![]() | 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 5 |
Noticed a removal of the 14% statistic from Making Vision Zero real: Preventing pedestrian accidents and making them less severe because "the Norwegian report doesn't cite references for the 14% claim." While this statistic raises eyebrows in the context of other research, it looks like they do cite its source: Nolen and Lindkqvist, 2003? Nelsonsnavy ( talk) 14:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I removed this again because it doesn't do what this page claimed it did. It was reported that Australian and NZ data showed an increase in injury risk amongst helmeted riders, which isn't true. The Norwegian report makes this claim without reference to Australian or NZ data and instead relies on another report. Can we find the original report that they're referring to and link to that directly with something to back up the claim? I don't think this page should be making an untrue claim about an unsupported claim in a Norwegian report. Dsnmi ( talk) 09:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I concur that we should find the original source, particularly since I've never seen any other sources making that claim. Nelsonsnavy ( talk) 13:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The external link is labelled a "resource site" when in fact it's a biased viewpoint which is specific to one state in Australia. It's an anti-helmet law site which makes no effort to address the issue impartially. It should probably be removed or at the very least relabeled appropriately. Dsnmi ( talk) 03:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Would also recommend removal of this site since it is biased, argumentative, and makes unsubstantiated claims. I'm not sure sending readers there is going to be doing them any good service. Thoughts? Nelsonsnavy ( talk) 14:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Surely it up to the reader to decide which sources they feel should be given the greater or lesser credibility? If you feel there are other sites that merit inclusion, or that offset what you percieve to be bias then why not include them? Wikipedia is only a starting point for someone researching a topic it is not means of defining an end point to a review of a topic.
213.233.144.74 ( talk) 12:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
This article discusses the effects of mandatory laws on cycling and cyclists but has no facts relating to the helmet laws themselves. I've searched online but found no information about actual legislation (what led them to be introduced, how they were enacted, who proposed them, what penalties apply for non-compliance etc). It would be great if there could be some sort of history, background and information about the laws to give them some context. Can anyone help out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnmi ( talk • contribs) 23:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The data I've linked to from the Vic roads report is sourced from the Australian census data and clearly disproved the claim that cycling is currently at below the level it was before helmet laws were introduced. The graphic that I've omitted is not sourced and cant be constituted as evidence. Dsnmi ( talk) 02:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
This page should be about facts, statistics and information relating to bike helmets and their effect on cyclists and cycling in Australia. It's not a page for pro or anti helmet legislation propaganda. The comparisons to other country's are starting to muddy the waters, confuse issues and are frequently spuriously defined in any case. We should keep to actual facts and information and leave the propoganda to other sites and blogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnmi ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
With regret if the topic of a wikipedia article is a matter of published debate then the content of that debate and the nature of the arguments is a valid topic for the afticle. In your comment above you have formulated a rebuttal to the bikeshare comparison argument. The fact that you have formulated such a rebuttal does not change the fact that deleterious effects on bikeshare have been attributed to Australias helmet laws and are a valid component of an article on ths topic. You can if you wish try to have your rebuttal published somewhere and also include that in the article as a balancing argument. The bikeshare argument remains a fact that should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.144.75 ( talk) 13:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
It would be good if we could keep this page and find a happy compromise between two obviously conflicting sides. Ideally it should start with some history of the laws and why they were introduced and what penalties apply for breaking them. There could then be a section that briefly discussed the possible effect in helmet laws (it's effect on injury levels and cycling numbers) with facts presented from both sides without extraneous interpretation and comparisons. Currently it reads as a very confusing attempt to discredit the laws and it reads like a persuasive piece of text and is not in keeping with wikipedia guidelines. If a comprimise can't be reached it might need to be deleted and it's salient points added to the bike helmet section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnmi ( talk • contribs) 02:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. There is indeed an argument for deleting this page and merging it with Bicycle helmet laws, but shall we try saving it? I propose to do a bold edit that uses more subheaders to organize the page, and I propose to strip out editorializing by ourselves to give bald statements of findings. Maybe this weekend. I look forward to comments. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
This article is rough but not in terrible shape. On the bright side, it seems to include only sources relating to Australia itself. It could, as you say, use more subheaders to better organize the info and make a reader's job easier. Also needed: more info on the law itself--rather than its effects--such as any debate leading up to its passage and any economic or political ramifications. Probably best not to merge it with another article since Australia is often a starring player in bike helmet research and debate. Nelsonsnavy ( talk) 14:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
We need to go through and double-check all links and summaries/interpretations of them. Nelsonsnavy ( talk) 15:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to Richard Keatinge's work in rewriting this page. It's much clearer, benefits from some useful additions and contains less editorialising. Outstanding work.
I have a few suggestions which I would like to put up for discussion.
Bike Usage
We can't ignore the Vic roads report which shows a massive increase in cycling numbers recently. Especially when it's backed up by a huge increase in bike sales and other indications that cycling in Australia is on the increase.
Using children as a case study in relation to the census data is too selective and doesn't back up the claim that "that the main effect of the law was to discourage cycling rather than persuade cyclists to wear helmets" If we're going to look at the effect of mandatory helmet laws on people's transport choices we shouldn't focus our attention on the one age demographic that doesn't get to make their own life choices. This article in The Age http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/a-chain-reaction-to-everdiminishing-cycles/2007/03/25/1174761282573.html discusses the reduction in the numbers of children riding to work and blames stranger danger, changing parental habits and other factors without mentioning helmets at all. I'd suggest removing this reference.
Injury rates
The paper referenced that responds to the NSW study has been withdrawn by its author (Chris Rissell) because it contained errors in data. We shouldn't link to it here.
Feelings about Helmets.
It's important that the data from this survey is put in context. For memory helmets was the tenth most popular reason people didn't ride with safety topping the list by a huge amount.
I'd also suggest renaming this section to "Public attitude toward helmet use" or something similar.
Helmets and Melbourne's bike share scheme
This section definitely benefits from the removal of the non-constructive comparisons. I think the wording needs to change slightly: "Has been blamed" should possibly be changed to take into account the fact that there are dozens of other reasons which have also been put forward and no official study has been conducted to give the mandatory helmet laws any more validity than any other reason. The article referenced quotes a guy whose only authority is the fact that he blogs about bike riding who shares his opinions without any evidence to back him up.
Cyclists hospitalized with different types of injury; comparing reported rates of helmet use
Could we include this section in with the section about Injury rates? It seems strange to include it on it's own.
There are some other minor edits I would like to make and some more information I'd like to include but I'd like to wait to hear what other people make of Keatinge's work before I make any changes. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dsnmi (
talk •
contribs)
22:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I've made a few edits to Richard Keatinge's rewrite and put them up here for discussion, criticism, suggestions and comments. I've tried to focus on additions and avoiding deletions wherever possible.
Introduction
I've added some direct quotes from the two papers cited in the interests of removing editorializing. I'm not usually in favour of posting blocks of qouted text but a lot of the study papers included on this page are extremely complicated and are being summarized in one sentence to suit a specific agenda.
Bike Usage and Health.
With the exception of the removal of the original sentence in this section (which can't be backed at all by the report provided) I haven't touched this section but I think it needs to be rewritten. We have to include data from the vicroads report http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/29A3CEDE-B1A0-492E-8158-2210C11E5D01/0/Report_on_Cycling_to_work.pdf which uses census data and shows a 175% increase in melbournians riding to work from 1996, putting participation well above pre helmet law levels. We should also mention the figures that show bike sales have soared recently and are significantly ahead of car sales in Australia and the boming nature of Ride to Work day which in Victoria has more than tripled it's participation in the six years since it was introduced.
I'm also not sure about the graph on this page. It's not clear how it collates the data and which data it's using. Is the red line an average of the data from the states it lists? And if so how does it appear to ignore the massive increase in cycling to work journeys from Melbourne which almost doubled? Can we find a better graphic?
Public attitudes to helmets
I renamed this section and included some further data from the report cited.
Helmets and Melbourne's bike share scheme
An article about the increased usage of this scheme was published in The Age during the week and I've included the data in this section.
Dsnmi ( talk) 08:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that changes from 2000 to 2009 tell us nothing about bicycle helmets. This info may be relevant for a 'Cycling in Australia' page, but it has nothing to do with bicycle helmets, so I've deleted it.
The current census graphic shows total numbers cycling to work as percentages of the total workforce. As the graphic suggests, total numbers cycling to work and the total workforce were obtained for a) Vic+NSW+SA+Tas vs b) QLD+WA+ACT. The increase in cycling to work in Melbourne from 2001 to 2006 (0.99% to 1.34%) was partially offset by a decrease from 1.75% to 1.62% in the rest of the state and diluted by no change in NSW (0.83% to 0.84%). The overall effect, for NSW+Vic+SA+TAS combined was an increase from 0.99% in 2001 to 1.12%, with the declining trend in Qld (from 1.65% in 2001 to 1.41% in 2006) dominating the change for Qld+WA+ACT. Data from the 2011 census will be available in June 2012. This will show the entire trends from 1976 to 2011. I think we have to be careful not to focus in on specific locations where lots of money has been spent on cycling facilities, but provide objective information for the country as a whole. ( User Dorre) 25 February 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorre ( talk • contribs) 23:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
This section is becoming increasingly problematic. It now includes a rather elaborate argument about why the aforementioned studies might be flawed and even quotes a letter-commentary by one of the editors of this article in a footnote, which sets off alarm bells. (I realize Dr. Keatinge did not add that note himself.) If this is adding "balance," then in fairness, we need to add similar detailed arguments about why any/all the sources in this article could be flawed. Not an ideal course of action, I'd say. Nelsonsnavy ( talk) 14:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
There is very good evidence about why some reports have flaws: "‘Behind-the-scenes’ documents obtained by a large Bicycle User Group in Brisbane (via an RTI request) show that this study was only commenced in early September, that CARRS-Q were only given 13 days to produce the document and that they were paid almost $35,000 to do the ‘research’. It was solely commissioned to counter the paper published by Prof Rissel in 2010, which has since been withdrawn due to errors, and to silence the groundswell of opposition to the bicycle helmet law as applied to CityCycle." See http://helmetfreedom.org/668/we-werent-born-yesterday/ for a link to the 'Behind-the-scenes' documents. I also heard that when Scuffham's NZ research failed to support the law, the NZ government funding bodies rejected the first two drafts, so it had to be re-written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorre ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I can see the advantages of rewriting this as a simple summary, for example: "Two government-funded reports use meta analyses of Case-control studies, predominantly non-Australian data, to justify helmet laws[refs]. Critics argue that the Case-control studies methodology is known to produce biased and misleading results[refs]." These reports don't base their conclusions on Australian data, so a simple summary with reference to where people can find more info on the debate, seems appropriate.-- Dorre ( talk) 23:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Anyone have a link to this paper so we can read it? Is there some physical copy or transcription we can access to verify its contents? See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources" Nelsonsnavy ( talk) 20:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
This strikes me as over-detailed at the moment, bearing in mind that changes in bicycle use happen all the time and only tell us something about helmet if helmet use is also changing. What about:
"Before helmet laws were passed, in the mid to late 1980s, cycling was increasing in popularity. [1] [2] [3] In 1991, in metropolitan Melbourne, 1.3% of journeys to work were made by bicycle.
The enforcement of helmet laws in the early 1990s was associated with a drop of roughly one-third in the number of cyclists. [4] By 1996, in metropolitan Melbourne, only 1% of journeys to work were made by bicycle.
Since then, the amount of cycling has increased again, especially in some metropolitan areas that have made extensive provision for cyclists. [5] In metropolitan Melbourne, cycling trips to work increased to 1.6% in 2006. [6]The population of Australia has increased more than the amount of cycling, and in 2011 the number of cycle trips per person over 9 was 24% lower than it had been in 1985/86. [7]
The number of bicycles sold has also increased, with over 1.3 million bikes sold in 2010, a 67% increase over 2001. [8] Half of Australian households now own at least one bicycle, and today, "more people in Australia are cycling than ever before", if only occasionally. 1.93 million people cycled at some point in 2008, "representing a 21% increase in cycling participation since 2005 and a 34% increase since 2001." [9] [5] There appear to be many more bicycles sold in Australia than are used. [10]"
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 10:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The near-term effect of the helmet law is best demonstrated by the interviews, questionnaires and telephone surveys about how much the law had affected people's cycling, e.g. that 51% of NSW schoolchildren who owned a bike said they didn't cycle in the past week because of helmet restrictions, and the figure equal to 64% of adult cyclists in WA who said they would cycle more except for helmet restrictions. These results have been published in peer-reviewed journals.
The effect is also demonstrated by strong supporting information from observational surveys of cycle use immediately before and after the helmet law (to avoid confounding with long-term trends) at the same sites and time of year (64 sites in Melbourne, 120 in NSW), with observations taking place over several days to average out variation in the weather, and by the automatic counters on the bridges in WA. Observational surveys immediately before and after helmet laws are very similar to the results of the interviews, questionnaires and telephone surveys about how much the law had affected people's cycling.
I've no objection to reporting long-term trends. The main problem with Richard Keatinge's version above is that census data for any particular area (e.g. metropolitan Melbourne) can be heavily influenced by the weather, so potentially biased. The two most reliable sources of long-term trends are the census data for the whole country (to average out any local fluctuations in the weather) for trends in cycling to work, and the comparison of the 1985/85 and 2011 National surveys.
If the section needs to be abbreviated, I would argue that all references to small areas like metropolitan Melbourne should be dropped, with long-term trends illustrated by census data for the whole country, and by the National travel surveys of 85/86 and 2011.
Are some people trying to distort the facts? The Australian page reports: "In 2011, a national survey of cycling by persons aged 9 or over found a 21% increase in cycle trips between 1985/86 and 2011, compared to a 58% increase in the population aged 9+ years. The per capita increases from 1985/86 were therefore reversed, with a further 24% reduction in the number of cycle trips per person compared to 1985/86 levels."
The version on the 'Bicycle Helmet' page was changed to: "By 2010, the number of cyclists in Australia was at an all-time high. Cycle commuting to work and full-time study increased from 1.1 to 1.5% modal share between 2000 and 2009, and "2008 saw the largest ever increase in people riding their bikes," a 34% increase since 2001.[72] In 2011, a national survey of cycling by persons aged 9 or over found a 21% increase in cycle trips between 1985/86 and 2011. In the same period there was a 58% increase in the population aged 9+ years. Cycle trips per person was 24% less than 1985/86 levels"
Although the above is true, it's confusing - people have to think twice to realize that in 2011 the total number was higher than before, but well down on per-capita levels before helmet laws were introduced. Then Nelsonsnavy changes the date from 2011 to 2006!!!!! It's really sad to see all the important and relevant facts being distorted and deleted.
If, as Nelsonsnavy argues, the data as presented does not clearly establish a causal link, why not present the data that does - the interviews, questionnaires and telephone surveys about how much the law had affected people's cycling?-- Dorre ( talk) 23:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate that a lot of work is being done on this article, but currently is a real struggle for the reader to follow the line of thought and the lead does not provide a clear enough summary. I found the 5 February version clearer structured, i.e.
The lead should at least mention that most evidence indicates the effect of reducing bicycle usage (1990s usage statistics before and after law introduction, 2010 Melbourne bike share helmet supply effects, 2011 surveys of potential users). -- ELEKHH T 00:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
If helmet laws are introduced and cycling goes down - that's correlation. But if, at the same time, people are asked, and they say they have reduced their cycling because of helmet laws, that's evidence of causation. I've summarized the results of the interviews, surveys and questionnaires as a separate section in order to make this clear.-- Dorre ( talk) 22:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
This article spent a brief period of time coming close to conforming to Wikipedia standards but has blown out again to become a tangled mess with more opinion than fact. Clearly another rewrite is required.
Can we agree on the criteria before we start trying to redraft it? For what it's worth I think we should submit studies and data without including any criticism. Everything ever published about helmet laws has been criticised by a blogger or writer somewhere and then their criticism has been further criticised. I think it's best if we reference published studies on their own without needing to go into all the conflicting information.
We should also include the latest census data (2011) which has just been released.
Dsnmi ( talk) 03:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
We should certainly get rid of straightforward opinion - for example, you correctly removed "The committee had made its decision prematurely." Perhaps a comment that the law remains controversial would be useful, there is no shortage of references for the existence of strong opinions. But we cannot have tendentious remarks made in Wikipedia's voice; they must go.
We should also give an account of the process that led up to the law, and here I think you may have removed rather too much. The quotations etc of those actually involved at the time could perhaps be put back in.
The global scientific debate is indeed best placed elsewhere. As criteria for including any of it here, I suggest: scholarly analyses of Australian data and substantive scientific discussion of those analyses in the Australian context. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 13:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I wondered about removing the process leading up to the law but concluded there was too much detail for a page about helmets in Australia. There is probably a happy compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnmi ( talk • contribs) 05:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
![]() | 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 5 |
Noticed a removal of the 14% statistic from Making Vision Zero real: Preventing pedestrian accidents and making them less severe because "the Norwegian report doesn't cite references for the 14% claim." While this statistic raises eyebrows in the context of other research, it looks like they do cite its source: Nolen and Lindkqvist, 2003? Nelsonsnavy ( talk) 14:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I removed this again because it doesn't do what this page claimed it did. It was reported that Australian and NZ data showed an increase in injury risk amongst helmeted riders, which isn't true. The Norwegian report makes this claim without reference to Australian or NZ data and instead relies on another report. Can we find the original report that they're referring to and link to that directly with something to back up the claim? I don't think this page should be making an untrue claim about an unsupported claim in a Norwegian report. Dsnmi ( talk) 09:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I concur that we should find the original source, particularly since I've never seen any other sources making that claim. Nelsonsnavy ( talk) 13:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The external link is labelled a "resource site" when in fact it's a biased viewpoint which is specific to one state in Australia. It's an anti-helmet law site which makes no effort to address the issue impartially. It should probably be removed or at the very least relabeled appropriately. Dsnmi ( talk) 03:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Would also recommend removal of this site since it is biased, argumentative, and makes unsubstantiated claims. I'm not sure sending readers there is going to be doing them any good service. Thoughts? Nelsonsnavy ( talk) 14:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Surely it up to the reader to decide which sources they feel should be given the greater or lesser credibility? If you feel there are other sites that merit inclusion, or that offset what you percieve to be bias then why not include them? Wikipedia is only a starting point for someone researching a topic it is not means of defining an end point to a review of a topic.
213.233.144.74 ( talk) 12:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
This article discusses the effects of mandatory laws on cycling and cyclists but has no facts relating to the helmet laws themselves. I've searched online but found no information about actual legislation (what led them to be introduced, how they were enacted, who proposed them, what penalties apply for non-compliance etc). It would be great if there could be some sort of history, background and information about the laws to give them some context. Can anyone help out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnmi ( talk • contribs) 23:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The data I've linked to from the Vic roads report is sourced from the Australian census data and clearly disproved the claim that cycling is currently at below the level it was before helmet laws were introduced. The graphic that I've omitted is not sourced and cant be constituted as evidence. Dsnmi ( talk) 02:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
This page should be about facts, statistics and information relating to bike helmets and their effect on cyclists and cycling in Australia. It's not a page for pro or anti helmet legislation propaganda. The comparisons to other country's are starting to muddy the waters, confuse issues and are frequently spuriously defined in any case. We should keep to actual facts and information and leave the propoganda to other sites and blogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnmi ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
With regret if the topic of a wikipedia article is a matter of published debate then the content of that debate and the nature of the arguments is a valid topic for the afticle. In your comment above you have formulated a rebuttal to the bikeshare comparison argument. The fact that you have formulated such a rebuttal does not change the fact that deleterious effects on bikeshare have been attributed to Australias helmet laws and are a valid component of an article on ths topic. You can if you wish try to have your rebuttal published somewhere and also include that in the article as a balancing argument. The bikeshare argument remains a fact that should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.144.75 ( talk) 13:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
It would be good if we could keep this page and find a happy compromise between two obviously conflicting sides. Ideally it should start with some history of the laws and why they were introduced and what penalties apply for breaking them. There could then be a section that briefly discussed the possible effect in helmet laws (it's effect on injury levels and cycling numbers) with facts presented from both sides without extraneous interpretation and comparisons. Currently it reads as a very confusing attempt to discredit the laws and it reads like a persuasive piece of text and is not in keeping with wikipedia guidelines. If a comprimise can't be reached it might need to be deleted and it's salient points added to the bike helmet section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnmi ( talk • contribs) 02:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. There is indeed an argument for deleting this page and merging it with Bicycle helmet laws, but shall we try saving it? I propose to do a bold edit that uses more subheaders to organize the page, and I propose to strip out editorializing by ourselves to give bald statements of findings. Maybe this weekend. I look forward to comments. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
This article is rough but not in terrible shape. On the bright side, it seems to include only sources relating to Australia itself. It could, as you say, use more subheaders to better organize the info and make a reader's job easier. Also needed: more info on the law itself--rather than its effects--such as any debate leading up to its passage and any economic or political ramifications. Probably best not to merge it with another article since Australia is often a starring player in bike helmet research and debate. Nelsonsnavy ( talk) 14:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
We need to go through and double-check all links and summaries/interpretations of them. Nelsonsnavy ( talk) 15:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to Richard Keatinge's work in rewriting this page. It's much clearer, benefits from some useful additions and contains less editorialising. Outstanding work.
I have a few suggestions which I would like to put up for discussion.
Bike Usage
We can't ignore the Vic roads report which shows a massive increase in cycling numbers recently. Especially when it's backed up by a huge increase in bike sales and other indications that cycling in Australia is on the increase.
Using children as a case study in relation to the census data is too selective and doesn't back up the claim that "that the main effect of the law was to discourage cycling rather than persuade cyclists to wear helmets" If we're going to look at the effect of mandatory helmet laws on people's transport choices we shouldn't focus our attention on the one age demographic that doesn't get to make their own life choices. This article in The Age http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/a-chain-reaction-to-everdiminishing-cycles/2007/03/25/1174761282573.html discusses the reduction in the numbers of children riding to work and blames stranger danger, changing parental habits and other factors without mentioning helmets at all. I'd suggest removing this reference.
Injury rates
The paper referenced that responds to the NSW study has been withdrawn by its author (Chris Rissell) because it contained errors in data. We shouldn't link to it here.
Feelings about Helmets.
It's important that the data from this survey is put in context. For memory helmets was the tenth most popular reason people didn't ride with safety topping the list by a huge amount.
I'd also suggest renaming this section to "Public attitude toward helmet use" or something similar.
Helmets and Melbourne's bike share scheme
This section definitely benefits from the removal of the non-constructive comparisons. I think the wording needs to change slightly: "Has been blamed" should possibly be changed to take into account the fact that there are dozens of other reasons which have also been put forward and no official study has been conducted to give the mandatory helmet laws any more validity than any other reason. The article referenced quotes a guy whose only authority is the fact that he blogs about bike riding who shares his opinions without any evidence to back him up.
Cyclists hospitalized with different types of injury; comparing reported rates of helmet use
Could we include this section in with the section about Injury rates? It seems strange to include it on it's own.
There are some other minor edits I would like to make and some more information I'd like to include but I'd like to wait to hear what other people make of Keatinge's work before I make any changes. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dsnmi (
talk •
contribs)
22:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I've made a few edits to Richard Keatinge's rewrite and put them up here for discussion, criticism, suggestions and comments. I've tried to focus on additions and avoiding deletions wherever possible.
Introduction
I've added some direct quotes from the two papers cited in the interests of removing editorializing. I'm not usually in favour of posting blocks of qouted text but a lot of the study papers included on this page are extremely complicated and are being summarized in one sentence to suit a specific agenda.
Bike Usage and Health.
With the exception of the removal of the original sentence in this section (which can't be backed at all by the report provided) I haven't touched this section but I think it needs to be rewritten. We have to include data from the vicroads report http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/29A3CEDE-B1A0-492E-8158-2210C11E5D01/0/Report_on_Cycling_to_work.pdf which uses census data and shows a 175% increase in melbournians riding to work from 1996, putting participation well above pre helmet law levels. We should also mention the figures that show bike sales have soared recently and are significantly ahead of car sales in Australia and the boming nature of Ride to Work day which in Victoria has more than tripled it's participation in the six years since it was introduced.
I'm also not sure about the graph on this page. It's not clear how it collates the data and which data it's using. Is the red line an average of the data from the states it lists? And if so how does it appear to ignore the massive increase in cycling to work journeys from Melbourne which almost doubled? Can we find a better graphic?
Public attitudes to helmets
I renamed this section and included some further data from the report cited.
Helmets and Melbourne's bike share scheme
An article about the increased usage of this scheme was published in The Age during the week and I've included the data in this section.
Dsnmi ( talk) 08:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that changes from 2000 to 2009 tell us nothing about bicycle helmets. This info may be relevant for a 'Cycling in Australia' page, but it has nothing to do with bicycle helmets, so I've deleted it.
The current census graphic shows total numbers cycling to work as percentages of the total workforce. As the graphic suggests, total numbers cycling to work and the total workforce were obtained for a) Vic+NSW+SA+Tas vs b) QLD+WA+ACT. The increase in cycling to work in Melbourne from 2001 to 2006 (0.99% to 1.34%) was partially offset by a decrease from 1.75% to 1.62% in the rest of the state and diluted by no change in NSW (0.83% to 0.84%). The overall effect, for NSW+Vic+SA+TAS combined was an increase from 0.99% in 2001 to 1.12%, with the declining trend in Qld (from 1.65% in 2001 to 1.41% in 2006) dominating the change for Qld+WA+ACT. Data from the 2011 census will be available in June 2012. This will show the entire trends from 1976 to 2011. I think we have to be careful not to focus in on specific locations where lots of money has been spent on cycling facilities, but provide objective information for the country as a whole. ( User Dorre) 25 February 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorre ( talk • contribs) 23:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
This section is becoming increasingly problematic. It now includes a rather elaborate argument about why the aforementioned studies might be flawed and even quotes a letter-commentary by one of the editors of this article in a footnote, which sets off alarm bells. (I realize Dr. Keatinge did not add that note himself.) If this is adding "balance," then in fairness, we need to add similar detailed arguments about why any/all the sources in this article could be flawed. Not an ideal course of action, I'd say. Nelsonsnavy ( talk) 14:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
There is very good evidence about why some reports have flaws: "‘Behind-the-scenes’ documents obtained by a large Bicycle User Group in Brisbane (via an RTI request) show that this study was only commenced in early September, that CARRS-Q were only given 13 days to produce the document and that they were paid almost $35,000 to do the ‘research’. It was solely commissioned to counter the paper published by Prof Rissel in 2010, which has since been withdrawn due to errors, and to silence the groundswell of opposition to the bicycle helmet law as applied to CityCycle." See http://helmetfreedom.org/668/we-werent-born-yesterday/ for a link to the 'Behind-the-scenes' documents. I also heard that when Scuffham's NZ research failed to support the law, the NZ government funding bodies rejected the first two drafts, so it had to be re-written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorre ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I can see the advantages of rewriting this as a simple summary, for example: "Two government-funded reports use meta analyses of Case-control studies, predominantly non-Australian data, to justify helmet laws[refs]. Critics argue that the Case-control studies methodology is known to produce biased and misleading results[refs]." These reports don't base their conclusions on Australian data, so a simple summary with reference to where people can find more info on the debate, seems appropriate.-- Dorre ( talk) 23:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Anyone have a link to this paper so we can read it? Is there some physical copy or transcription we can access to verify its contents? See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources" Nelsonsnavy ( talk) 20:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
This strikes me as over-detailed at the moment, bearing in mind that changes in bicycle use happen all the time and only tell us something about helmet if helmet use is also changing. What about:
"Before helmet laws were passed, in the mid to late 1980s, cycling was increasing in popularity. [1] [2] [3] In 1991, in metropolitan Melbourne, 1.3% of journeys to work were made by bicycle.
The enforcement of helmet laws in the early 1990s was associated with a drop of roughly one-third in the number of cyclists. [4] By 1996, in metropolitan Melbourne, only 1% of journeys to work were made by bicycle.
Since then, the amount of cycling has increased again, especially in some metropolitan areas that have made extensive provision for cyclists. [5] In metropolitan Melbourne, cycling trips to work increased to 1.6% in 2006. [6]The population of Australia has increased more than the amount of cycling, and in 2011 the number of cycle trips per person over 9 was 24% lower than it had been in 1985/86. [7]
The number of bicycles sold has also increased, with over 1.3 million bikes sold in 2010, a 67% increase over 2001. [8] Half of Australian households now own at least one bicycle, and today, "more people in Australia are cycling than ever before", if only occasionally. 1.93 million people cycled at some point in 2008, "representing a 21% increase in cycling participation since 2005 and a 34% increase since 2001." [9] [5] There appear to be many more bicycles sold in Australia than are used. [10]"
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 10:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The near-term effect of the helmet law is best demonstrated by the interviews, questionnaires and telephone surveys about how much the law had affected people's cycling, e.g. that 51% of NSW schoolchildren who owned a bike said they didn't cycle in the past week because of helmet restrictions, and the figure equal to 64% of adult cyclists in WA who said they would cycle more except for helmet restrictions. These results have been published in peer-reviewed journals.
The effect is also demonstrated by strong supporting information from observational surveys of cycle use immediately before and after the helmet law (to avoid confounding with long-term trends) at the same sites and time of year (64 sites in Melbourne, 120 in NSW), with observations taking place over several days to average out variation in the weather, and by the automatic counters on the bridges in WA. Observational surveys immediately before and after helmet laws are very similar to the results of the interviews, questionnaires and telephone surveys about how much the law had affected people's cycling.
I've no objection to reporting long-term trends. The main problem with Richard Keatinge's version above is that census data for any particular area (e.g. metropolitan Melbourne) can be heavily influenced by the weather, so potentially biased. The two most reliable sources of long-term trends are the census data for the whole country (to average out any local fluctuations in the weather) for trends in cycling to work, and the comparison of the 1985/85 and 2011 National surveys.
If the section needs to be abbreviated, I would argue that all references to small areas like metropolitan Melbourne should be dropped, with long-term trends illustrated by census data for the whole country, and by the National travel surveys of 85/86 and 2011.
Are some people trying to distort the facts? The Australian page reports: "In 2011, a national survey of cycling by persons aged 9 or over found a 21% increase in cycle trips between 1985/86 and 2011, compared to a 58% increase in the population aged 9+ years. The per capita increases from 1985/86 were therefore reversed, with a further 24% reduction in the number of cycle trips per person compared to 1985/86 levels."
The version on the 'Bicycle Helmet' page was changed to: "By 2010, the number of cyclists in Australia was at an all-time high. Cycle commuting to work and full-time study increased from 1.1 to 1.5% modal share between 2000 and 2009, and "2008 saw the largest ever increase in people riding their bikes," a 34% increase since 2001.[72] In 2011, a national survey of cycling by persons aged 9 or over found a 21% increase in cycle trips between 1985/86 and 2011. In the same period there was a 58% increase in the population aged 9+ years. Cycle trips per person was 24% less than 1985/86 levels"
Although the above is true, it's confusing - people have to think twice to realize that in 2011 the total number was higher than before, but well down on per-capita levels before helmet laws were introduced. Then Nelsonsnavy changes the date from 2011 to 2006!!!!! It's really sad to see all the important and relevant facts being distorted and deleted.
If, as Nelsonsnavy argues, the data as presented does not clearly establish a causal link, why not present the data that does - the interviews, questionnaires and telephone surveys about how much the law had affected people's cycling?-- Dorre ( talk) 23:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate that a lot of work is being done on this article, but currently is a real struggle for the reader to follow the line of thought and the lead does not provide a clear enough summary. I found the 5 February version clearer structured, i.e.
The lead should at least mention that most evidence indicates the effect of reducing bicycle usage (1990s usage statistics before and after law introduction, 2010 Melbourne bike share helmet supply effects, 2011 surveys of potential users). -- ELEKHH T 00:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
If helmet laws are introduced and cycling goes down - that's correlation. But if, at the same time, people are asked, and they say they have reduced their cycling because of helmet laws, that's evidence of causation. I've summarized the results of the interviews, surveys and questionnaires as a separate section in order to make this clear.-- Dorre ( talk) 22:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
This article spent a brief period of time coming close to conforming to Wikipedia standards but has blown out again to become a tangled mess with more opinion than fact. Clearly another rewrite is required.
Can we agree on the criteria before we start trying to redraft it? For what it's worth I think we should submit studies and data without including any criticism. Everything ever published about helmet laws has been criticised by a blogger or writer somewhere and then their criticism has been further criticised. I think it's best if we reference published studies on their own without needing to go into all the conflicting information.
We should also include the latest census data (2011) which has just been released.
Dsnmi ( talk) 03:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
We should certainly get rid of straightforward opinion - for example, you correctly removed "The committee had made its decision prematurely." Perhaps a comment that the law remains controversial would be useful, there is no shortage of references for the existence of strong opinions. But we cannot have tendentious remarks made in Wikipedia's voice; they must go.
We should also give an account of the process that led up to the law, and here I think you may have removed rather too much. The quotations etc of those actually involved at the time could perhaps be put back in.
The global scientific debate is indeed best placed elsewhere. As criteria for including any of it here, I suggest: scholarly analyses of Australian data and substantive scientific discussion of those analyses in the Australian context. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 13:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I wondered about removing the process leading up to the law but concluded there was too much detail for a page about helmets in Australia. There is probably a happy compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnmi ( talk • contribs) 05:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)