![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I see many revisions have been done recently. I think they happen too fast, without the discussion that the part shows that this article needs. If nothing else to avoid "edit-wars". For instance I disagree with the assertion that a reference to the WP article Victim blaming be irrelevant - Morten7an ( talk) 01:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Please explain how an WP article on "victim blaming" is relevant to this article on bicycle helmets, bearing in mind that the NPOV policy extends to what links to other WP articles appear in an article. AFAIK, no bicycle helmet has ever been observed to blame a victim (of what?). I am happy to discuss the other edits I have made. Please document your concerns. Many have just been tidying up of references. Much more tidying up is required, as is obvious from a glance at the references section. There are a lot of incomplete references, a lot of references that include large verbatim quotes, when the resources they refer to are already accessible online, and there are quite a few redundant references.
Tim C (
talk)
03:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Quite a few of the references for this article include quotations from the cited source, some of them very long. This makes the whole reference section very difficult to read. The WP guidelines state that quotes should be included in references only when it make the task of editorial review easier. In the case of references which are freely available online, there is no reason to copy text into the reference as well. If there is a passage in the reference which is both germane and sufficiently important and reliable, then it should be included in the article body text (with attribution, of course). Where references are not online or are behind a paywall, then retention of existing quotes in references seems acceptable. Views? Tim C ( talk) 07:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I have moved one quote from a reference into a separate Quotes section, with a forward pinter from the reference to the quote, and a back pointer from the quote to the reference. The forward pointer is not elegant but is the best I could come up with - other WP mark-p solutions using magc-words don't seem to work. I will fix the other quotes in reference in the same manner, as time permits, if there are no objections. Tim C ( talk) 20:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
This would result in a less informative article, as most people do not read references. A quick summary or a quotation of a reference is an excellent way to briefly inform the reader what the reference is about and why it is relevant. To remove those references would lead to a less informative article.
If the quotation is too long, then it should be summarised or shortened, as long as it still represents the essence of the message. Claiming the quote is too long should not be used as a way to give lower prominence to references. The approach suggested is open to abuse, as it would enable people to remove quotations from references they do not like, to give them less prominence. Given that the discussion can be quite polarised, this would open the door to unnecessary edit wars. Harvey4931 ( talk) 22:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
User:MTB UK reverted a large number of changes, with the complaint that the page ought to refer to helmets for MTB riders too. I agree, but the way to address this to to add such material, not to arbitrarily and seemingly randomly revert many edits made by other contributors. Tim C ( talk) 10:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
User:Richard Keatinge has made an edit to the section titled "Rotational injury" which states that one of the authors of the 1987 Corner et al. study (see http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/1987/pdf/Mcycle_Helm_1.pdf ) was also the inventor of a new type of helmet, as interviewed by New Scientist magazine in 2000 (see http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn418-soft-hat.html ). This does not appear to be the case. The name of the inventor of the helmet is Kenneth Phillips, from Middlesex, UK, whose name does not appear anywhere in the Corner et al. report, which was done at the School of Civil Engineering at the Queensland Institute of Technology in Australia some 13 years earlier.
Closer inspection of the New Scientist article reveals that the Kenneth Phillips helmet is actually intended for motorcyclists, and possibly equestrian riders and police. The article mentions motorists but I think that is a typo, and motorcyclists was the word intended. However, cyclists, as in bicycle riders, are not mentioned anywhere, and from the description of the construction of the helmet, it is hard to see how it could be used by bicyclists except in very special competition settings in which ventilation was not required (eg sprint track events). Given that the Phillips helmet is not a bicycle helmet, and that the inventor of a new patented helmet type has a clear conflict of interest, I don't think that the mention of the Phillips helmet and the quite lengthy quote from the inventor of it has a place in this article about bicycle helmets, and I have removed it from the article. If anyone wishes to make a case for its re-instatement, please do so here.
Tim C (
talk)
20:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
In the first paragraph of the article, there is an unreferenced statement: "There is an active scientific debate, with no consensus, on whether helmets are useful for general cycling, and on whether any benefits are outweighed by their disadvantages." Is this statement actually true? Can anyone point to evidence of an active scientific debate about whether helmets are useful for general cycling? The dominant scientific view seems to be that they protect the head and brain, and there seems to have been very little dissent from this view in the scientific literature in the last decade. There has been some debate about helmet laws in the literature, but not about the usefulness of helmets themselves. Tim C ( talk) 11:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Colin at cycling
Corner et al
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/1987/pdf/Mcycle_Helm_1.pdf
Corner discusses the density of foam and how good or bad a specific density may be. Corner provides details of the very high rotational accelerations, 69k rad/sec/sec, page 121. UK research found value up to about 20k at impact speeds of 8.5m/sec. How safe are helmets is one debate.
Some research has indicated that helmets lead to higher accident rates, eg NZ 2012 http://www.cycle-helmets.com/nz-clarke-2012.pdf note 20% higher rate
and
Robinson DL; Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws; Accid Anal Prev, 28, 4: p 463-475, 1996 http://www.cycle-helmets.com/robinson-head-injuries.pdf Tables 2 and 5
and
Clarke CF, The Case against bicycle helmets and legislation, VeloCity Munich, 2007 http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7manuais/colin_clarke_cycle_helmet.pdf details a number of reports indicating a higher rate. A list of advantages v disadvantages for helmets is provided, so a debate could consider each in turn.
The helmet debate tends to focus on reports like Attewell, it did not measure risk per hour of cycling, it users reports to compare outcomes from wearers and non-wearers, typically for cyclists who had a choice. It was mainly comparing two groups. These groups tend to have different approaches. This is probably a separate issue comparing injuries for different ages and types of cyclists, typically teenagers may not in inclined to wear helmets and quite often they are at fault when it comes to accidents, whereas adults may be slightly more inclined to wear helmets. The accident rate can vary by around a factor of 10 to 1 per km of travel for different types of cyclists.
Considering a serious head injury, say about once in 2000+ years of cycling – see Ron Shepherd’s article, average person may cycle for say 50 years. So helmets may have a chance of reducing a serious head injury for an individual, say once in 2000 years of cycling. But if their accident rate increases by 20%, they have a higher risk of being involved in an accident and sustaining injuries in general in their 50 years of cycling.
One debate is whether helmets improve safety. Also the debate is whether they improve health and safety and additionally if legislation is justified. If safety is measured by all injuries then helmets fail, if only head injuries are considered, that would still be debateable because wearers will incur more impacts. Comparing the 2 groups, wearers v non-wearers is not assessing safety per km of travel. The debate cannot be easily resolved because of the variables involved and difficulty in obtained precise data for helmets effects alone. When helmets laws come in the debate takes another stage because non-wearers ask for good proof that helmets are safe, want to see why a legal requirement has been imposed with possible excessive fines. Data shows cyclists are at a similar risk of serious head injury to that of pedestrians and the risk is low. Imposing the legal requirements sets the stage for a health and safety debate, with a wide range of issues that can be considered and with the end result that helmet laws are questioned. The evidence for helmet use is not conclusive. The health implications affect many more people than the remote risk of head injury. Discrimination in accident compensation runs hand in glove with helmet promotion and legislation. It seems the debate can only continue. ~~Colin at cycling~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin at cycling ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have any major objections to the form of words in the opening sentences to the article as they now stand? If not, then I think it is time to close and archive this debate. Tim C ( talk) 21:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
~~Colin at cycling~~
2012 Some research has indicated that helmets lead to higher accident rates, eg NZ 2012 http://www.cycle-helmets.com/nz-clarke-2012.pdf note 20% higher rate, note the "Cyclist’s injury risk per hour increased by 20–32%."
2007 Clarke CF, The Case against bicycle helmets and legislation, VeloCity Munich, 2007 http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7manuais/colin_clarke_cycle_helmet.pdf details a number of reports indicating a higher rate. A list of advantages v disadvantages for helmets is provided, so a debate could consider each in turn.
2006 UK research found value up to about 20k at impact speeds of 8.5m/sec. How safe are helmets is one debate.
The debate is also about reports trying to mislead the public.
With these results I have modified the opening to reflect the above.
~~Colin at cycling~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin at cycling ( talk • contribs) 08:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
~~Colin at cycling~~
The statement below may not be very reliable and changes to reflect actual reports could be worthwhile.
“The evidence on bicycle helmets is mixed - some studies indicating that helmets provide a clear benefit and others finding either no clear benefit or that they have failed to improve safety.[3][4][5][6]”
"some studies indicating that helmets provide a clear benefit" Bambach el al is provided. This report compares outcomes for helmeted as a group to non-helmeted as a group. It does not provide a safety level per hour of cycling for each group, eg non-wearers may cycle more hours per week than wearers on average, exposure data is not available. A noticeable feature in the details was for the ages, 55% of non-wearers were in the 0-19 age group compared with 19% for wearers. A higher proportion of non-wearers had BAC over 0.05. Other differences can also be seen from the report. The fatality data provided, 18 from 42, out of 106 recorded in the accident statistics leaves a serious question about the data considered. In that the report is comparing quite diffeeent groups who could have quite different head injury rates, means it cannot really be considered to show that helmets provide a clear benefit, the overall accident rate per hour cycled would have to be included. Nearly all reports finding helmets provide a benefit are based on comparing 2 groups,
In addition some reports, NZ 2012, Summary - Cyclist’s injury risk per hour increased by 20–32%”, The ECF ( European Cycling Federation) stated "the evidence from Australia and New Zealand suggests that the wearing of helmets might even make cycling more dangerous", indicating safety was actually reduced.
Slight changes to the sentance to reflect the above mentioned information. ~~Colin at cycling ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin at cycling ( talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
A recent edit by Dorre states
This is an incorrect interpretation of the results from a paper I co-authored. In our paper, we primarily considered a comparative interrupted time series model to assess changes in cycling hospitalisations around the helmet law in NSW Australia with head injuries as the primary outcome and arm injuries as the comparator. Additionally, we performed sensitivity analyses comparing cycling head/leg injuries, pedestrian head/arm injuries and pedestrian head/leg injuries.
Dorre's comments are incorrect given the parameterisation we used for our models. For those that are interested, the paper can be found here http://handle.unsw.edu.au/1959.4/50858. In our analyses, we used indicator variables for the type of injury (head was always 1 and other types 0) and the pre- and post-law periods (post-law was always 1 and pre-law 0). So, the p-value given by Dorre for changes in pedestrian head and arm injuries with the law of p=0.02 is for arm injuries only. Using the model estimates, the estimated change in pedestrian arm injuries with the law is exp(-0.250)-1=-0.22. So, the model estimates a significant drop in pedestrian arm injuries of 22%. The term INJURY*LAW is a comparison between changes in pedestrian head and arm injuries with the law. We can use that to estimate the change in pedestrian head injuries with the law as exp(-0.250+0.106)-1=-0.13. So, head injuries for pedestrians dropped an estimated 13% with the law. The p-value of 0.41 indicates pedestrian arm and head injuries do not significantly differ; however, it does not indicate the 13% in head injuries is significantly (or not significantly) different from 0% (or no effect). I could re-parameterise the model to the get that p-value if you like, but what's given there is clearly incorrect.
With regards to cycling injuries, the estimated drop in arm injuries is exp(-0.112)-1=-0.11 and for head injuries exp(-0.112-0.322)-1=-0.35. So, head injuries for cyclists dropped by 35% with the law while cycling arm injuries dropped at a similar rate to pedestrian head injuries at 11%. The results for the cycling head/leg comparison was similar, and we reported a 29% adjusted decline in cycling head injuries with the law. Our recent 2013 paper modified this analysis a bit by reporting the most parsimonious model and a model in which inter-month correlations were accounted for. Each of these gave similar estimates of the decline in head injuries, but with much more significant p-values (p<0.001 in each case).
If Dorre would like to make a direct comparison between head injuries for cyclists and pedestrians, that would need to be done as it's own analysis. However, we can get a pretty good idea of the result using the model estimates which would be a comparison of 35% vs 13% (not that unlike the original comparison with arm injuries).
Dorre made another edit claiming Robinson used "similar data" in her 1996 paper. Her analyses heavily relied on survey data taken one month every year for four years. This is a missing data problem with 44/48 months not observed (about 92% missing data). I'm confused how census data of all hospitalisations aggregated by month is similar here? JakeOlivier ( talk) 10:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey TimC, JakeOlivier et al. Why don't you team up with helmets.org and publish your thoughts there? I agree with Richard that Wikipedia is not the place for this very detailed discussion of bike helmets and BHRF. The wikipedia entry is already too complicated for a general audience, and I'm sure BHSI would appreciate your expertise. Wiki's role is to summarize sources such as BHSI and BHRF (and obviously the peer-reviewed publications), not to disect every detail. Erik Sandblom ( talk) 19:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Looking at Dorre's most recent change to the interpretation of the model by Walter et al., it seems that Dorre has confused the interpretation of a log-linear model with the interpretation of a linear model. The main effect terms in a log-linear model do not 'mean the same thing' as the main effect terms in a linear model. The first-order interaction terms in a log-linear model correspond to the main effects in a linear model. The main effect terms in a log-linear model refer to the marginal totals, the 22% drop associated with the LAW variable does NOT represent 'a sudden and sustained drop' in pedestrian arm injuries at the time of the helmet law'. As previously noted by JakeOlivier, the INJURY*LAW term compares (pedestrian) head to arm injuries before/after the law, for pedestrians the p-value was 0.41. The statement that the model showed 'even stronger statistical evidence (P<0.02) for an equally sudden drop in the number of pedestrians (a comparison group) with arm injuries at exactly the same time (but no change in the head:arm injury ratio in pedestrians)' is egregiously incorrect, and should be removed as a matter of priority. Linda.m.ward ( talk) 22:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
User:Chris_Capoccia has made large scale destructive edits to many references in this article, removing URLs to abstracts and/or full-copies of papers, and in some cases removing all details of the reference except for a PubMed ID or a DOI. These destructive edits then triggered the attention of an automated citation bot, which then made a whole raft of further changes, mostly inappropriate (due to the preceding destructive edits). I have reverted all these changes (one had to be reverted manually), and placed a warning template on the user talk page of User_talk:Chris_Capoccia. If the user makes further desctructive edits, then s/he will need to be reported to WP authorities. Tim C ( talk) 22:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
User:Colin at cycling added the following text and references to the section "Cycling risk and head injury":
GB accident data shows the injury rate per billion km for cyclists has increased in recent years and indications are that the helmet wearing rates may also have increased. [1] [2]
If the juxtaposition of these facts:
is intended to imply some sort of causal association (or a lack of causal association i..e lack of effectiveness of helmets), then the edit violates NPOV.
If the juxtaposition of the two facts is just co-incidence, then the edit is off-topic for this article (although arguably the helmet wearing rate information could be used in a different section). Finally, just providing a URL does not constitute an adequate reference. The authors, title, journal or publisher of the work or information cited must be given. It is unreasonable to expect other editors to fill in such details on your behalf subsequently.
For all these reasons, I have deleted this material. Tim C ( talk) 01:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I have just spent about 30 minutes fixing errors in the references caused by incorrect use of named references. Please note that the syntax for referring to an existing named reference is:
<ref name=Whatever2011 />
and is not
<ref name=Whatever2011></ref>
The latter form replaces the details in the named reference with nothing when the page is rendered. The bast way to insert named references is to click on the Named References clipboard icon in the toolbar above the editing area. Tracking down and fixing this misuse of named references is very time-consuming. Please edit with care. Tim C ( talk) 22:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I, like most editors of this page (presumably including someone who calls himself Colin at cycling) have a major conflict of interest - I cycle for transport. Repealing helmet laws won't prevent anyone who wants to from wearing a helmet, but it will encourage people who currently consider cycling too dangerous to see it in a different light. An increase in cycling will increase my personal safety. Currently, if I wanted to commit suicide, all I'd have to do is continue cycling round a roundabout when a truck is approaching.
It's funny that a helmet can change driver attitude, but it does. A friend of mine was cycling in town and came over to say hello to a retired couple he knew from a dance club. Apart from the helmet and prescription glasses that go dark in the sun, he was wearing normal clothes. But the attire was enough to make the couple think they might get mugged, until they recognized him. Even if only 1% of drivers think in this way, cycling changes from a pleasant, safe, enjoyable experience to something quite terrifying. I learned to cope - asserting my right to be on the road, being prepared to stop on roundabouts to give way to the entering drivers who would normally have given way to me. But the whole string of near misses (compared to not a single one before the helmet law was introduced) was almost enough to make me give up cycling.
Jake and Tim will tell you that cycling is booming, because you can buy an alloy-frame mountain bike with suspension and shimano gears for under $100. Great for off-road stuff, but not much use for transport without a rack, mudguards and lights. These would cost very little extra if included in the specs to the manufacturer, but double or triple the price when they have to be bought separately. Bikes are sold this way because the intended market isn't transport cycling. I see a few people struggling on these bikes with backpacks, but the discomfort and inconvenience must put a lot of people off. Extremely cheap bike imports have led to booming sales, but very transport cyclists. Backpacks also raise the centre of gravity, leading to increased risk of falls and arm injuries. People who see me cycling ask how on earth I can get up the hills. The answer is simple - once out of the police zone I remove the helmet as soon as I start feeling hot, to avoid the danger of sweat getting into my eyes.
So yes, if conflicts of interest need to be declared, then the fact that I cycle for transport ranks much higher than any other possible conflict of interest, as I assume it would for Colin at cycling. The second major conflict of interest would be that, as a citizen of the world, I'd like to encourage other people to use bicycles for transport for health benefits and environmental reasons. Dorre ( talk) 01:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I've put in a brief notice of this incident; it's a single anecdote but in the context of helmets having consequences not intended by their designers it may be appropriate for inclusion. What do others think? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 08:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
In this specific case, I suggest again that the unintended consequences of helmets are well and appropriately described by perhaps one sentence each, supported by all the relevant references. Causality is fairly obvious in these cases and doesn't need any further remark. Separately, Google Alerts brought me over 300 anecdotes of "a helmet saved my life" before I stopped counting. A sentence mentioning these anecdotes would be an entirely reasonable addition, and since the fact of their existence is uncontroversial it doesn't necessarily need a reference at all though one or more would be fine. I agree with Dorre that causality is in grave doubt in these cases, and we need to use a form of words that does not endorse causality in Wikipedia's voice, but we don't, I suggest, need to indulge in any further argumentation on the subject here. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 10:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Undid post by Tim.churches Reverted to previous script, important to provide information for readers to able to see concerns have been published, without having to search for information.
Case control studies only provide a comparison, not a measure of safety per hour cycling, they are only a guide. Riders wearing helmets may spend less time on average cycling, exposure data is required before making strong claims.
~~Colin at cycling~~
The following information helps readers to appreciate that the Persaud et al report has added complications, replies published by the CMAJ and is therefore suitable for Wiki.
"A 2012 study by Persaud et al. using coronial records of 129 deaths of cyclists in Canada between 2005 and 2010 found that unhelmeted cyclists in fatal crashes were more likely than helmeted cyclists to have sustained a head injury (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-7.3). [84]The published replies detail that 23% of the bicyclists had been under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of death, while the status of 30% was unknown. Of the bicyclists, 16% were carrying unsafe loads at the time of death. Some details are mentioned from other reports, comparing wearers to non-wearers, e.g. A 1993 report from Ontario stated "In teenagers, drinking alcohol (OR: 2.8) and smoking (OR: 4.4) were strongly associated with helmet non-use. In the adult group, female gender (OR: 1.26), higher income (OR: 1.43), higher education (OR: 1.68), non-smoking status (OR: 2.0) and abstinence from alcohol (1.27) were associated with helmet use."
The online critique by Jake Olivier, tended to make statements not supported by evidence in the NZ report.
I consider trying to include one and not the other to be taking a NPOV and fair reporting. I do not see any conflict of interest in taking this approach.
~~Colin at cycling~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin at cycling ( talk • contribs) 10:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
What are you folk up to?
User:Linda.m.ward and User:Colin at cycling are inserting and deleting respectively a qualification "a retired cycling coach and anti-helmet campaigner" on an author's name.
Let's pick at random an author from the other POV camp, say User:Tim.churches as we've a nice list of his output on his user page and he writes on The Conversation. It is clear from his output that he is dedicated to seeking errors, often insignificant, in the output of the other POV camp and publishing it in anything from peer-reviewed papers to self-published articles and web forums. Should we therefore tag all his references with "a dedicated pro-helmet campaigner and seeker of insignificant errors"? Of course not!
Behave folks, this article (and associated ones) has already damaged the reputation of Wikipedia enough. Kiwikiped ( talk) 21:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
One way in which this and related articles could be improved would be to discuss each study or paper in the text just once. Some papers by some authors are currently mentioned and cited in the text literally dozens of times (scroll down to the references and look for papers with long series of superscripted letters in front of them - that needs to be corrected because it represents undue emphasis, which is something WP guidelines warn against. Tim C ( talk) 07:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Qualification "a retired cycling coach and anti-helmet campaigner" - It appears to be a non NPOV and the article and others by the author states his qualification, and do not include "anti-helmet campaigner". Wiki is about providing a quality text on a topic, not allowing selection and tagging of individuals with make shift descriptions.
~~Colin at cycling~~
Update:
Tim suggested above that I should maybe go an clean up some of the mess. I've made a start but I doubt it is complete. Coincidentally I found an author for an "anon" paper as I went through (declaration: I've not read the paper and have no opinion on it, I just saw the anon, followed the link and found the author). I think "anon" is now eradicated, which can't be bad.
If anyone, from either POV, would prefer to point out stuff I've missed (rather than clean up whatever you've both inserted yourselves) then I'll agree to go in again and do some more cleanup.
However these fixes are only a small step to bringing this article up to encyclopaedia standard.
Now please all behave and try to get this article to something readable and worthy! Kiwikiped ( talk) 02:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
When cleaning up (see Ding-Dong section) I spotted a lot of "X stated", "Y noted" etc. when maybe it is "X argued" - or is that just the academic speaking? Now one might state that grass is green, but argue licensing hours are too restrictive; but maybe one wouldn't argue grass is green or state licensing hours are too restrictive. Maybe if there was more argue and less state/noted this article would appear less adversarial?
I must admit I changed one or two as I happened across them. But then I reached the footnote which reports that errors have been found only to then say they await confirmation; so they've actually been possibly found surely? However I realise such a change might not go down well on this particular page, so at that point I refrained from making an more stated/noted -> argued kind of changes and am placing this Talk item instead. (If anybody wishes to undo such a word change I won't object, they just caught my eye as I looked for the stuff covered under Ding-Dong.)
But ultimately there are bigger issues with this article than this one (it is is an issue at all)... Kiwikiped ( talk) 02:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
User:Harvey4931 reverted the description of the Rodgers 1988 study from:
A study by Rodgers in 1988 examined the relationship between estimates of annual bicycle-related injuries and fatalities, and estimates of annual bicycle helmet sales in the US between 1973 and 1985. It showed no association between estimated helmet sales and estimated numbers of serious injuries, and a small but statistically significant association between annual helmet sales and annual cyclist fatalities. [3]
to:
To examine claims that growth in the use of hard shell cycle helmets had been successful in reducing cycle-related injuries and death, Rodgers studied over 8 million cases of injury and death to cyclists in the USA over 15 years. He concluded: "There is no evidence that hard shell helmets have reduced the head injury and fatality rates. The most surprising finding is that the bicycle-related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use". [3]
I was intrigued by the earlier description of the Rodgers study, so obtained a copy of the original paper, and found that Rodgers did not "study over 8 million cases of injury and death to cyclists in the USA over 15 years" - 8 million was the cumulative estimate of cycling injuries over 15 years, derived from sampled reports from a network of hospital emergency rooms and physicians' offices. Therefore data was not collected on 8 million injuries, 8 million was just the estimated number of cycling injuries (all injuries, and very rough estimates as well). Helmet wearing was estimated from sales of one model of Bell cycling helmet. Copyright restrictions prevent me from posting the PDF of the paper online, but I did re-construct the entire data used in the Rodgers analysis, using the figures provided in teh Rodgers paper and an earlier paper to which it referred, and then checked with Rodgers by email that these data were an accurate re-construction of what he analysed. Here are the entire data as analysed by Rodgers:
year, total.injuries, head.injuries, lower.trunk.injuries, deaths, bicycles.7yr.cpsc, bicycles.10yr.cpsc, cpsc.compliant.7yr, cpsc.compliant.10yr, helmets, neiss, riders.millions, ped.deaths, vehicles.millions 1973,453000,59700,14700,1100, 64,76.4,0,0, 0,0,67.8,10200,129.8 1974,520000,70000,15200,1000, 71.3,85,0,0, 0,0,77,8500,134.9 1975,520300,68900,15400,1003, 70.8,86.2,0,0, 4000,0,77.5,8400,137.9 1976,503300,63600,18700,900, 70.4,87.5,0,0, 16000,0,78,8600,143.5 1977,546500,71500,17300,900, 70.8,89.6,0.13,0.11, 64000,0,85.8,9100,148.8 1978,491600,62600,16400,892, 71,91.3,0.26,0.21, 300000,0,79.5,9600,153.6 1979,557700,71500,21900,932, 72.5,94.1,0.39,0.31, 600000,1,73.1,9800,159.6 1980,503400,63200,17700,965, 72.1,94.8,0.49,0.39, 1000000,1,73.5,9700,161.6 1981,550000,68200,23200,936, 71.4,95.2,0.58,0.47, 1500000,1,73.9,9400,164.1 1982,573700,68100,25400,883, 68.7,93.3,0.65,0.52, 2000000,1,74.3,8400,165.2 1983,571200,69000,24500,839, 68.2,93.5,0.72,0.58, 2600000,1,78.1,8200,169.4 1984,556700,67300,25700,849, 69,94.7,0.78,0.65, 3200000,1,79.5,8500,171.8 1985,581800,68800,28000,890, 71.1,97.2,0.83,0.7, 4000000,1,80,8500,177.1 1986,564400,69100,25100,941, 74.2,100.6,0.87,0.75, ,1,,8900,181.4 1987,561800,69400,24700,949, 77.3,104.1,0.9,0.8, ,1,,7500,183.9
Yes, that's the entire extent of the data which Rodgers analysed. Note in particular how obviously approximate the helmet sales estimates (as a proxy for helmet wearing - he assumed every helmet sold was worn) from 1973 to 1985 are:
0 0 4000 16000 64000 300000 600000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2600000 3200000 4000000
Note that the (obviously very approximate) estimate of helmet use by cyclists in 1985 is 4 million. But the estimated number of cyclists in that year was 80 million i.e an estimated 5% helmet wearing rate. It is drawing a very long bow indeed to base any conclusions about the impact of helmets on injury and death in cyclists based on these data. For these reasons, I believe that the description of the Rodgers study which User:Harvey4931 replaced with an earlier version is more accurate, and I am restoring it to the article. Tim C ( talk) 12:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
This information seems to be orginal research in drawing its own conclusions. "A study by Rodgers in 1988 examined the relationship between estimates of annual bicycle-related injuries and fatalities, and estimates of annual bicycle helmet sales in the US between 1973 and 1985. It showed no association between estimated helmet sales and estimated numbers of serious injuries, and a small but statistically significant association between annual helmet sales and annual cyclist fatalities." It appears to not make clear the findings of Rodgers with regards to helmets.
Rodgers says There is no evidence that hard shell helmets have reduced the head injury and fatality rates. The most surprising finding is that the bicycle-related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use This is a clear statement from the report.
The data appears to suggest that pedestrians had a 26% reduction in fatalities, 10200 to 7500 and cyclists had a 14% reduction, 1100 to 949. Rodgers does not detail the number of pedestrian deaths per year.
I would suggest the following may be suitable.
Rodgers reported on injuries and deaths to cyclists in the USA over a 15 years. He considered bicycle use levels, bicycle standards, helmet use estimates and road safety trends using pedestrian data as a guide. For helmets he stated: "There is no evidence that hard shell helmets have reduced the head injury and fatality rates. The most surprising finding is that the bicycle-related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use". [3]
Colin at cycling ( talk) 18:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Colin at cycling Colin at cycling ( talk) 18:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I see many revisions have been done recently. I think they happen too fast, without the discussion that the part shows that this article needs. If nothing else to avoid "edit-wars". For instance I disagree with the assertion that a reference to the WP article Victim blaming be irrelevant - Morten7an ( talk) 01:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Please explain how an WP article on "victim blaming" is relevant to this article on bicycle helmets, bearing in mind that the NPOV policy extends to what links to other WP articles appear in an article. AFAIK, no bicycle helmet has ever been observed to blame a victim (of what?). I am happy to discuss the other edits I have made. Please document your concerns. Many have just been tidying up of references. Much more tidying up is required, as is obvious from a glance at the references section. There are a lot of incomplete references, a lot of references that include large verbatim quotes, when the resources they refer to are already accessible online, and there are quite a few redundant references.
Tim C (
talk)
03:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Quite a few of the references for this article include quotations from the cited source, some of them very long. This makes the whole reference section very difficult to read. The WP guidelines state that quotes should be included in references only when it make the task of editorial review easier. In the case of references which are freely available online, there is no reason to copy text into the reference as well. If there is a passage in the reference which is both germane and sufficiently important and reliable, then it should be included in the article body text (with attribution, of course). Where references are not online or are behind a paywall, then retention of existing quotes in references seems acceptable. Views? Tim C ( talk) 07:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I have moved one quote from a reference into a separate Quotes section, with a forward pinter from the reference to the quote, and a back pointer from the quote to the reference. The forward pointer is not elegant but is the best I could come up with - other WP mark-p solutions using magc-words don't seem to work. I will fix the other quotes in reference in the same manner, as time permits, if there are no objections. Tim C ( talk) 20:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
This would result in a less informative article, as most people do not read references. A quick summary or a quotation of a reference is an excellent way to briefly inform the reader what the reference is about and why it is relevant. To remove those references would lead to a less informative article.
If the quotation is too long, then it should be summarised or shortened, as long as it still represents the essence of the message. Claiming the quote is too long should not be used as a way to give lower prominence to references. The approach suggested is open to abuse, as it would enable people to remove quotations from references they do not like, to give them less prominence. Given that the discussion can be quite polarised, this would open the door to unnecessary edit wars. Harvey4931 ( talk) 22:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
User:MTB UK reverted a large number of changes, with the complaint that the page ought to refer to helmets for MTB riders too. I agree, but the way to address this to to add such material, not to arbitrarily and seemingly randomly revert many edits made by other contributors. Tim C ( talk) 10:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
User:Richard Keatinge has made an edit to the section titled "Rotational injury" which states that one of the authors of the 1987 Corner et al. study (see http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/1987/pdf/Mcycle_Helm_1.pdf ) was also the inventor of a new type of helmet, as interviewed by New Scientist magazine in 2000 (see http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn418-soft-hat.html ). This does not appear to be the case. The name of the inventor of the helmet is Kenneth Phillips, from Middlesex, UK, whose name does not appear anywhere in the Corner et al. report, which was done at the School of Civil Engineering at the Queensland Institute of Technology in Australia some 13 years earlier.
Closer inspection of the New Scientist article reveals that the Kenneth Phillips helmet is actually intended for motorcyclists, and possibly equestrian riders and police. The article mentions motorists but I think that is a typo, and motorcyclists was the word intended. However, cyclists, as in bicycle riders, are not mentioned anywhere, and from the description of the construction of the helmet, it is hard to see how it could be used by bicyclists except in very special competition settings in which ventilation was not required (eg sprint track events). Given that the Phillips helmet is not a bicycle helmet, and that the inventor of a new patented helmet type has a clear conflict of interest, I don't think that the mention of the Phillips helmet and the quite lengthy quote from the inventor of it has a place in this article about bicycle helmets, and I have removed it from the article. If anyone wishes to make a case for its re-instatement, please do so here.
Tim C (
talk)
20:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
In the first paragraph of the article, there is an unreferenced statement: "There is an active scientific debate, with no consensus, on whether helmets are useful for general cycling, and on whether any benefits are outweighed by their disadvantages." Is this statement actually true? Can anyone point to evidence of an active scientific debate about whether helmets are useful for general cycling? The dominant scientific view seems to be that they protect the head and brain, and there seems to have been very little dissent from this view in the scientific literature in the last decade. There has been some debate about helmet laws in the literature, but not about the usefulness of helmets themselves. Tim C ( talk) 11:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Colin at cycling
Corner et al
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/1987/pdf/Mcycle_Helm_1.pdf
Corner discusses the density of foam and how good or bad a specific density may be. Corner provides details of the very high rotational accelerations, 69k rad/sec/sec, page 121. UK research found value up to about 20k at impact speeds of 8.5m/sec. How safe are helmets is one debate.
Some research has indicated that helmets lead to higher accident rates, eg NZ 2012 http://www.cycle-helmets.com/nz-clarke-2012.pdf note 20% higher rate
and
Robinson DL; Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws; Accid Anal Prev, 28, 4: p 463-475, 1996 http://www.cycle-helmets.com/robinson-head-injuries.pdf Tables 2 and 5
and
Clarke CF, The Case against bicycle helmets and legislation, VeloCity Munich, 2007 http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7manuais/colin_clarke_cycle_helmet.pdf details a number of reports indicating a higher rate. A list of advantages v disadvantages for helmets is provided, so a debate could consider each in turn.
The helmet debate tends to focus on reports like Attewell, it did not measure risk per hour of cycling, it users reports to compare outcomes from wearers and non-wearers, typically for cyclists who had a choice. It was mainly comparing two groups. These groups tend to have different approaches. This is probably a separate issue comparing injuries for different ages and types of cyclists, typically teenagers may not in inclined to wear helmets and quite often they are at fault when it comes to accidents, whereas adults may be slightly more inclined to wear helmets. The accident rate can vary by around a factor of 10 to 1 per km of travel for different types of cyclists.
Considering a serious head injury, say about once in 2000+ years of cycling – see Ron Shepherd’s article, average person may cycle for say 50 years. So helmets may have a chance of reducing a serious head injury for an individual, say once in 2000 years of cycling. But if their accident rate increases by 20%, they have a higher risk of being involved in an accident and sustaining injuries in general in their 50 years of cycling.
One debate is whether helmets improve safety. Also the debate is whether they improve health and safety and additionally if legislation is justified. If safety is measured by all injuries then helmets fail, if only head injuries are considered, that would still be debateable because wearers will incur more impacts. Comparing the 2 groups, wearers v non-wearers is not assessing safety per km of travel. The debate cannot be easily resolved because of the variables involved and difficulty in obtained precise data for helmets effects alone. When helmets laws come in the debate takes another stage because non-wearers ask for good proof that helmets are safe, want to see why a legal requirement has been imposed with possible excessive fines. Data shows cyclists are at a similar risk of serious head injury to that of pedestrians and the risk is low. Imposing the legal requirements sets the stage for a health and safety debate, with a wide range of issues that can be considered and with the end result that helmet laws are questioned. The evidence for helmet use is not conclusive. The health implications affect many more people than the remote risk of head injury. Discrimination in accident compensation runs hand in glove with helmet promotion and legislation. It seems the debate can only continue. ~~Colin at cycling~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin at cycling ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have any major objections to the form of words in the opening sentences to the article as they now stand? If not, then I think it is time to close and archive this debate. Tim C ( talk) 21:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
~~Colin at cycling~~
2012 Some research has indicated that helmets lead to higher accident rates, eg NZ 2012 http://www.cycle-helmets.com/nz-clarke-2012.pdf note 20% higher rate, note the "Cyclist’s injury risk per hour increased by 20–32%."
2007 Clarke CF, The Case against bicycle helmets and legislation, VeloCity Munich, 2007 http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7manuais/colin_clarke_cycle_helmet.pdf details a number of reports indicating a higher rate. A list of advantages v disadvantages for helmets is provided, so a debate could consider each in turn.
2006 UK research found value up to about 20k at impact speeds of 8.5m/sec. How safe are helmets is one debate.
The debate is also about reports trying to mislead the public.
With these results I have modified the opening to reflect the above.
~~Colin at cycling~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin at cycling ( talk • contribs) 08:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
~~Colin at cycling~~
The statement below may not be very reliable and changes to reflect actual reports could be worthwhile.
“The evidence on bicycle helmets is mixed - some studies indicating that helmets provide a clear benefit and others finding either no clear benefit or that they have failed to improve safety.[3][4][5][6]”
"some studies indicating that helmets provide a clear benefit" Bambach el al is provided. This report compares outcomes for helmeted as a group to non-helmeted as a group. It does not provide a safety level per hour of cycling for each group, eg non-wearers may cycle more hours per week than wearers on average, exposure data is not available. A noticeable feature in the details was for the ages, 55% of non-wearers were in the 0-19 age group compared with 19% for wearers. A higher proportion of non-wearers had BAC over 0.05. Other differences can also be seen from the report. The fatality data provided, 18 from 42, out of 106 recorded in the accident statistics leaves a serious question about the data considered. In that the report is comparing quite diffeeent groups who could have quite different head injury rates, means it cannot really be considered to show that helmets provide a clear benefit, the overall accident rate per hour cycled would have to be included. Nearly all reports finding helmets provide a benefit are based on comparing 2 groups,
In addition some reports, NZ 2012, Summary - Cyclist’s injury risk per hour increased by 20–32%”, The ECF ( European Cycling Federation) stated "the evidence from Australia and New Zealand suggests that the wearing of helmets might even make cycling more dangerous", indicating safety was actually reduced.
Slight changes to the sentance to reflect the above mentioned information. ~~Colin at cycling ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin at cycling ( talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
A recent edit by Dorre states
This is an incorrect interpretation of the results from a paper I co-authored. In our paper, we primarily considered a comparative interrupted time series model to assess changes in cycling hospitalisations around the helmet law in NSW Australia with head injuries as the primary outcome and arm injuries as the comparator. Additionally, we performed sensitivity analyses comparing cycling head/leg injuries, pedestrian head/arm injuries and pedestrian head/leg injuries.
Dorre's comments are incorrect given the parameterisation we used for our models. For those that are interested, the paper can be found here http://handle.unsw.edu.au/1959.4/50858. In our analyses, we used indicator variables for the type of injury (head was always 1 and other types 0) and the pre- and post-law periods (post-law was always 1 and pre-law 0). So, the p-value given by Dorre for changes in pedestrian head and arm injuries with the law of p=0.02 is for arm injuries only. Using the model estimates, the estimated change in pedestrian arm injuries with the law is exp(-0.250)-1=-0.22. So, the model estimates a significant drop in pedestrian arm injuries of 22%. The term INJURY*LAW is a comparison between changes in pedestrian head and arm injuries with the law. We can use that to estimate the change in pedestrian head injuries with the law as exp(-0.250+0.106)-1=-0.13. So, head injuries for pedestrians dropped an estimated 13% with the law. The p-value of 0.41 indicates pedestrian arm and head injuries do not significantly differ; however, it does not indicate the 13% in head injuries is significantly (or not significantly) different from 0% (or no effect). I could re-parameterise the model to the get that p-value if you like, but what's given there is clearly incorrect.
With regards to cycling injuries, the estimated drop in arm injuries is exp(-0.112)-1=-0.11 and for head injuries exp(-0.112-0.322)-1=-0.35. So, head injuries for cyclists dropped by 35% with the law while cycling arm injuries dropped at a similar rate to pedestrian head injuries at 11%. The results for the cycling head/leg comparison was similar, and we reported a 29% adjusted decline in cycling head injuries with the law. Our recent 2013 paper modified this analysis a bit by reporting the most parsimonious model and a model in which inter-month correlations were accounted for. Each of these gave similar estimates of the decline in head injuries, but with much more significant p-values (p<0.001 in each case).
If Dorre would like to make a direct comparison between head injuries for cyclists and pedestrians, that would need to be done as it's own analysis. However, we can get a pretty good idea of the result using the model estimates which would be a comparison of 35% vs 13% (not that unlike the original comparison with arm injuries).
Dorre made another edit claiming Robinson used "similar data" in her 1996 paper. Her analyses heavily relied on survey data taken one month every year for four years. This is a missing data problem with 44/48 months not observed (about 92% missing data). I'm confused how census data of all hospitalisations aggregated by month is similar here? JakeOlivier ( talk) 10:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey TimC, JakeOlivier et al. Why don't you team up with helmets.org and publish your thoughts there? I agree with Richard that Wikipedia is not the place for this very detailed discussion of bike helmets and BHRF. The wikipedia entry is already too complicated for a general audience, and I'm sure BHSI would appreciate your expertise. Wiki's role is to summarize sources such as BHSI and BHRF (and obviously the peer-reviewed publications), not to disect every detail. Erik Sandblom ( talk) 19:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Looking at Dorre's most recent change to the interpretation of the model by Walter et al., it seems that Dorre has confused the interpretation of a log-linear model with the interpretation of a linear model. The main effect terms in a log-linear model do not 'mean the same thing' as the main effect terms in a linear model. The first-order interaction terms in a log-linear model correspond to the main effects in a linear model. The main effect terms in a log-linear model refer to the marginal totals, the 22% drop associated with the LAW variable does NOT represent 'a sudden and sustained drop' in pedestrian arm injuries at the time of the helmet law'. As previously noted by JakeOlivier, the INJURY*LAW term compares (pedestrian) head to arm injuries before/after the law, for pedestrians the p-value was 0.41. The statement that the model showed 'even stronger statistical evidence (P<0.02) for an equally sudden drop in the number of pedestrians (a comparison group) with arm injuries at exactly the same time (but no change in the head:arm injury ratio in pedestrians)' is egregiously incorrect, and should be removed as a matter of priority. Linda.m.ward ( talk) 22:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
User:Chris_Capoccia has made large scale destructive edits to many references in this article, removing URLs to abstracts and/or full-copies of papers, and in some cases removing all details of the reference except for a PubMed ID or a DOI. These destructive edits then triggered the attention of an automated citation bot, which then made a whole raft of further changes, mostly inappropriate (due to the preceding destructive edits). I have reverted all these changes (one had to be reverted manually), and placed a warning template on the user talk page of User_talk:Chris_Capoccia. If the user makes further desctructive edits, then s/he will need to be reported to WP authorities. Tim C ( talk) 22:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
User:Colin at cycling added the following text and references to the section "Cycling risk and head injury":
GB accident data shows the injury rate per billion km for cyclists has increased in recent years and indications are that the helmet wearing rates may also have increased. [1] [2]
If the juxtaposition of these facts:
is intended to imply some sort of causal association (or a lack of causal association i..e lack of effectiveness of helmets), then the edit violates NPOV.
If the juxtaposition of the two facts is just co-incidence, then the edit is off-topic for this article (although arguably the helmet wearing rate information could be used in a different section). Finally, just providing a URL does not constitute an adequate reference. The authors, title, journal or publisher of the work or information cited must be given. It is unreasonable to expect other editors to fill in such details on your behalf subsequently.
For all these reasons, I have deleted this material. Tim C ( talk) 01:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I have just spent about 30 minutes fixing errors in the references caused by incorrect use of named references. Please note that the syntax for referring to an existing named reference is:
<ref name=Whatever2011 />
and is not
<ref name=Whatever2011></ref>
The latter form replaces the details in the named reference with nothing when the page is rendered. The bast way to insert named references is to click on the Named References clipboard icon in the toolbar above the editing area. Tracking down and fixing this misuse of named references is very time-consuming. Please edit with care. Tim C ( talk) 22:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I, like most editors of this page (presumably including someone who calls himself Colin at cycling) have a major conflict of interest - I cycle for transport. Repealing helmet laws won't prevent anyone who wants to from wearing a helmet, but it will encourage people who currently consider cycling too dangerous to see it in a different light. An increase in cycling will increase my personal safety. Currently, if I wanted to commit suicide, all I'd have to do is continue cycling round a roundabout when a truck is approaching.
It's funny that a helmet can change driver attitude, but it does. A friend of mine was cycling in town and came over to say hello to a retired couple he knew from a dance club. Apart from the helmet and prescription glasses that go dark in the sun, he was wearing normal clothes. But the attire was enough to make the couple think they might get mugged, until they recognized him. Even if only 1% of drivers think in this way, cycling changes from a pleasant, safe, enjoyable experience to something quite terrifying. I learned to cope - asserting my right to be on the road, being prepared to stop on roundabouts to give way to the entering drivers who would normally have given way to me. But the whole string of near misses (compared to not a single one before the helmet law was introduced) was almost enough to make me give up cycling.
Jake and Tim will tell you that cycling is booming, because you can buy an alloy-frame mountain bike with suspension and shimano gears for under $100. Great for off-road stuff, but not much use for transport without a rack, mudguards and lights. These would cost very little extra if included in the specs to the manufacturer, but double or triple the price when they have to be bought separately. Bikes are sold this way because the intended market isn't transport cycling. I see a few people struggling on these bikes with backpacks, but the discomfort and inconvenience must put a lot of people off. Extremely cheap bike imports have led to booming sales, but very transport cyclists. Backpacks also raise the centre of gravity, leading to increased risk of falls and arm injuries. People who see me cycling ask how on earth I can get up the hills. The answer is simple - once out of the police zone I remove the helmet as soon as I start feeling hot, to avoid the danger of sweat getting into my eyes.
So yes, if conflicts of interest need to be declared, then the fact that I cycle for transport ranks much higher than any other possible conflict of interest, as I assume it would for Colin at cycling. The second major conflict of interest would be that, as a citizen of the world, I'd like to encourage other people to use bicycles for transport for health benefits and environmental reasons. Dorre ( talk) 01:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I've put in a brief notice of this incident; it's a single anecdote but in the context of helmets having consequences not intended by their designers it may be appropriate for inclusion. What do others think? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 08:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
In this specific case, I suggest again that the unintended consequences of helmets are well and appropriately described by perhaps one sentence each, supported by all the relevant references. Causality is fairly obvious in these cases and doesn't need any further remark. Separately, Google Alerts brought me over 300 anecdotes of "a helmet saved my life" before I stopped counting. A sentence mentioning these anecdotes would be an entirely reasonable addition, and since the fact of their existence is uncontroversial it doesn't necessarily need a reference at all though one or more would be fine. I agree with Dorre that causality is in grave doubt in these cases, and we need to use a form of words that does not endorse causality in Wikipedia's voice, but we don't, I suggest, need to indulge in any further argumentation on the subject here. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 10:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Undid post by Tim.churches Reverted to previous script, important to provide information for readers to able to see concerns have been published, without having to search for information.
Case control studies only provide a comparison, not a measure of safety per hour cycling, they are only a guide. Riders wearing helmets may spend less time on average cycling, exposure data is required before making strong claims.
~~Colin at cycling~~
The following information helps readers to appreciate that the Persaud et al report has added complications, replies published by the CMAJ and is therefore suitable for Wiki.
"A 2012 study by Persaud et al. using coronial records of 129 deaths of cyclists in Canada between 2005 and 2010 found that unhelmeted cyclists in fatal crashes were more likely than helmeted cyclists to have sustained a head injury (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-7.3). [84]The published replies detail that 23% of the bicyclists had been under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of death, while the status of 30% was unknown. Of the bicyclists, 16% were carrying unsafe loads at the time of death. Some details are mentioned from other reports, comparing wearers to non-wearers, e.g. A 1993 report from Ontario stated "In teenagers, drinking alcohol (OR: 2.8) and smoking (OR: 4.4) were strongly associated with helmet non-use. In the adult group, female gender (OR: 1.26), higher income (OR: 1.43), higher education (OR: 1.68), non-smoking status (OR: 2.0) and abstinence from alcohol (1.27) were associated with helmet use."
The online critique by Jake Olivier, tended to make statements not supported by evidence in the NZ report.
I consider trying to include one and not the other to be taking a NPOV and fair reporting. I do not see any conflict of interest in taking this approach.
~~Colin at cycling~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin at cycling ( talk • contribs) 10:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
What are you folk up to?
User:Linda.m.ward and User:Colin at cycling are inserting and deleting respectively a qualification "a retired cycling coach and anti-helmet campaigner" on an author's name.
Let's pick at random an author from the other POV camp, say User:Tim.churches as we've a nice list of his output on his user page and he writes on The Conversation. It is clear from his output that he is dedicated to seeking errors, often insignificant, in the output of the other POV camp and publishing it in anything from peer-reviewed papers to self-published articles and web forums. Should we therefore tag all his references with "a dedicated pro-helmet campaigner and seeker of insignificant errors"? Of course not!
Behave folks, this article (and associated ones) has already damaged the reputation of Wikipedia enough. Kiwikiped ( talk) 21:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
One way in which this and related articles could be improved would be to discuss each study or paper in the text just once. Some papers by some authors are currently mentioned and cited in the text literally dozens of times (scroll down to the references and look for papers with long series of superscripted letters in front of them - that needs to be corrected because it represents undue emphasis, which is something WP guidelines warn against. Tim C ( talk) 07:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Qualification "a retired cycling coach and anti-helmet campaigner" - It appears to be a non NPOV and the article and others by the author states his qualification, and do not include "anti-helmet campaigner". Wiki is about providing a quality text on a topic, not allowing selection and tagging of individuals with make shift descriptions.
~~Colin at cycling~~
Update:
Tim suggested above that I should maybe go an clean up some of the mess. I've made a start but I doubt it is complete. Coincidentally I found an author for an "anon" paper as I went through (declaration: I've not read the paper and have no opinion on it, I just saw the anon, followed the link and found the author). I think "anon" is now eradicated, which can't be bad.
If anyone, from either POV, would prefer to point out stuff I've missed (rather than clean up whatever you've both inserted yourselves) then I'll agree to go in again and do some more cleanup.
However these fixes are only a small step to bringing this article up to encyclopaedia standard.
Now please all behave and try to get this article to something readable and worthy! Kiwikiped ( talk) 02:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
When cleaning up (see Ding-Dong section) I spotted a lot of "X stated", "Y noted" etc. when maybe it is "X argued" - or is that just the academic speaking? Now one might state that grass is green, but argue licensing hours are too restrictive; but maybe one wouldn't argue grass is green or state licensing hours are too restrictive. Maybe if there was more argue and less state/noted this article would appear less adversarial?
I must admit I changed one or two as I happened across them. But then I reached the footnote which reports that errors have been found only to then say they await confirmation; so they've actually been possibly found surely? However I realise such a change might not go down well on this particular page, so at that point I refrained from making an more stated/noted -> argued kind of changes and am placing this Talk item instead. (If anybody wishes to undo such a word change I won't object, they just caught my eye as I looked for the stuff covered under Ding-Dong.)
But ultimately there are bigger issues with this article than this one (it is is an issue at all)... Kiwikiped ( talk) 02:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
User:Harvey4931 reverted the description of the Rodgers 1988 study from:
A study by Rodgers in 1988 examined the relationship between estimates of annual bicycle-related injuries and fatalities, and estimates of annual bicycle helmet sales in the US between 1973 and 1985. It showed no association between estimated helmet sales and estimated numbers of serious injuries, and a small but statistically significant association between annual helmet sales and annual cyclist fatalities. [3]
to:
To examine claims that growth in the use of hard shell cycle helmets had been successful in reducing cycle-related injuries and death, Rodgers studied over 8 million cases of injury and death to cyclists in the USA over 15 years. He concluded: "There is no evidence that hard shell helmets have reduced the head injury and fatality rates. The most surprising finding is that the bicycle-related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use". [3]
I was intrigued by the earlier description of the Rodgers study, so obtained a copy of the original paper, and found that Rodgers did not "study over 8 million cases of injury and death to cyclists in the USA over 15 years" - 8 million was the cumulative estimate of cycling injuries over 15 years, derived from sampled reports from a network of hospital emergency rooms and physicians' offices. Therefore data was not collected on 8 million injuries, 8 million was just the estimated number of cycling injuries (all injuries, and very rough estimates as well). Helmet wearing was estimated from sales of one model of Bell cycling helmet. Copyright restrictions prevent me from posting the PDF of the paper online, but I did re-construct the entire data used in the Rodgers analysis, using the figures provided in teh Rodgers paper and an earlier paper to which it referred, and then checked with Rodgers by email that these data were an accurate re-construction of what he analysed. Here are the entire data as analysed by Rodgers:
year, total.injuries, head.injuries, lower.trunk.injuries, deaths, bicycles.7yr.cpsc, bicycles.10yr.cpsc, cpsc.compliant.7yr, cpsc.compliant.10yr, helmets, neiss, riders.millions, ped.deaths, vehicles.millions 1973,453000,59700,14700,1100, 64,76.4,0,0, 0,0,67.8,10200,129.8 1974,520000,70000,15200,1000, 71.3,85,0,0, 0,0,77,8500,134.9 1975,520300,68900,15400,1003, 70.8,86.2,0,0, 4000,0,77.5,8400,137.9 1976,503300,63600,18700,900, 70.4,87.5,0,0, 16000,0,78,8600,143.5 1977,546500,71500,17300,900, 70.8,89.6,0.13,0.11, 64000,0,85.8,9100,148.8 1978,491600,62600,16400,892, 71,91.3,0.26,0.21, 300000,0,79.5,9600,153.6 1979,557700,71500,21900,932, 72.5,94.1,0.39,0.31, 600000,1,73.1,9800,159.6 1980,503400,63200,17700,965, 72.1,94.8,0.49,0.39, 1000000,1,73.5,9700,161.6 1981,550000,68200,23200,936, 71.4,95.2,0.58,0.47, 1500000,1,73.9,9400,164.1 1982,573700,68100,25400,883, 68.7,93.3,0.65,0.52, 2000000,1,74.3,8400,165.2 1983,571200,69000,24500,839, 68.2,93.5,0.72,0.58, 2600000,1,78.1,8200,169.4 1984,556700,67300,25700,849, 69,94.7,0.78,0.65, 3200000,1,79.5,8500,171.8 1985,581800,68800,28000,890, 71.1,97.2,0.83,0.7, 4000000,1,80,8500,177.1 1986,564400,69100,25100,941, 74.2,100.6,0.87,0.75, ,1,,8900,181.4 1987,561800,69400,24700,949, 77.3,104.1,0.9,0.8, ,1,,7500,183.9
Yes, that's the entire extent of the data which Rodgers analysed. Note in particular how obviously approximate the helmet sales estimates (as a proxy for helmet wearing - he assumed every helmet sold was worn) from 1973 to 1985 are:
0 0 4000 16000 64000 300000 600000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2600000 3200000 4000000
Note that the (obviously very approximate) estimate of helmet use by cyclists in 1985 is 4 million. But the estimated number of cyclists in that year was 80 million i.e an estimated 5% helmet wearing rate. It is drawing a very long bow indeed to base any conclusions about the impact of helmets on injury and death in cyclists based on these data. For these reasons, I believe that the description of the Rodgers study which User:Harvey4931 replaced with an earlier version is more accurate, and I am restoring it to the article. Tim C ( talk) 12:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
This information seems to be orginal research in drawing its own conclusions. "A study by Rodgers in 1988 examined the relationship between estimates of annual bicycle-related injuries and fatalities, and estimates of annual bicycle helmet sales in the US between 1973 and 1985. It showed no association between estimated helmet sales and estimated numbers of serious injuries, and a small but statistically significant association between annual helmet sales and annual cyclist fatalities." It appears to not make clear the findings of Rodgers with regards to helmets.
Rodgers says There is no evidence that hard shell helmets have reduced the head injury and fatality rates. The most surprising finding is that the bicycle-related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use This is a clear statement from the report.
The data appears to suggest that pedestrians had a 26% reduction in fatalities, 10200 to 7500 and cyclists had a 14% reduction, 1100 to 949. Rodgers does not detail the number of pedestrian deaths per year.
I would suggest the following may be suitable.
Rodgers reported on injuries and deaths to cyclists in the USA over a 15 years. He considered bicycle use levels, bicycle standards, helmet use estimates and road safety trends using pedestrian data as a guide. For helmets he stated: "There is no evidence that hard shell helmets have reduced the head injury and fatality rates. The most surprising finding is that the bicycle-related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use". [3]
Colin at cycling ( talk) 18:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Colin at cycling Colin at cycling ( talk) 18:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)