![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Currently the section headed "20 years on" says "Australian academics at a number of Australian universities have published research with conclusions both supportive and unsupportive of the laws" which may be true but doesn't adequately represent the situation with regards to the established medical position on helmet legislation. The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons has made their support for helmet legislation clear and explicit. http://www.surgeons.org/media/14490/POS_2009-06-25_Road_Trauma_Cycling_Position_Paper.pdf I propose adding this information to the "20 years on section" with a brief one sentence summary of their position which I'm happy to have approved in this talk section before it's included. To my mind this would be an essential addition to this article. The RACS are an independent authority who are talking about the issue at a national level. Their position is explicit, unequivocal and clearly stated so can be easily summarised without any of the accompanying editorialising and bloated clarification that blighted this article before it was revised. We should make it clear where the highest medical authority in the country stands on this contentious issue. Dsnmi ( talk) 11:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I can see how it looks to provide a clear view but in practice it is not a NPOV, it misleads. Below is just some of the information.
ROAD TRAUMA CYCLING POSITION PAPER
“The Committee had shown that bicyclist casualties sustained head injuries three times more frequently than motorcyclists casualties1.”
And later
“During the 1980’s, McDermott, Lane and Brazenor of the Committee undertook a prospective controlled trial of 1,710 bicyclists casualties wearing and not wearing helmets. This demonstrated that bicyclist casualties wearing Standards Australia Association-approved helmets had a 45% reduction in the frequency of head injury2.”
Both claims stem from Professor McDermott et al work
Appendix
B3)
McDermott and Klug 1982, "Difference in head injuries of pedal cyclist and motorcyclist casualties in Victoria", reported 73 skull fractures for pedal cyclists compared with 31 for motorcyclists and concluded that pedal cyclists had a significant greater incident of fractured vault of the skull. They were mainly comparing adult motorcyclists (96%) to cyclists aged less 17 years of age (73%). Adult skull stiffness is higher than for children therefore they were not quite comparing like with like. They reported 181 pedal cyclist fatalities compared with 451 for motorcyclists. The travel data available for 1984/5 (about 7 years after their study period) detailed bicyclists spending 114,500 hours per day cycling in Victoria compared with 17,500 hours per day for motorcycling. Relating time of travel to skull fractures shows motorcyclists incur nearly three times that of bicyclists, a factor of 278% and have a fatality rate 16.3 higher than bicyclists and the overall injury rate for motorcyclists was 16.1 times higher. Motorcyclists generally wearing helmets were 16 times more likely to be killed or injured and nearly 3 times more likely to suffer a skull fracture compared with bicyclists who were generally not wearing helmets. With hindsight it was a mistake for McDermott and Klug not to relate injury and death to time spent travelling, making their findings unsuitable for considering overall safety. In addition they reported having no information on the cause of death. Their recommendation for a coordinated campaign, involving the Royal Australasin College of Surgeons, road safety and traffic authorities, the Educational Department, school principals' and parents' councils, and the media to increase helmet wearing rates was not based on reliable methods. Both McDermott and Klug were members of the Road Trauma Committee, Royal Australian College of Surgeons that requested the Government of Victoria to introduce bicycle helmet legislation.
See
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1165.html
Apart from the above, other issues could be mentioned but would entail a higher level of understanding of the data. In short the information would be misleading the public. Colin at cycling ( talk) 17:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I was not actually suggesting including the appendix details on the Wiki site. The RACS are a group who have and are advocated helmet legislation. Key members selected research data and presented it in a format, cyclists v motorcyclists, that was used to support a political objective. They did not present head injuries from road accidents in general terms. They compared adults, 216 cyclists v 1936 motorcyclists, but did not say how many had sustained head injuries for similar age groups. They did not mention a possible conflict of interest in advocating helmet legislation. The Wiki site already gives space to their position and involvement. The RACS material they publish can be seen to be misleading. Wiki should not be used to promote their misleading helmet law promotional material. I would object to added weight to their view and links to misleading information Colin at cycling ( talk) 06:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
It appears that McDermott and Klug had a political objective of introducing legislation and provided research directed towards that objective. Without the political objective the shape and information provided in the research may have taken a different format. It could clearly have compared head injuries by age group but chose to compare total head injuries by users group, thus comparing children/teenagers in large part to adults. It did not take account of levels or hours for each activity, e.g many children cycling for hours. The team of McDermott and Klug were wearing two possible outfit but no mention of possible conflict of interest. Both McDermott and Klug were members of the Road Trauma Committee, Royal Australian College of Surgeons that requested the Government of Victoria to introduce bicycle helmet legislation. Providing a report that appears to have been designed in part to match a political objective. Colin at cycling ( talk) 07:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
One point is that they are not providing a balanced account, they are pro legislation and not providing reliable evidence, as the pdf link provided shows. The History sections provides a pro helmet legislation prospective and not a NPOV. I am opposed to adding more pro helmet laws statements or links when it should be providing a NPOV. Colin at cycling ( talk) 10:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Just to double check, you are referring to http://www.surgeons.org/media/14490/POS_2009-06-25_Road_Trauma_Cycling_Position_Paper.pdf Colin at cycling ( talk) 10:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
If any organisation is to be referenced I would agree with Dsnmi that RACS is a good candidate - they are covered in the History section and pushed for the law. The challenge is to do so in an NPOV way for which there is consensus. Referencing any other organisations is a much bigger challenge, both pro-law & anti-law camps will undoubtedly have the views on which to reference and reaching consensus could be challenging - not that need be a reason for folk not to try if they so wish.
The RACS paper being referenced is not hard to follow - it is written for a general audience and therefore no complex statistics etc.; and it is short - just 7 background paragraphs upon which a bulleted position is list is based. The first 4 relate the history, already covered in the previous section of this article. Para 5 covers other safety issues, and para 7 suggests that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks. Which leaves para 6, they key one in relation to the issues debated by folk involved here, and its just 3 sentences. RACS simply states that the data is not available to determine trends in cycle safety - no argument the law succeeded or failed. Given they have no data upon which to reevaluate/review their position they move on, in the bulleted list, to simply restate their pre-law position as covered by paras 1-4, and the history section of this article. Others may argue that there is data, but that is moot here - to the best of RACS knowledge (we of course assume good faith) for the first 2 decades of the law there is not, and it is RACS position that is up for inclusion. I'll offer the following summary for your consideration:
The floor is open. Kiwikiped ( talk) 21:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I think this topic is on the cusp of consensus, though of course cannot actually make any edit until the topic "Two Decades On - Redux" below makes it edit.
In WP:BRD we find "Let the other editor apply agreed-upon changes. If he or she doesn't want to, that's okay, but be sure to offer." - So I think at this time we invite Colin at cycling, in the absence of any intervening indications to contrary and once "Two Decades On - Redux" has made its edit, to make the edit; but it is fine if you do not wish to. In the latter case Dsnmi is invited; and if you do not wish to I can do it for you.
So unless other issues come up, and anybody is free to raise such of course, I think this topic can just wait for "Two Decades On - Redux" to conclude. Have a good day folks. Kiwikiped ( talk) 21:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Dsnmi, Colin at cycling, et al. The "anchor" in the History section for this addition has been deleted by an edit by Sitush (one sentence was left orphaned by that edit which I cleaned up). Therefore before making this addition I think consensus will need to be sought that it is still relevant (and of course this addition is still pending conclusion of "Two Decades On - Redux"). Kiwikiped ( talk) 20:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Dsnmi, Colin at cycling, et al. The "anchor" in the History section is now back and the topic "Ongoing debate: after the laws" added, so you can now reconsider your proposed addition if you still wish to. Kiwikiped ( talk) 21:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The topic "History: lead-up to the laws" above started a discussion on changes to the paragraph:
A more detailed version was first proposed by Colin at cycling which did not find favour, followed by a shorter suggestion for discussion, which removed the debated statistics (too low/too high?), by Richard Keatinge:
As topics do this one wandered a bit and then Richard Keatinge sought consensus to simply delete the paragraph. Within minutes Sitush stepped in an unilaterally edited the article deleting the paragraph and two others not even under discussion; this was not clearly a consensus action.
I have now reverted that unilateral edit.
One of the other deletions removed reference to RACS (well almost, the deletion was not clean and both I and AnomieBOT did some cleanup), and organisation which had a central role in the history of Australia's bicycle helmet laws. Unsurprisingly not everyone agreed with RACS, and that was noted as well. There is also another topic above "Suggested addition- The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons", suggested by Dsnmi with contributions from Colin at cycling and others that was working towards a "present day" update on RACS.
I am not saying that the reverted text is good, bad, needs editing, or doesn't, etc. But if people wish to change it they can propose such changes in Talk and reach an agreed text as part of the WP:BRD process - Sitush was Bold, but such edits need discussion. Given that the three paragraphs are not closely tied together it might be easier for anybody proposing changes to start of topic on the particular paragraph to reduce possibilities for confusion. Kiwikiped ( talk) 21:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
References
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/trial-helmetfree-cycling-zones-says-brisbane-city-council-20130809-2rmrq.html is far from the only reliable coverage of this issue. A question on principle first: would anyone object to the inclusion of two or three sentences? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 15:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
"Shared bicycles in Brisbane and Melbourne are used about ten times less than is typical in areas without compulsory helmet laws. [1] Many other factors may be relevant. [2] [3] One response has been to improve the availability of helmets to users of bicycle-sharing schemes. [4]"
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 12:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
WTF? This is completely irrelevant coatracking. - Sitush ( talk) 16:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bicycle helmets in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bicycle helmets in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Currently the section headed "20 years on" says "Australian academics at a number of Australian universities have published research with conclusions both supportive and unsupportive of the laws" which may be true but doesn't adequately represent the situation with regards to the established medical position on helmet legislation. The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons has made their support for helmet legislation clear and explicit. http://www.surgeons.org/media/14490/POS_2009-06-25_Road_Trauma_Cycling_Position_Paper.pdf I propose adding this information to the "20 years on section" with a brief one sentence summary of their position which I'm happy to have approved in this talk section before it's included. To my mind this would be an essential addition to this article. The RACS are an independent authority who are talking about the issue at a national level. Their position is explicit, unequivocal and clearly stated so can be easily summarised without any of the accompanying editorialising and bloated clarification that blighted this article before it was revised. We should make it clear where the highest medical authority in the country stands on this contentious issue. Dsnmi ( talk) 11:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I can see how it looks to provide a clear view but in practice it is not a NPOV, it misleads. Below is just some of the information.
ROAD TRAUMA CYCLING POSITION PAPER
“The Committee had shown that bicyclist casualties sustained head injuries three times more frequently than motorcyclists casualties1.”
And later
“During the 1980’s, McDermott, Lane and Brazenor of the Committee undertook a prospective controlled trial of 1,710 bicyclists casualties wearing and not wearing helmets. This demonstrated that bicyclist casualties wearing Standards Australia Association-approved helmets had a 45% reduction in the frequency of head injury2.”
Both claims stem from Professor McDermott et al work
Appendix
B3)
McDermott and Klug 1982, "Difference in head injuries of pedal cyclist and motorcyclist casualties in Victoria", reported 73 skull fractures for pedal cyclists compared with 31 for motorcyclists and concluded that pedal cyclists had a significant greater incident of fractured vault of the skull. They were mainly comparing adult motorcyclists (96%) to cyclists aged less 17 years of age (73%). Adult skull stiffness is higher than for children therefore they were not quite comparing like with like. They reported 181 pedal cyclist fatalities compared with 451 for motorcyclists. The travel data available for 1984/5 (about 7 years after their study period) detailed bicyclists spending 114,500 hours per day cycling in Victoria compared with 17,500 hours per day for motorcycling. Relating time of travel to skull fractures shows motorcyclists incur nearly three times that of bicyclists, a factor of 278% and have a fatality rate 16.3 higher than bicyclists and the overall injury rate for motorcyclists was 16.1 times higher. Motorcyclists generally wearing helmets were 16 times more likely to be killed or injured and nearly 3 times more likely to suffer a skull fracture compared with bicyclists who were generally not wearing helmets. With hindsight it was a mistake for McDermott and Klug not to relate injury and death to time spent travelling, making their findings unsuitable for considering overall safety. In addition they reported having no information on the cause of death. Their recommendation for a coordinated campaign, involving the Royal Australasin College of Surgeons, road safety and traffic authorities, the Educational Department, school principals' and parents' councils, and the media to increase helmet wearing rates was not based on reliable methods. Both McDermott and Klug were members of the Road Trauma Committee, Royal Australian College of Surgeons that requested the Government of Victoria to introduce bicycle helmet legislation.
See
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1165.html
Apart from the above, other issues could be mentioned but would entail a higher level of understanding of the data. In short the information would be misleading the public. Colin at cycling ( talk) 17:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I was not actually suggesting including the appendix details on the Wiki site. The RACS are a group who have and are advocated helmet legislation. Key members selected research data and presented it in a format, cyclists v motorcyclists, that was used to support a political objective. They did not present head injuries from road accidents in general terms. They compared adults, 216 cyclists v 1936 motorcyclists, but did not say how many had sustained head injuries for similar age groups. They did not mention a possible conflict of interest in advocating helmet legislation. The Wiki site already gives space to their position and involvement. The RACS material they publish can be seen to be misleading. Wiki should not be used to promote their misleading helmet law promotional material. I would object to added weight to their view and links to misleading information Colin at cycling ( talk) 06:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
It appears that McDermott and Klug had a political objective of introducing legislation and provided research directed towards that objective. Without the political objective the shape and information provided in the research may have taken a different format. It could clearly have compared head injuries by age group but chose to compare total head injuries by users group, thus comparing children/teenagers in large part to adults. It did not take account of levels or hours for each activity, e.g many children cycling for hours. The team of McDermott and Klug were wearing two possible outfit but no mention of possible conflict of interest. Both McDermott and Klug were members of the Road Trauma Committee, Royal Australian College of Surgeons that requested the Government of Victoria to introduce bicycle helmet legislation. Providing a report that appears to have been designed in part to match a political objective. Colin at cycling ( talk) 07:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
One point is that they are not providing a balanced account, they are pro legislation and not providing reliable evidence, as the pdf link provided shows. The History sections provides a pro helmet legislation prospective and not a NPOV. I am opposed to adding more pro helmet laws statements or links when it should be providing a NPOV. Colin at cycling ( talk) 10:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Just to double check, you are referring to http://www.surgeons.org/media/14490/POS_2009-06-25_Road_Trauma_Cycling_Position_Paper.pdf Colin at cycling ( talk) 10:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
If any organisation is to be referenced I would agree with Dsnmi that RACS is a good candidate - they are covered in the History section and pushed for the law. The challenge is to do so in an NPOV way for which there is consensus. Referencing any other organisations is a much bigger challenge, both pro-law & anti-law camps will undoubtedly have the views on which to reference and reaching consensus could be challenging - not that need be a reason for folk not to try if they so wish.
The RACS paper being referenced is not hard to follow - it is written for a general audience and therefore no complex statistics etc.; and it is short - just 7 background paragraphs upon which a bulleted position is list is based. The first 4 relate the history, already covered in the previous section of this article. Para 5 covers other safety issues, and para 7 suggests that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks. Which leaves para 6, they key one in relation to the issues debated by folk involved here, and its just 3 sentences. RACS simply states that the data is not available to determine trends in cycle safety - no argument the law succeeded or failed. Given they have no data upon which to reevaluate/review their position they move on, in the bulleted list, to simply restate their pre-law position as covered by paras 1-4, and the history section of this article. Others may argue that there is data, but that is moot here - to the best of RACS knowledge (we of course assume good faith) for the first 2 decades of the law there is not, and it is RACS position that is up for inclusion. I'll offer the following summary for your consideration:
The floor is open. Kiwikiped ( talk) 21:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I think this topic is on the cusp of consensus, though of course cannot actually make any edit until the topic "Two Decades On - Redux" below makes it edit.
In WP:BRD we find "Let the other editor apply agreed-upon changes. If he or she doesn't want to, that's okay, but be sure to offer." - So I think at this time we invite Colin at cycling, in the absence of any intervening indications to contrary and once "Two Decades On - Redux" has made its edit, to make the edit; but it is fine if you do not wish to. In the latter case Dsnmi is invited; and if you do not wish to I can do it for you.
So unless other issues come up, and anybody is free to raise such of course, I think this topic can just wait for "Two Decades On - Redux" to conclude. Have a good day folks. Kiwikiped ( talk) 21:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Dsnmi, Colin at cycling, et al. The "anchor" in the History section for this addition has been deleted by an edit by Sitush (one sentence was left orphaned by that edit which I cleaned up). Therefore before making this addition I think consensus will need to be sought that it is still relevant (and of course this addition is still pending conclusion of "Two Decades On - Redux"). Kiwikiped ( talk) 20:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Dsnmi, Colin at cycling, et al. The "anchor" in the History section is now back and the topic "Ongoing debate: after the laws" added, so you can now reconsider your proposed addition if you still wish to. Kiwikiped ( talk) 21:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The topic "History: lead-up to the laws" above started a discussion on changes to the paragraph:
A more detailed version was first proposed by Colin at cycling which did not find favour, followed by a shorter suggestion for discussion, which removed the debated statistics (too low/too high?), by Richard Keatinge:
As topics do this one wandered a bit and then Richard Keatinge sought consensus to simply delete the paragraph. Within minutes Sitush stepped in an unilaterally edited the article deleting the paragraph and two others not even under discussion; this was not clearly a consensus action.
I have now reverted that unilateral edit.
One of the other deletions removed reference to RACS (well almost, the deletion was not clean and both I and AnomieBOT did some cleanup), and organisation which had a central role in the history of Australia's bicycle helmet laws. Unsurprisingly not everyone agreed with RACS, and that was noted as well. There is also another topic above "Suggested addition- The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons", suggested by Dsnmi with contributions from Colin at cycling and others that was working towards a "present day" update on RACS.
I am not saying that the reverted text is good, bad, needs editing, or doesn't, etc. But if people wish to change it they can propose such changes in Talk and reach an agreed text as part of the WP:BRD process - Sitush was Bold, but such edits need discussion. Given that the three paragraphs are not closely tied together it might be easier for anybody proposing changes to start of topic on the particular paragraph to reduce possibilities for confusion. Kiwikiped ( talk) 21:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
References
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/trial-helmetfree-cycling-zones-says-brisbane-city-council-20130809-2rmrq.html is far from the only reliable coverage of this issue. A question on principle first: would anyone object to the inclusion of two or three sentences? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 15:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
"Shared bicycles in Brisbane and Melbourne are used about ten times less than is typical in areas without compulsory helmet laws. [1] Many other factors may be relevant. [2] [3] One response has been to improve the availability of helmets to users of bicycle-sharing schemes. [4]"
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 12:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
WTF? This is completely irrelevant coatracking. - Sitush ( talk) 16:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bicycle helmets in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bicycle helmets in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)