted the new section, but forgot to start a new BRD here in Talk, so here it is.

The edit was

Two Decades On

Two decades after the introduction of the first mandatory helmet laws in Australia the debate is still ongoing as to the merits, or otherwise, of the legislation. Australian academics at a number of Australian universities have published research with conclusions both supportive and unsupportive of the laws.

Is there consensus from the pro-law & anti-law groups that this section, in as far as it goes (c.f. other discussion to extend it), brings the article up-to-date by stating the current situation in an NPOV manner and can be included?

(Note the BRD process is not meant to be a route to blocking process on an article either by silence or continually repeating the same arguments - e.g. there is specific warning against BRDRD... However as this is a new BRD I trust all here will allow some latitude on this point to others who wish to make a point they've made previously.)

---

I would suggest

More than two decades after the introduction of the first mandatory helmet laws in Australia the debate is still ongoing as to the merits, or otherwise, of the legislation with conclusions and views both supportive and unsupportive of the laws.

This allows for all views or conclusions to be included and not just academics.Colin at cycling (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Not to downplay the views of non-academics, but Wikipedia prefers authoritative sources etc. A key point is that peer-reviewed research has been produced by Australian academics, like it or not other views & conclusions are of secondary weight. Maybe you would like to suggest a wording which includes academic research and also other views? Also, just as it is being discussed above under "Suggested addition- The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons", if/when this section is re-instated you can consider suggesting additions to cover other areas. Anyway, let's see what others say. Kiwikiped (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't "forget to start" anything. There is no need to start a new BRD cycle every time you add what is fundamentally the same content: you should not reinstate it in the first instance. Your continued inaccurate comments concerning me are becoming wearisome. You needed consensus and as far as I could see you still did not have it. Furthermore, you need sources and when you have attempted to include some in your past efforts there were difficulties with your selection. Opening new threads and reinstating similar material several times over in the article does not make the achievement of consensus any easier: the first makes matters more confusing and might be viewed as tendentious editing, while the latter is basically edit warring in the face of the initial BRD issue. - Sitush (talk) 08:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

3 academics from Australian universities have published research that is (allegedly) unsupportive of helmet laws.

The Macquarie/deJong paper did not conclude anything with respect to helmet laws in Australia. De Jong said that "A (positive) net health benefit emerges only in dangerous bicycling environments under optimistic assumptions as to the efficacy of helmets and a minor behavioural response. Resolution of the issue for any particular jurisdiction requires detailed information on the four key parameters." Compared to places like Holland and Denmark, Australia is most certainly "a dangerous bicycling environment". De Jong does not define "optimistic assumptions as to the efficacy of helmets"; the Carr, Thompson/Cochrane, Attewell and Elvik analyses all showed that helmets are very efficacious for preventing/mitigating serious head/brain injuries. De Jong does not define "minor behavioural response", numerous data sources indicate that there was (little or) no reduction in (overall) cycling as a result of the helmet laws in Australia; the longitudinal Vic, NSW, SA and WA analyses indicate that the helmet effect would have vastly outweighed any "risk compensation" effect.

The USyd/Rissel paper was retracted more than 2 years ago, and 'superceded' by the UNSW paper/s (by Walter et al.), which showed a clear and sustained benefit. Re Rissel's criticisms of the 2011 Walter paper, in March this year the Australian Injury Prevention Network noted that "Recently a team of researchers at the University of NSW responded to criticisms which questioned the validity of their study on the impact of mandatory helmet legislation (MHL) for cyclists in New South Wales (Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2012, 45: 107–109). Extensions of their analyses confirmed the original conclusions that MHL had a beneficial effect on head injury rates over and above background trends and changes in cycling participation". (http://www.vision6.com.au/download/files/40328/1626727/AIPN%20Newsletter%2012%20March%202013.pdf).

That leaves UNE/Robinson. Sitush has previously commented something along the lines that if different analyses of the same data yield different results then something is rotten in Denmark . . .

The Vic/NSW/SA cyclist counts indicate that there was a reduction in cycling to school. The SA household survey results indicate that there was no decrease in overall cycling, because the reduction cycling to school, which comprised about 20% of cycling activity in that age group prior to the law, was accompanied by an increase of equivalent size in cycling to/around other venues.

Casualty data from Vic/NSW/SA indicate that there was (little or) no reduction in cycling as a result of the helmet legislation.

Analyses of the Vic/NSW/SA/WA data by Monash Uni (Carr et al.), the SA Dept. of Main Roads (Marshall and White), the Uni of WA (Hendrie et al.), and UNSW (Walter et al.) showed considerable injury reductions.

In "analysing the same data", Robinson

• 'overlooked' the various data sources that indicated that there was no reduction in (overall) cycling, and claimed that there was a 30-40% reduction in cycling
• claimed that the reduction in cyclist head injuries was less than what would be expected with a 30-40% drop in cycling
• argued that, after applying a 30-40% reduction in cycling, the results of the longitudinal analyses are inconsistent with the results from case-control studies

The AIS3/4 injury reductions in the Vic/Carr study are consistent with the results of the Thompson (Cochrane), Attewell, and Elvik meta-analyses of case-control studies (fatality reductions are also consistent with the results of the Attewell and Elvik meta-analyses).

Robinson's 2006 article used a graph from Hendrie et al. to illustrate that "the trend in head injuries among cyclists is similar to that for other road users", but failed to note that Hendrie et al. found that (after taking the trends into account), there was a considerable drop in the proportion of cyclists with head injuries (p<0.001) after the helmet law in WA.

Hagel (2006) noted that the r-squared values corresponding to fig. 2 in Robinson's 2006 paper "suggests that much of the variation in the percentage of head injuries is explained by helmet use", and that a similar association was apparent in the NSW data on bmj.com.

Robinson's conclusion that helmet laws are a bad thing is underpinned by the 'assumption' of a 30-40% reduction in cycling. In arriving at this 'assumption', Robinson has 'overlooked' considerable evidence to the contrary. Robinson is not a reliable source (on helmet matters), and should not be referenced in this article.

The current situation is that a recent study by UNSW researchers found that, consistent with the findings of the earlier studies by Monash, UWA, and the SA Dept. of studies, the helmet legislation was associated with significant reductions in cyclist head injuries.

Linda.m.ward (talk) 07:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no "allegedly" here: Australian academics have published research which has come to conclusions both supportive and unsupportive of helmet legislation. The arguments you present Linda.m.ward are a mixture of original research and your POV, neither have a place on Wikipedia.

On April 27, 2009 the New Scientist published an article "Bicycle helmet laws could do more than good". This article is an NPOV presentation after the publication of de Jong's work. It starts [emphasis added]:

Helmet laws like those in effect in Australia levy a substantial cost on healthcare systems because savings from fewer head injuries pale in comparison to the costs incurred by decreases in cycling, a mathematical model concludes.

Here we see that de Jong's research applies to Australia. In regards to the "dangerous bicycling environments" that you suggest is a reference to Australia as opposed to Denmark, the New Scientist article states:

He [de Jong] concludes that only under extreme, theoretical circumstances do mandatory helmet laws not end up costing the healthcare system. Head injuries must be a substantial proportion of bicycling injuries, few riders must abandon their bikes due to helmet laws, and the health benefits of cycling need to be low.

Those dangerous environments are not Australia, they are theoretical.

New Scientist is reporting what this peer-reviewed published research actually says. New Scientist does not side with de Jong, it makes it clear there are two sides:

Numbers debate

Precise numbers on the costs and benefits of cycling and the use of helmets are hard to come by and often contentious.

There is a debate, and as we all know it is "contentious" - but the latter should not be an issue for us here as we are reporting on the existence of the debate not having it, except unfortunately in these Talk pages as you repeat your basic research and POV arguments.

The article goes on:

Writing in the BMJ in 2006, Dorothy Robinson, a statistician at the Department of Primary Industries in Armidale, Australia, claimed that helmet laws caused bike ridership decreases of 20 to 40 per cent in several Australian cities and states.

While from your POV you might wish to dismiss the work of this Australian academic, the New Scientist being NPOV does not - something might well be "rotten in Denmark", but it is the basic research and POV arguments being presented in these Talk pages.

And what about the other POV? Well for that New Scientist has a quote:

"What she [Robinson] has never shown to my satisfaction, or that of other critics of her work, is how long the decline persisted," says Barry Pless, an epidemiologist at Montreal Children's Hospital in Canada.

Now Barry Pless is not from Australia, and that is a quote not a paper, so I could not suggest that as one of the two example papers - so I selected CARRS-Q.

From the above it is clear that de Jong is an example of a paper by an Australian academic, which relates to Australia, and which comes to a conclusion which is unsupportive of bicycle helmet legislation. CARRS-Q is an another Australian paper and comes to a conclusion supportive of legislation.

Can we now please put these basic research and POV arguments aside and move to a consensus that both these papers can be used as sources to support a statement in the article that the debate is ongoing? Kiwikiped (talk) 09:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

---

I think we have dealt with all currently raised issues and are on the cusp of consensus. We've had a version without sources of this edit in the article for around 2 days with discussion on Talk moving on to investigate extending the edit - a discussion which itself appears to be on the cusp of consensus. That version covered the existence of the debate and referenced the academic work in Australia but without sources. The above mentioned publication from New Scientist I believe puts to bed those lingering concerns that one of the original sources related to Australia, and no concerns over the other source have been raised - it was simply excluded to maintain NPOV when the former was. So for consensus I offer the following text, being the last text that was in the article followed by those sources:

Two decades after the introduction of the first mandatory helmet laws in Australia the debate is still ongoing as to the merits, or otherwise, of the legislation. Australian academics at a number of Australian universities have published research with conclusions both supportive and unsupportive of the laws. This body of research includes: from Macquarie University a report that the costs of the law outweighed the benefits; and from the Queensland University of Technology, in work commissioned by the Queensland Government, a report that the legislation was beneficial.

(Note: This merger is 3 sentences. To be NPOV the second contains "supportive ... unsupportive" while the third lists the sources in the order unsupportive then supportive.)

I believe we can move to a new, so called "bold", edit. On this we find in WP:BRD:

Let the other editor apply agreed-upon changes. If he or she doesn't want to, that's okay, but be sure to offer.

On that basis I invite Linda.m.ward to make this edit, but it is fine if you don't wish to. In the latter case I further invite, as another participant in this topic (somewhere back there) and an editor well steeped in wikipeadery, Richard Keatinge to make the edit, and again it is fine if you don't wish to. Neither of these invites precludes anyone else stepping up and making the edit, the Wikipedia call is to BE BOLD! - just allow a suitable pause before assuming the invites have been declined. Finally after a suitable pause, and in the absence of indications to the contrary, I will step in and make the edit myself.

Wikipedia continues:

Assume this revision will not be the final version. You do not have to get it all done in one edit. If you can find consensus on some parts, make those changes, and let them settle. This will give everyone a new point to build from. Having completed one successful cycle, you may also find it easier to get traction for further changes, or you may find you have reached a reasonable compromise and can stop.

After the edit is in maybe the edit is not complete, in which case a new discussion can be started here on Talk. Indeed one such discussion has already started, "Suggested addition- The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons", and appears to be on its own cusp of consensus and just waiting on this edit to be made so it can itself conclude. Or someone may choose to start a new WP:BRD by reverting something in the article; and explaining the revert here on Talk, probably in a new topic, and the discussion on that can commence.

Have a good day folks. Kiwikiped (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This has been stated over and over: de Jong did not use Australian data in his benefit-cost model, and therefore his paper says nothing about the benefit-cost in Australia, except insofar as Linda points out that Australian cycling conditions may be rather similar to those in the US, in which case some parameterisations given in the de Jong paper indicate a probable positive cost-benefit of helmet laws in Australia. The Newbold paper, which immediately follows teh de Jong paper in teh same issue of Risk Analysis, is less equivocal about there being a likely positive benefit-cost ratio for mandatory helmets in the US. But neither paper evaluates the Australian situation, and teh de Jong paper makes it clear that the benefit-cost is very country-specific, and there is not one rule that applies everywhere. Also, the de Jong model evaluates the introduction of helmet laws. In Australia, we've had helmet laws for over two decades, and thus the benefit-cost of removing them which is relevant, and that is not just a matter of changing the sign in the de Jong model. These facts about the de Jong paper have been stated over and over. It is fine to mention the de Jong paper in the general Bicycle Helmet WP article (it already is, AFAIK), but it has no place in this article about bike helmets in Australia. Thus there is no consensus for your proposed edit. Tim C (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Tim C, as the New Scientist article referenced above makes it clear, de Jong himself states that the research covers Australia. The New Scientist article also make it clear that the "dangerous bicycling environments" are "theoretical" rather than a reference to Australia. Whether the model presented is correct is not for us as Wikipedia editors to say or even discuss, we do not do original research on Wikipedia. All we can report is the fact that is is peer-reviewed published work from an Australaian University which covers Australia, as confirmed by the author, and comes to a conclusion unsupportive of helmet legislation. A factually incorrect argument, even one "stated over and over", is not grounds for excluding a reference to a paper or claiming "no consensus". I understand your passion for your POV, there is nothing at all wrong with having such passion, but facts are facts - the paper and its author says it applies to Australia. Does CARRS-Q apply to Australia? The authors say so, so it does, and if someone tries to argue otherwise their argument would be dismissed as well. Is its conclusion supportive of helmet legislation? Yes, and any argument to the contrary would be dismissed as well. Wiki is NPOV - factually incorrect arguments are dismissed whoever makes them. Kiwikiped (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The New Scientist article to which you refer is here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17032-bicycle-helmet-laws-could-do-more-harm-than-good.html#.Ud-RFBZMqA0 Nowhere in that article does it quote de Jong as saying his model was evaluated for the Australian case. It says "Helmet laws like those in effect in Australia levy a substantial cost on healthcare systems..." de Jong modelled the scenario of mandatory helmet laws (like those in Australia) being applied in the US, UK and various Northern European countries. He did not evaluate his model for the Australian case. Please read the de Jong paper to discover what it actually says, instead of repeatedly asserting what you would like it to have said. And then read the Newbold paper which is on the next page from the de Jong paper - it illustrates just how uncertain the de Jong model is anyway. Tim C (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Curnow WJ, Bicycle helmets and public health in Australia, Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 2008 Apr;19(1):10-15, Curnow concluded: “Compulsion to wear a bicycle helmet is detrimental to public health in Australia but, to maintain the status quo, authorities have obfuscated evidence that shows this” and "Cycling declined after the helmet laws by an estimated 40% for children, with loss of the benefits of the exercise for health. As serious casualties declined by less, the risks to cyclists, including death by head injury, increased". Would this citation or part of it be suitable? ps the fatality rate per billion km cycled for Au pre law was similar to the UK, Colin@cycling81.141.121.116 (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No it wouldn't, though it does support the point that the arguments can become rather unpleasant. de Jong is an Australian academic who modelled what impacts helmet laws would have if they were to be introduced. As Newbold, perhaps unnecessarily, points out, "policymakers should be advised to view these quantitative estimates of the health-risk tradeoffs of mandatory bicycle helmet laws as provisional rather than definitive." de Jong didn't apply his model to Australian figures since they are, as we all know, already subject to a helmet law. That doesn't exclude it from this article - he is quoted as saying "Helmet laws like those in effect in Australia levy a substantial cost on healthcare systems because savings from fewer head injuries pale in comparison to the costs incurred by decreases in cycling" but does mildly weaken the case for its inclusion. Since we are setting a very high standard for inclusion here and we aren't even trying to give complete coverage of the scientific debate, I suggest that de Jong's paper is better left out.

As for what if anything we should put in about the debate, Sitush's very sensible request for a perfectly-balanced review seems unlikely to happen. Personally I'd suggest that we reference one or more of the various reliable sources for the existence of debate, and if we feel brave two wide-ranging papers, one suggested by each of the two main Ps of V. There again I would find Kiwikiped's suggestions quite reasonable, and no doubt others yet to be made. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Claiming that we have "dealt with all currently raised issues and are on the cusp of consensus", is an excellent example of a factually incorrect argument.

Apart from the fact that de Jong's evaluation did not included any Australian data (see table II), a number of other facts would preclude it from being referenced in this article as "non-supportive" . . .

Neither of the 2 scenarios of a 10% and 20% drop in cycling are relevant to Australia. De Jong says that Robinson's papers suggest that cycling dropped by 20-40%. Examination of references cited in those papers reveals that any reduction in (overall) cycling would have been (much) less than 10%.

In deriving/quantifying the efficacy of helmets, de Jong appears to have made some factual errors. He cites the Dinh study, and says ". . . bicycle accident victims who present themselves to the emergency department at a Sydney hospital . . . based on hospital data about 2/3 of patients have minor bumps and scratches, and go home after a dressing or patch." The Dinh paper did not mention emergency (or casualty), and states that the cases were from "patients admitted to the hospital with trauma". De Jong describes of his estimate of helmet preventable fraction of injury costs as "optimistic". His estimate is certainly not "optimistic" when compared to Carr et al., Marshall and White, Thompson/Cochrane, Attewell et al. and Elvik. De Jong also fails to include the lifetime costs of severe TBI, which Dinh et al. noted were "around $4.8 million per incident case".

As previously noted, de Jong said that "A (positive) net health benefit emerges only in dangerous bicycling environments under optimistic assumptions as to the efficacy of helmets and a minor behavioural response" .

Australia is a (relatively) dangerous cycling environment (compared to Holland, etc).

Numerous data sources ('overlooked' by Robinson) point to (little or) no reduction in (overall) cycling, ie. at most, a "minor behavioural response".

Real-life helmet efficacy is considerably better than the "optimistic" estimate used by de Jong.

So Australia well and truly ticks all 3 boxes needed to show a positive health benefit.

The current situation is that recent studies by QUT and UNSW researchers found that, consistent with the findings of the earlier studies by Monash, UWA, and the SA Dept. of Transport studies, the helmet legislation was associated with significant reductions in cyclist head injuries.

(Like the paper by Rissel, Curnow's and Robinson's papers have more holes in them than Frankenfurter's fish-nets, and do not merit being referenced in this article.)

Linda.m.ward (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a note to communicate the above comments have not been overlooked. The issues have previously been discussed, readers wishing to follow them may scroll backwards, repeating anything here would serve no benefit. Some may note the unfortunate missing "I think" from the opening quote, which rather does change its tone, I am sure the misrepresentation was in no way malicious - to err is human after all. Kiwikiped (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Well I was obviously over hopeful that the consensus would be wider than it was when the information from New Scientist was introduced. Rather than being hopeful this fool should have heeded the advice to take small steps: WP:BRD's "You do not have to get it all done in one edit. If you can find consensus on some parts, make those changes...".

I note that Richard Keatinge (as I read it), while not agreeing that there are solid grounds to exclude a reference to de Jong's paper, suggests that not doing so would be prudent. That of course means that at present (see C below) CARRS-Q has to go as well, the article must be NPOV.

Richard Keatinge, if I understand correctly, made some sensible suggestions (though I may not thank him for the "others yet to be made" - you lot make me work far too hard to find consensus here!). Combining those with recent history we have the following points:

1) The text:

Two Decades On

Two decades after the introduction of the first mandatory helmet laws in Australia the debate is still ongoing as to the merits, or otherwise, of the legislation. Australian academics at a number of Australian universities have published research with conclusions both supportive and unsupportive of the laws.

was in the article for a couple of days and this Talk page moved on to discuss additions to that section under the topic "Suggested addition- The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons" started by Dsnmi (which appears to be close to, or at, consensus and is waiting on this topic to conclude). The statement is factual - and it is not dependent on the views anyone one might have as to the conclusions of any of said research, and of course having a view on the conclusion of a paper is a proof-of-existance of the paper (at least outside Wikidom) - and NPOV. That it was in the article and the Talk page moved on also appears to suggest acceptance/consensus/resignation. This should be fine to re-insert.

2) Richard Keatinge suggests "we reference one or more of the various reliable sources for the existence of debate". Including such references would of course be good, Wiki likes sources, unless of course we end up in an endless merry-go-round arguing over which sources are reliable on this topic. I invite Richard Keatinge, and the rest of you, to suggest such sources (see B below). To get you going I went off on a hunt myself, and with the help of the Wayback Machine I'll suggest Hard-headed approach to helmets, by The 7pm Project, Network Ten. This is a news item. It mentions (listed here in the order in the news item): Dorothy Robinson (University of New England), NSW Roads and Transport Authority, Prof McDermott (Monash University), Sue Abbot (citizen), an unnamed Judge, and Prof Rissel (University of Sydney) - so academics, government, the judiciary and even a citizen! Also it mentions no papers by name, avoiding that little thorn (see 3). It's only a suggestion of course.

3) Richard Keatinge further writes "and if we feel brave two wide-ranging papers, one suggested by each of the two main Ps of V".

So converting points into steps:

A) On the basis that little steps are best I'd suggest that (1) can occur before any selections under (2) or (3). Therefore I'll invite Linda.m.ward or Richard Keatinge to make that edit, as before. A first step. That will also allow the topic "Suggested addition- The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons" started by Dsnmi to conclude, if they do agree there is consensus - there are outstanding invites to folk involved to make the edit.

B) I invite Richard Keatinge to immediately start a new topic to resolve (2) and to offer some of those "various reliable sources for the existence of debate" as a starting point. If someone wants to throw in Hard-headed approach to helmets please do so.

C) Well we've tried (3) before, inviting folk to suggest papers. Unfortunately that whole debate was diverted into arguments about the contents of the papers themselves rather than as examples of output of one of the main POVs. So being "brave" has been tried, and I don't think the two main POVs here are ready to progress on this one, (B) will have to do. If folks do wish to tackle this I just request you wait until (A) and (B) are done first.

I hope we'll all see (A) done and (B) started... and please avoid playing on merry-go-rounds. Kiwikiped (talk) 04:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I have re-read this talk page carefully and see no reason to turn down Kiwikiped's suggestion. I have inserted his version but left out the reference Hard-headed approach to helmets, mainly because the Wayback Machine isn't serving it up to me. Other neutral suggestions to document the point would be welcome. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Please remove it. The thing is unsourced, it adds nothing to the article - because the article is not about the pros and cons of helmets - and it is a debate that does not exist in microcosm but is instead better dealt with at the main Bike helmets article. Furthermore, the section heading is dramatic. - Sitush (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge, apologies that the link did not work for you. Turns out if you have Javascript turned off the page loads fine, don't ask me why this is! I don't know whether you can add ("disable Javascript") to a URL reference. Anyway if you wish to use it, the non-URL reference is: <ref>The 7PM Project. "Hard-headed approach to helmets", Network Ten Australia, 3 September 2010</ref>. It would seem best to include some source, but it doesn't need to be this one. Kiwikiped (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It would be better to have a source. It would be even better to remove this tripe and indulge in any amateur dramatics by writing a play or song for production in the West End using that section heading. It is the old problem of SPA accounts: they generally lack the broad-brush experience of what and how we do things here and, frankly, I'm getting fed up of all of you, pov-pushing, manipulating and ignorant of procedures etc as you are. The daft thing is, the more fed up I get, the more I'm likely to dig my heels in. Nearly 100k contributions and no block yet, so I must generally be getting it right, I guess. Consensus is not a vote and starting a new section about the same thing every time you don't get your own way is not helpful. - Sitush (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is the text of the reference provided by User:Kiwikiped:

Almost 20 years ago, Australia became the first country to make it illegal to ride a bike without a helmet. Now the helmet debate is rearing its head again.

University of New England statistician Dorothy Robins says of her studies that “if helmet laws were effective, we should have seen a reduction in head injuries. But instead, we saw a reduction in cycling, which leads to increased sedentary lifestyle diseases… actually increasing health costs.”

However the NSW Roads and Transport Authority research found helmets can reduce head injury by 60 per cent and brain injuries by 58 per cent in the event of a crash.

Professor McDermott, who spearheaded the original campaign to make bike helmets compulsory in Australia, says if the current laws were overturned head injuries would rise and it would be “as backward a step as it would be to tell motorists they don’t have to wear seatbelts.”

Recently, Sue Abbott was pulled over by the highway patrol in the NSW country area of Scone and fined for not wearing a helmet while cycling. She says she has not worn one in 46 years.

Ms Abbott believes wearing a helmet actually increases the risk of brain damage, and that forcing her to wear one is a breach of her civil liberties. She took her fight to court, persuading the judge at the District Court there is still no clear evidence of the benefit of helmets.

After spelling out her case, the judge decided he “fell down on [her] side of the ledger” and that “it’s one those areas where it ought to be a matter of choice.”

Associate Professor Chris Rissel, from Sydney University school of public health, says the Australian laws discourage casual cycling and recommends a trial repeal in one city for two years to allow researchers to make observations and see if there’s an increase in head injuries. He says “on the basis of that, you could come to some informed policy decision.”

The 7PM Project will be talking to Sue Abbott tonight.

Thus it is not a news report, it is a leader for a segment on the TV show. Also, it is from early September 2010, shortly after Voukelatos and Rissel had their paper which purported to show that the helmet laws had no effect in NSW was published - but before it became known that that research was fatally flawed (as in wrong data, incorrect arithmetic, and incorrectly drawn graphs - see http://www.smh.com.au/national/call-to-repeal-law-on-bicycle-helmets-20100815-12573.html and then see http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/authors-admit-errors-in-study-on-bike-helmets-and-head-injuries-20101229-19a9x.html). Therefore the opinions provided at that time on this issue by the various commentators mentioned were (in good faith) misinformed by incorrect research. Not just methodologically questionable research- (in fact the Voukelatos and Rissel approach was basically OK albeit a bit simplistic - but their execution of that research approach was just plain wrong: their numbers literally didn't add up. For these reasons, the reference to the 7pm Project report is not appropriate. Tim C (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Some cogent points here. I have tried bold edit, apologies to Kiwikiped for replacing your entire text. Apologies to Sitush, but some comment on this topic does seem reasonable content for this article and I have taken the liberty of inserting a few suitable references in what I hope is suitably encyclopaedic text. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The reference to Robinson's 2006 paper should be replaced with references to the Carr, Marshall and Hendrie studies cited in Robinson's paper. Much evidence in these references (that does not support Robinson's conclusion/s) has been 'overlooked' by Robinson . . .

Re the Victorian study by Carr et al.

• Robinson claimed that "the authors could not tell whether the main cause was increased helmet wearing or reduced cycling because of the law. Non-head injuries fell by almost as much as head injuries, suggesting the main mechanism was reduced cycling, with perhaps some benefit from reduced speeding and drink-driving".
• The injury data in the Carr study actually showed that pedestrian head injuries dropped by 20%, cyclist non-head injuries dropped by 25%, cyclist head injuries dropped by 40%, the proportion of AIS3/4 cyclist head injuries dropped by 40%, and the number of AIS3/4 cyclist head injuries dropped by 60%.
• Carr et al. in fact found 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. (In claiming that "the authors could not tell whether the main cause was increased helmet wearing or reduced cycling", Robinson may have been referring to an earlier MUARC report, which Carr et al. noted was subject to data anomalies due to changes in coding practices.)

Re the SA study by Marshall and White, Robinson

• 'Overlooked' the participation data which indicated that there was no reduction in (overall) cycling as a result of the helmet law.
• Failed to note that

• in the year after the law, compared to the year before the law, there was a 15% reduction in non-cyclist concussion hospital admissions, and a 49% reduction in cycling concussion admissions
• in the 2 years after the law, compared to the 2 years before the law, there was a 27% reduction in non-cyclist admissions, and a 54% reduction in cyclist concussion admissions one year either sided of the law, 15%, 49%

• 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.)
• Failed to note that in the 2 years after the law, compared to the 2 years before the law, non-preventable injuries reduced by 9%, and potentially preventable injuries excluding concussion reduced by 41%.
• Instead expressed head injuries in a way that a statistician should/would have known would obscure the reduction in potentially preventable injuries excluding concussion (because the denominator included reductions in concussion admissions due to policy changes).

Re the WA study by Hendrie et al., Robinson

• Used a graph from the Hendrie paper showing long-term downward head injury trends in all road user groups.
• Yet failed to note that Hendrie et al. found that, after taking the trends into account, there was a considerable drop in the proportion of cyclists with head injuries (p<0.001) associated with the helmet law in WA.

All of the evidence that was 'overlooked' by Robinson shows considerable injury reductions, blowing the 'no clear evidence' conclusion out of the water. Robinson's 2006 article is not a reliable source, multiple pieces of critical evidence (in the cited references) have been 'overlooked'. The reference to Robinson's 2006 article should be removed, and replaced with the Carr (Vic), Marshall (SA), and Hendrie (WA) references cited in the 2006 article.

The (1995) RTA/Williams report, which found that in NSW there were considerable injury reductions, and a considerable cost benefit, should also be included in the references for this article. Williams also noted that the (non-head) injury data indicated that adult cycling in NSW had increased after the helmet law. This is consistent with the Sydney cyclist counts in the (1992) RTA/Walker report, which where higher in 1991 and 1992 than in 1990. (Some might think it odd that the 1995 RTA/Williams report has not been cited in any of Robinson's papers.)

Linda.m.ward (talk) 07:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You see, here we go again. This is precisely why that section should not exist in this article: no-one can agree on how to source it and given the history of this talk page, there never will be agreement. Just apply some common sense and remove the thing: it adds nothing to the bare facts that (a) helmets were not mandatory; and (b) they now are. - Sitush (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. WP is just not the right platform for highly contended subjects. Thus the scope of this article should be just the non-contentious, undisputed and indisputable facts, as User:Sitush suggests. If people want to publish their personal take on bicycle helmet research in Australia on the internet, then there are plenty of other avenues available to them. User:Richard Keatinge has told us repeatedly in the past how popular the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation web site is - User:Kiwikiped, User:Colin@cycling and others can always submit web articles to that organisation for consideration. Academic researchers can submit articles to journals, of course, and/or post material on wikis and other web pages run by their universities or research institutes. Tim C (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Duly removed. (sorry, edit conflict, already done). Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sitush I do have to say you are wrong about this, the bare facts are that: (a) helmets were not mandatory; (b) they now are; and (c) there is ongoing debate over the merits or otherwise of them being mandatory. For Wikipedia to imply, by omission, that the debate ended in March 1994 and nothing else happened until April 2013, is for Wikipedia to fail and, in this case, not to be NPOV. That the debate continues is simply undeniable, and nobody here seems to be doing so. The issue is how to report the existence of the debate, with source(s), in an NPOV manner without entering into the debate - Wikipedia must not do the latter, Tim C is right, Wikipedia is not a "platform".

Tim C goes on to write "the scope of this article should be just the non-contentious, undisputed and indisputable facts". That the debate exists and is ongoing is indisputable. For example, I just turned up the following statement in a letter from the Queensland Government to Brisbane's Central Business District Bicycle User Group (CDB BUG):

"The department acknowledges that there is ongoing discussion in the cycling and medical communities regarding the benefits of compulsory helmet wearing legislation."

(http://web.archive.org/web/20130513034745/http://www.cbdbug.org.au/wp-content/uploads/correspondence/2011/03/CARRSQHelmetReport20110323.pdf)

And this week ABC broadcast a news item on bike share, the presenter's introduction containing:

"In Australia, car culture and those compulsory helmet laws are blamed as bike sharing outfits struggle to find customers."

(from the transcript on http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-08/bike-sharingwhy-europe-is-streets-ahead-of/4807306?section=business)

The challenge is to meet Tim C's "non-contentious".

By the nature of the debate, with each major POV challenging the papers/articles/comments of the other, at any point in time there is only ~1 paper/article/comment that hasn't been challenged - the last one published! But that should not concern Wikipedia, it is not concerned with the content of the debate, just its existence - and a news report, TV item, or even a letter from a State Government is proof of existence regardless of whether someone has (yet) challenged what is says.

The challenge is how to handle the pushing a POV by entering into the debate on Talk, rather than simply reporting its existence, and then abusing the consensus principle to achieve the goal of disallowing a source.

• Sitush you are arguing that the existence of the debate should be omitted, but that is for Wikipedia to fail and for the article to present an incorrect summary of the subject.

• I've tried to encourage folk to stop entering into the debate, playing games and jumping on merry-go-rounds - and have been unsuccessful so far.

• We could just omit any source(s), which is not good but might be pragmatic, but Sitush does not support that. There was a version in without sources for a few days, but that was then reverted by Sitush.

• I tried to find a news article and came up with a TV item. Tim C argued that wasn't a proof of the existence of the debate as the last paper published at the time was anti-law - his pro-law response being yet to come out. But that argument is entering into the debate, the TV item is a historical fact - what was said in that particular item (which from the description didn't push a POV at all) is irrelevant to the item existing.

But can we find something else? Well the above quoted letter from the Queensland Government acknowledges the debate. It is from a pro-law source, so shouldn't upset that camp. On this particular topic the anti-law camp have so far not objected to proposed CARRS-Q or Olivier references, would they now enter the game and object to using a letter from the Queensland Government as a source? Only time will tell.

There is another item from Brisbane's CDB BUG website, in which they release the CARRS-Q report to their members, which includes the statement:

"While they have been a simmering bone of contention between different schools of thought in both the cycling and broader community since even before they were introduced twenty years ago, Australia’s mandatory helmet laws have attracted a lot more attention and discussion in the last year."

(http://web.archive.org/web/20130518180244/http://www.cbdbug.org.au/2011/06/helmet-research-paper-released/)

That is pretty clear and NPOV. The whole document does mention Rissel, but it also mentions Church, so that might not be an issue here (it should of course not be).

So, I will propose either Richard Keatinge's wording, but with the above Queensland Government source:

Current debates

There is an ongoing debate about whether changes in head injury rates in Australia should be attributed to helmet laws.<ref>Letter to Brisbane Central Business District Bicycle User Group from the Queensland Government, 23 Mar 2011, http://web.archive.org/web/20130513034745/http://www.cbdbug.org.au/wp-content/uploads/correspondence/2011/03/CARRSQHelmetReport20110323.pdf</ref>

or the previous wording under discussion, but with the above title:

Current debates

Two decades after the introduction of the first mandatory helmet laws in Australia the debate is still ongoing as to the merits, or otherwise, of the legislation. Australian academics at a number of Australian universities have published research with conclusions both supportive and unsupportive of the laws.<ref>Letter to Brisbane Central Business District Bicycle User Group from the Queensland Government, 23 Mar 2011, http://web.archive.org/web/20130513034745/http://www.cbdbug.org.au/wp-content/uploads/correspondence/2011/03/CARRSQHelmetReport20110323.pdf</ref>

each could use either of the above sources, or of course some other source...

The other way to avoid reporting only part of the story is of course to report none of it. There has been a topic here on deleting the whole article, but that would remove even the fact that Australia was the first country to introduce such laws. The alternative is to remove all but the "Legal Requirements" section - there is a law, when it was introduced, when it was changed. Short, factual, and no mention of the pre-law or post-law debate. I think doing that is to fail, but better to fail than to report part of the topic and imply something which is not true. Kiwikiped (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

---

We have had the wording, apart from a the title, for a while now; it has even been in the article. The debate has centered on the source to be used and the last suggested source has met no objections. The current proposal, with the reference formatted is:

Current debates

Two decades after the introduction of the first mandatory helmet laws in Australia the debate is still ongoing as to the merits, or otherwise, of the legislation. Australian academics at a number of Australian universities have published research with conclusions both supportive and unsupportive of the laws.<ref>{ {cite web | title = Letter to Brisbane Central Business District Bicycle User Group | date = 23 March 2011 | url = http://www.cbdbug.org.au/wp-content/uploads/correspondence/2011/03/CARRSQHelmetReport20110323.pdf | archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20130513034745/http://www.cbdbug.org.au/wp-content/uploads/correspondence/2011/03/CARRSQHelmetReport20110323.pdf | archivedate = 13 May 2013 | first = David | last = Stewart | publisher = Office of the Director General, Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland Government}}</ref>

Following WP:BRD I invite either Richard Keatinge, Tim C or Sitush to make the edit to the article. Anyone else involved in this thread is of course also welcome to make the edit. If all decline, as per WP:BRD I will make the edit after a suitable pause. Kiwikiped (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Without trying to say that this is the only possible wording, I'd support this suggestion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Studies from Monash, the NSW/RTA, the SA ORS, UWA, and UNSW were all 'supportive'.

The Australian parameters well and truly satisfy the criteria specified by De Jong as being required to show a benefit.

Rissel's work has been discredited/retracted.

Robinson is not a reliable source, and should not be cited in the article (eg. the 2006 article was an exercise in cherry-picking of epic proportions; contained 2 significant factual errors with respect to the Carr study; used a biased analysis method which misrepresented the SA injury data; and 'mysteriously' did not cite the NSW/RTA report, which indicated that on the basis of non-head injuries there was no reduction in cycling, and estimated injury cost savings of more than $40,000,000 in the first 4 years).

The references should include the (2) Monash, (3) NSW/RTA, (1) SA ORS, (1) UWA, and (2) UNSW studies, and the wording changed to reflect reality.

Linda.m.ward (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatever you may think of Robinson's work, others think of it as high-quality and a more or less definitive answer to one of the scientific issues. This is not the place to argue that issue; for Wikipedia, it is a definitively reliable source and needs to be included in any account of the science. I note that Kiwikiped has nevertheless tactfully suggested a text that does not include it. Can we have any comments that may occur to you on Kiwikiped's text? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Richard, it would be surprising if you thought otherwise of Dorothy Robinson's work, given that you are one of two Directors of the company behind the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation (BHRF) and are a member of its Editorial Board, and Dorothy Robinson is one of the Patrons of the BHRF and also a member of its Editorial Board. I share Linda's opinion of Robinson's work, but, y'know, those views are just our opinions. I agree with you that Robinson's work has been published by reputable sources and meets reliable source criteria. However, what is important is that the scientific discourse about the Australian helmet laws is reflected accurately. In particular, I think it is only Robinson, Bill Curnow (who is also a member of the BHRF Editorial Board) who have had papers published in scientific journals which have examined the effects of the Australian helmet laws and found them wanting. Wen and Rissel published one paper in which they surveyed people and asked if they would ride more if the helmet laws were rescinded. Other authors have mentioned the helmet laws in their discussion, but haven't actually studied the effects of the Australian laws. Or am I overlooking someone? These papers need to be mentioned in the context of the rather larger number of papers by a rather more diverse set f authors that have found positive effects of the helmet laws. Thus the concern is to arrive at text which reflects this situation accurately. I also think that scientific discourse or debate must be distinguished from civil debate. There is debate in civil society about everything, just stating that is not helpful. Again, the size of the civil movement opposing helmets needs to be made clear. I believe that the Freestyle Cyclists anti-helmet-law lobby group (see http://www.freestylecyclists.org ) have about 1600 signatures on their online petition (Australian population 23 million, about 80% online), and that about 30 people attended their launch in Melbourne last year, which was addressed by Professor Chris Rissel (yes, co-author of the study mentioned above) - see http://helmetfreedom.org/1768/freedom-cyclist-launch-6-october-2012/ Tim C (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Returning again to the business of building an encyclopaedia, do you have any comments to make on Kiwikiped's text? Alternatively, my version, in an extremely bold edit a while back, may answer some of your concerns. It was:

Reception of helmet compulsion

In Victoria more than 19,000 fines for not wearing a helmet were issued in the first 12 months of their helmet law. Per kilometre, bicycle offence notices were about four times higher than all motor traffic offences put together.

In 2005 almost 10,000 cyclists in NSW were fined for not wearing a helmet.

An overwhelming majority of the Australian public supports helmet laws. The RACS has maintained its support for compulsory helmets.

There have been suggestions that enforcement of the law is insufficient.

Among a small minority of the Australian public, helmet laws are reported to be a disincentive to cycling.

The Queensland government announced in April 2013 that exemptions on religious grounds from mandatory bicycle helmet laws would be granted from 2014.

Opposition and deliberate disobedience to the law continue on a small scale.

I still think it's quite good though some might feel that it has too many references, an easy point to solve. In any case we now have two offerings, and I'd be glad of any constructive comments on either. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(I have formatted Richard Keatinge's post above - it accidentally started a new topic.)

Linda.m.ward & Tim C much of what you both have written is entering into the debate, not simply reporting its existence. And your presentation of the debate is influenced by your POV, those from the other POV can and do make opposing arguments. It is clear there is a debate - papers get published, news items are written and broadcast, etc. - and the debate covers many fields - health, ethics, law, economics, politics, etc. Major participants in the debate are academics, and as I've said before just about the only research paper coming to any conclusion that does not have its critics is the last one published - it's the nature of this debate that the opposing POVs critique each others output. Tim expresses the view that the weight, at least by numbers, favours his POV; but representative's of the opposing POV are hardly likely to concur; and the arguments presented in these Talk pages contain a lot of "original research" and potential "conflict of interest" from Wikipedia's NPOV standpoint.

Richard Keatinge has suggested another way forward, but I expect finding consensus on such a large edit will be a massive challenge - small steps are good. It also requires some basic editing as text it previously followed is no longer present - e.g. "RACS has maintained" now builds on nothing (see also the "Suggested addition- The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons" topic above). Of course a challenge in itself is not bad, however I'll also propose a variation of my shorter edit for consideration.

Without going into the details on the Rissel paper which contained acknowledged arithmetic errors (there is clearly debate over the impact of those errors and the situation regarding correction vs. retraction of that one paper; issues not for Wikipedia to debate) what is clear is that Prof Rissel has not changed his professional view on the helmet legislation - Tim reports Prof Rissel spoke at the launch of Freestyle Cyclists and has published other research. Again without going into the issues some have raised over some of Grzebieta's work what is clear is that Prof Grzebieta has not changed his professional view on the helmet legislation. We could go on, Prof de Jong, Prof McDermott, et al. These academics come from different disciplines, different Australian Universities, hold differing and opposing views on the merits of the Australian helmet legislation, and participate in the ongoing debate in Australia.

This brings me to the suggestion:

Ongoing debate

Two decades after the introduction of the first mandatory helmet laws in Australia the debate over the merits, or otherwise, still continues. Australian academics at a number of Australian universities have expressed professional opinions both supportive and unsupportive of the laws.<ref>{ {cite web | title = Letter to Brisbane Central Business District Bicycle User Group | date = 23 March 2011 | url = http://www.cbdbug.org.au/wp-content/uploads/correspondence/2011/03/CARRSQHelmetReport20110323.pdf | archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20130513034745/http://www.cbdbug.org.au/wp-content/uploads/correspondence/2011/03/CARRSQHelmetReport20110323.pdf | archivedate = 13 May 2013 | first = David | last = Stewart | publisher = Office of the Director General, Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland Government}}</ref>

That maintains Wikipedia's NPOV reporting. Do we have consensus on that wording? Or on Richard's? Please try to avoid "my Professor is better than your Professor" type arguments. Kiwikiped (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It does. Unless we have any coherent objection over and above WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I propose to insert Kiwikiped's text shortly. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

No, that doesn't reflect the weight of opinion amongst Australian academics who have published papers and/or professional opinions about helmet laws. This is more accurate: "More than two decades after the introduction of the first mandatory helmet laws in Australia, there is continuing research into and debate over the effects of these laws. The majority of Australian academics who have published on the subject have found positive effects of the laws on injury and death rates, although several have published analyses which do not show reductions in injury. "

Sorry Tim C, but your concern does not correctly reflect what a Wikipedia article can and cannot do. Wikipedia cannot itself determine the relative weight of the professional opinions of Prof Rissel, Prof Grzebieta, Prof de Jong, Prof McDermott, et al. Furthermore, any debate about a law is likely to cover many issues, Wikipedia cannot itself decide the relative importance of these issues, e.g. that "rates" are more important than, say, "benefit cost". Wikipedia can report that there is a debate, and should do so as to do otherwise would be non-neutral by omission. Wikipedia could list the arguments in the debate in a neutral way, but it has already been decided that due to the highly contentious nature of this particular debate that this article will not do that in any detail. Kiwikiped (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Can we wrap this up now, Richard Keatinge are you going to make the edit? Or would you prefer I go ahead and do so? Then maybe we can move on to other issues... Kiwikiped (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Sheesh, is this still going on? We'll be heading to the giddy heights of the discussion regarding the Monty Hall problem (well over a million words) if a line is not drawn. Kiwikiped, "Wikipedia" can and does assign weight to opinions expressed in sources every single day. Your wording is biassed because it emphasises - almost akin to a long-drawn sigh - with "more than two decades on ...". The rest isn't great, either, but that alone is a no-no. Stick to the facts: a law was introduced, the precise detail differs from one state to another. Period. - Sitush (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Sitush while some laws may be introduced and that is the end of it, that is not the case for all laws. It is a fact that there is ongoing debate in Australia over this law, and neither POV is claiming otherwise, to not include that is to imply by omission that there is no debate which is wrong. The referenced source states exactly that there is a debate and no more, coming down on neither side of it.

The phrase, as I've said before, "Two decades after" (not "More than" as in your "quote") was picked simply to state the position as of today without using a phrase, such as "Today", which automatically dates. If you'd prefer to drop this phrase how about:

The introduction of the first mandatory helmet law in 1990 did not end the debate in Australia over such laws. Australian academics at a number of Australian universities continue to express professional opinions both supportive and unsupportive of the laws.<ref>{ {cite web | title = Letter to Brisbane Central Business District Bicycle User Group | date = 23 March 2011 | url = http://www.cbdbug.org.au/wp-content/uploads/correspondence/2011/03/CARRSQHelmetReport20110323.pdf | archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20130513034745/http://www.cbdbug.org.au/wp-content/uploads/correspondence/2011/03/CARRSQHelmetReport20110323.pdf | archivedate = 13 May 2013 | first = David | last = Stewart | publisher = Office of the Director General, Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland Government}}</ref>

or:

In 2013 the debate over the merits, or otherwise, of the mandatory helmet laws in Australia continues. Australian academics at a number of Australian universities continue to express professional opinions both supportive and unsupportive of the laws.<ref>{ {cite web | title = Letter to Brisbane Central Business District Bicycle User Group | date = 23 March 2011 | url = http://www.cbdbug.org.au/wp-content/uploads/correspondence/2011/03/CARRSQHelmetReport20110323.pdf | archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20130513034745/http://www.cbdbug.org.au/wp-content/uploads/correspondence/2011/03/CARRSQHelmetReport20110323.pdf | archivedate = 13 May 2013 | first = David | last = Stewart | publisher = Office of the Director General, Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland Government}}</ref>

then I see no problem.

I am assuming you are not arguing that Wikipedia should do original research and weigh up the relative professional opinions of Prof Rissel, Prof Grzebieta, Prof de Jong, Prof McDermott, et al. It has long since been agreed that this article will not even report the details of debate, as the subject is so contentious, we're certainly not going to start doing original research!

Yes, filling this 20-year gap in the article has proved a challenge, it is unfortunate that there has not been more constructive input - but that is how this POV-imbued environment works. Kiwikiped (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Personally I'd go for Kiwikiped's second sentence alone: "Australian academics at a number of Australian universities continue to express professional opinions both supportive and unsupportive of the laws." It's clearly relevant, and could be supported by many more references. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Richard Keatinge, we've been the route of "more references", I started by trying just two to support the existence of the debate. That approach did not work, and we're now down to a single source which does just what is minimally required - states that the ongoing debate exists. The "Research" section has a list of references, with indications that some would like to revise it or delete it. Let's not go off trying to add references to this section.

To match the pattern of the first title I think the title of this section could be reworded a little, bringing me to:

Ongoing debate: After the laws

The introduction of the first mandatory helmet law in 1990 did not end the debate in Australia over such laws. Australian academics at a number of Australian universities continue to express professional opinions both supportive and unsupportive of the laws.<ref>{ {cite web | title = Letter to Brisbane Central Business District Bicycle User Group | date = 23 March 2011 | url = http://www.cbdbug.org.au/wp-content/uploads/correspondence/2011/03/CARRSQHelmetReport20110323.pdf | archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20130513034745/http://www.cbdbug.org.au/wp-content/uploads/correspondence/2011/03/CARRSQHelmetReport20110323.pdf | archivedate = 13 May 2013 | first = David | last = Stewart | publisher = Office of the Director General, Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland Government}}</ref>

I've left the first sentence, I think it needs it, but am open to be persuaded otherwise by anybody. This would go after the opening section. Hopefully we can get this in and move on, there are other issues to deal with in this article. Kiwikiped (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It's about time. No, we don't need more references, just that plenty more could be adduced if anyone wants them. Go for it! Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I love the racism of "Australian academics at a number of Australian universities". Are there no non-native academics at such universities? If there are then are we sure that they are uninvolved in this particular sphere? It is sloppy writing, as is using "professional" - it is safe to assume that an academic at a university is a professional. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

What about the studies by non-Australian universities and indeed by Australians and non-Australians who are not affiliated to a university. It really has not been thought through, has it? - Sitush (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

And The introduction of the first mandatory helmet law in 1990 did not end the debate in Australia over such laws. is yet more editorialising. It can be dropped and the statement will still make sense. - Sitush (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sitush just for the record as Richard Keatinge has made an edit (see topic "Ongoing debate: after the laws" below):

• The phrase "Indian academics", etc. is often used to refer to academics in India, not those of Indian race. The real issue is the sentence does not need two "Australian", first one removed.
• The phrase "professional opinion" is often used to distinguish them from "personal opinion" when referring to opinions from professionals. You will hear professionals say "In my personal opinion" and "In my professional opinion".
• This article is about Australia and things that have happened/are happening in Australia. This item is referring to the debate *in* Australia and *about* Australia. You yourself have previously emphasised this and made the point that non-Australian material goes elsewhere so it is strange you should now ask why it isn't included here.
• The issue on referring to academic work has previously been discussed.
• The line between what is, and what is not, editorial is a gray one. Having said that in this case the first sentence establishes the existence of the continuing debate, the second the role of academics within that debate. Dropping it would remove information, but what remains would not be incorrect.
• Some of your other comments are unfounded and inappropriate, please remember WP:CIVIL.

Any further discussions on this section should be made under the topic "Ongoing debate: after the laws" started by Richard Keatinge below. Kiwikiped (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing debate: after the laws

I have trimmed this section down to, I hope, the bare minimum compatible with the above discussion. I realize that not everyone shares my interest in the ongoing debate (personally I'd put in a couple of sentences and several references more), but I suggest we'd be letting readers down if we don't even mention the existence of such a thing. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The edit both widens and narrows the information content. I understand the motivation, as long as the content-providing editors of this page do not object I see no problem. Kiwikiped (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)