![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
OK, we all know what this is about by now. After a tidy up I noticed a chronological gap which I sought to close with a short NPOV section. I included two references, one from each POV, and there was much discussion over one of those. An early proposal to delete both references was nixed.
Eventually a new version, without any references, and with modified wording was made - a new "bold" edit in Wikipedia terminology. As this was not a reversion but a new edit it terminates the previous BRD process, but is open to a new BRD process. We've since seen a proposal to add additional information to the new section - still under discussion. However Sitush has just reverted the new section, but forgot to start a new BRD here in Talk, so here it is.
The edit was
Is there consensus from the pro-law & anti-law groups that this section, in as far as it goes (c.f. other discussion to extend it), brings the article up-to-date by stating the current situation in an NPOV manner and can be included?
(Note the BRD process is not meant to be a route to blocking process on an article either by silence or continually repeating the same arguments - e.g. there is specific warning against BRDRD... However as this is a new BRD I trust all here will allow some latitude on this point to others who wish to make a point they've made previously.)
I would suggest
This allows for all views or conclusions to be included and not just academics. Colin at cycling ( talk) 06:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
3 academics from Australian universities have published research that is (allegedly) unsupportive of helmet laws.
The Macquarie/deJong paper did not conclude anything with respect to helmet laws in Australia. De Jong said that "A (positive) net health benefit emerges only in dangerous bicycling environments under optimistic assumptions as to the efficacy of helmets and a minor behavioural response. Resolution of the issue for any particular jurisdiction requires detailed information on the four key parameters." Compared to places like Holland and Denmark, Australia is most certainly "a dangerous bicycling environment". De Jong does not define "optimistic assumptions as to the efficacy of helmets"; the Carr, Thompson/Cochrane, Attewell and Elvik analyses all showed that helmets are very efficacious for preventing/mitigating serious head/brain injuries. De Jong does not define "minor behavioural response", numerous data sources indicate that there was (little or) no reduction in (overall) cycling as a result of the helmet laws in Australia; the longitudinal Vic, NSW, SA and WA analyses indicate that the helmet effect would have vastly outweighed any "risk compensation" effect.
The USyd/Rissel paper was retracted more than 2 years ago, and 'superceded' by the UNSW paper/s (by Walter et al.), which showed a clear and sustained benefit. Re Rissel's criticisms of the 2011 Walter paper, in March this year the Australian Injury Prevention Network noted that "Recently a team of researchers at the University of NSW responded to criticisms which questioned the validity of their study on the impact of mandatory helmet legislation (MHL) for cyclists in New South Wales (Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2012, 45: 107–109). Extensions of their analyses confirmed the original conclusions that MHL had a beneficial effect on head injury rates over and above background trends and changes in cycling participation". ( http://www.vision6.com.au/download/files/40328/1626727/AIPN%20Newsletter%2012%20March%202013.pdf).
That leaves UNE/Robinson. Sitush has previously commented something along the lines that if different analyses of the same data yield different results then something is rotten in Denmark . . .
The Vic/NSW/SA cyclist counts indicate that there was a reduction in cycling to school. The SA household survey results indicate that there was no decrease in overall cycling, because the reduction cycling to school, which comprised about 20% of cycling activity in that age group prior to the law, was accompanied by an increase of equivalent size in cycling to/around other venues.
Casualty data from Vic/NSW/SA indicate that there was (little or) no reduction in cycling as a result of the helmet legislation.
Analyses of the Vic/NSW/SA/WA data by Monash Uni (Carr et al.), the SA Dept. of Main Roads (Marshall and White), the Uni of WA (Hendrie et al.), and UNSW (Walter et al.) showed considerable injury reductions.
In "analysing the same data", Robinson
The AIS3/4 injury reductions in the Vic/Carr study are consistent with the results of the Thompson (Cochrane), Attewell, and Elvik meta-analyses of case-control studies (fatality reductions are also consistent with the results of the Attewell and Elvik meta-analyses).
Robinson's 2006 article used a graph from Hendrie et al. to illustrate that "the trend in head injuries among cyclists is similar to that for other road users", but failed to note that Hendrie et al. found that (after taking the trends into account), there was a considerable drop in the proportion of cyclists with head injuries (p<0.001) after the helmet law in WA.
Hagel (2006) noted that the r-squared values corresponding to fig. 2 in Robinson's 2006 paper "suggests that much of the variation in the percentage of head injuries is explained by helmet use", and that a similar association was apparent in the NSW data on bmj.com.
Robinson's conclusion that helmet laws are a bad thing is underpinned by the 'assumption' of a 30-40% reduction in cycling. In arriving at this 'assumption', Robinson has 'overlooked' considerable evidence to the contrary. Robinson is not a reliable source (on helmet matters), and should not be referenced in this article.
The current situation is that a recent study by UNSW researchers found that, consistent with the findings of the earlier studies by Monash, UWA, and the SA Dept. of studies, the helmet legislation was associated with significant reductions in cyclist head injuries.
Linda.m.ward ( talk) 07:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I think we have dealt with all currently raised issues and are on the cusp of consensus. We've had a version without sources of this edit in the article for around 2 days with discussion on Talk moving on to investigate extending the edit - a discussion which itself appears to be on the cusp of consensus. That version covered the existence of the debate and referenced the academic work in Australia but without sources. The above mentioned publication from New Scientist I believe puts to bed those lingering concerns that one of the original sources related to Australia, and no concerns over the other source have been raised - it was simply excluded to maintain NPOV when the former was. So for consensus I offer the following text, being the last text that was in the article followed by those sources:
(Note: This merger is 3 sentences. To be NPOV the second contains "supportive ... unsupportive" while the third lists the sources in the order unsupportive then supportive.)
I believe we can move to a new, so called "bold", edit. On this we find in WP:BRD:
Wikipedia continues:
Have a good day folks. Kiwikiped ( talk) 20:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Well I was obviously over hopeful that the consensus would be wider than it was when the information from New Scientist was introduced. Rather than being hopeful this fool should have heeded the advice to take small steps: WP:BRD's "You do not have to get it all done in one edit. If you can find consensus on some parts, make those changes...".
I note that Richard Keatinge (as I read it), while not agreeing that there are solid grounds to exclude a reference to de Jong's paper, suggests that not doing so would be prudent. That of course means that at present (see C below) CARRS-Q has to go as well, the article must be NPOV.
Richard Keatinge, if I understand correctly, made some sensible suggestions (though I may not thank him for the "others yet to be made" - you lot make me work far too hard to find consensus here!). Combining those with recent history we have the following points:
1) The text:
was in the article for a couple of days and this Talk page moved on to discuss additions to that section under the topic "Suggested addition- The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons" started by Dsnmi (which appears to be close to, or at, consensus and is waiting on this topic to conclude). The statement is factual - and it is not dependent on the views anyone one might have as to the conclusions of any of said research, and of course having a view on the conclusion of a paper is a proof-of-existance of the paper (at least outside Wikidom) - and NPOV. That it was in the article and the Talk page moved on also appears to suggest acceptance/consensus/resignation. This should be fine to re-insert.
2) Richard Keatinge suggests "we reference one or more of the various reliable sources for the existence of debate". Including such references would of course be good, Wiki likes sources, unless of course we end up in an endless merry-go-round arguing over which sources are reliable on this topic. I invite Richard Keatinge, and the rest of you, to suggest such sources (see B below). To get you going I went off on a hunt myself, and with the help of the Wayback Machine I'll suggest Hard-headed approach to helmets, by The 7pm Project, Network Ten. This is a news item. It mentions (listed here in the order in the news item): Dorothy Robinson (University of New England), NSW Roads and Transport Authority, Prof McDermott (Monash University), Sue Abbot (citizen), an unnamed Judge, and Prof Rissel (University of Sydney) - so academics, government, the judiciary and even a citizen! Also it mentions no papers by name, avoiding that little thorn (see 3). It's only a suggestion of course.
3) Richard Keatinge further writes "and if we feel brave two wide-ranging papers, one suggested by each of the two main Ps of V".
So converting points into steps:
A) On the basis that little steps are best I'd suggest that (1) can occur before any selections under (2) or (3). Therefore I'll invite Linda.m.ward or Richard Keatinge to make that edit, as before. A first step. That will also allow the topic "Suggested addition- The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons" started by Dsnmi to conclude, if they do agree there is consensus - there are outstanding invites to folk involved to make the edit.
B) I invite Richard Keatinge to immediately start a new topic to resolve (2) and to offer some of those "various reliable sources for the existence of debate" as a starting point. If someone wants to throw in Hard-headed approach to helmets please do so.
C) Well we've tried (3) before, inviting folk to suggest papers. Unfortunately that whole debate was diverted into arguments about the contents of the papers themselves rather than as examples of output of one of the main POVs. So being "brave" has been tried, and I don't think the two main POVs here are ready to progress on this one, (B) will have to do. If folks do wish to tackle this I just request you wait until (A) and (B) are done first.
I hope we'll all see (A) done and (B) started... and please avoid playing on merry-go-rounds. Kiwikiped ( talk) 04:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Here is the text of the reference provided by User:Kiwikiped:
Almost 20 years ago, Australia became the first country to make it illegal to ride a bike without a helmet. Now the helmet debate is rearing its head again.
University of New England statistician Dorothy Robins says of her studies that “if helmet laws were effective, we should have seen a reduction in head injuries. But instead, we saw a reduction in cycling, which leads to increased sedentary lifestyle diseases… actually increasing health costs.”
However the NSW Roads and Transport Authority research found helmets can reduce head injury by 60 per cent and brain injuries by 58 per cent in the event of a crash.
Professor McDermott, who spearheaded the original campaign to make bike helmets compulsory in Australia, says if the current laws were overturned head injuries would rise and it would be “as backward a step as it would be to tell motorists they don’t have to wear seatbelts.”
Recently, Sue Abbott was pulled over by the highway patrol in the NSW country area of Scone and fined for not wearing a helmet while cycling. She says she has not worn one in 46 years.
Ms Abbott believes wearing a helmet actually increases the risk of brain damage, and that forcing her to wear one is a breach of her civil liberties. She took her fight to court, persuading the judge at the District Court there is still no clear evidence of the benefit of helmets.
After spelling out her case, the judge decided he “fell down on [her] side of the ledger” and that “it’s one those areas where it ought to be a matter of choice.”
Associate Professor Chris Rissel, from Sydney University school of public health, says the Australian laws discourage casual cycling and recommends a trial repeal in one city for two years to allow researchers to make observations and see if there’s an increase in head injuries. He says “on the basis of that, you could come to some informed policy decision.”
The 7PM Project will be talking to Sue Abbott tonight.
Thus it is not a news report, it is a leader for a segment on the TV show. Also, it is from early September 2010, shortly after Voukelatos and Rissel had their paper which purported to show that the helmet laws had no effect in NSW was published - but before it became known that that research was fatally flawed (as in wrong data, incorrect arithmetic, and incorrectly drawn graphs - see http://www.smh.com.au/national/call-to-repeal-law-on-bicycle-helmets-20100815-12573.html and then see http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/authors-admit-errors-in-study-on-bike-helmets-and-head-injuries-20101229-19a9x.html). Therefore the opinions provided at that time on this issue by the various commentators mentioned were (in good faith) misinformed by incorrect research. Not just methodologically questionable research- (in fact the Voukelatos and Rissel approach was basically OK albeit a bit simplistic - but their execution of that research approach was just plain wrong: their numbers literally didn't add up. For these reasons, the reference to the 7pm Project report is not appropriate. Tim C ( talk) 01:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree. WP is just not the right platform for highly contended subjects. Thus the scope of this article should be just the non-contentious, undisputed and indisputable facts, as User:Sitush suggests. If people want to publish their personal take on bicycle helmet research in Australia on the internet, then there are plenty of other avenues available to them. User:Richard Keatinge has told us repeatedly in the past how popular the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation web site is - User:Kiwikiped, User:Colin@cycling and others can always submit web articles to that organisation for consideration. Academic researchers can submit articles to journals, of course, and/or post material on wikis and other web pages run by their universities or research institutes. Tim C ( talk) 08:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
We have had the wording, apart from a the title, for a while now; it has even been in the article. The debate has centered on the source to be used and the last suggested source has met no objections. The current proposal, with the reference formatted is:
Following WP:BRD I invite either Richard Keatinge, Tim C or Sitush to make the edit to the article. Anyone else involved in this thread is of course also welcome to make the edit. If all decline, as per WP:BRD I will make the edit after a suitable pause. Kiwikiped ( talk) 20:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The phrase, as I've said before, "Two decades after" (not "More than" as in your "quote") was picked simply to state the position as of today without using a phrase, such as "Today", which automatically dates. If you'd prefer to drop this phrase how about:
I am assuming you are not arguing that Wikipedia should do original research and weigh up the relative professional opinions of Prof Rissel, Prof Grzebieta, Prof de Jong, Prof McDermott, et al. It has long since been agreed that this article will not even report the details of debate, as the subject is so contentious, we're certainly not going to start doing original research!
Yes, filling this 20-year gap in the article has proved a challenge, it is unfortunate that there has not been more constructive input - but that is how this POV-imbued environment works. Kiwikiped ( talk) 02:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
To match the pattern of the first title I think the title of this section could be reworded a little, bringing me to:
I love the racism of "Australian academics at a number of Australian universities". Are there no non-native academics at such universities? If there are then are we sure that they are uninvolved in this particular sphere? It is sloppy writing, as is using "professional" - it is safe to assume that an academic at a university is a professional. - Sitush ( talk) 21:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I have trimmed this section down to, I hope, the bare minimum compatible with the above discussion. I realize that not everyone shares my interest in the ongoing debate (personally I'd put in a couple of sentences and several references more), but I suggest we'd be letting readers down if we don't even mention the existence of such a thing. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 09:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
RobinsonDL1996
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/HE12076.htm
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: More than one of |author=
and |last=
specified (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
OK, we all know what this is about by now. After a tidy up I noticed a chronological gap which I sought to close with a short NPOV section. I included two references, one from each POV, and there was much discussion over one of those. An early proposal to delete both references was nixed.
Eventually a new version, without any references, and with modified wording was made - a new "bold" edit in Wikipedia terminology. As this was not a reversion but a new edit it terminates the previous BRD process, but is open to a new BRD process. We've since seen a proposal to add additional information to the new section - still under discussion. However Sitush has just reverted the new section, but forgot to start a new BRD here in Talk, so here it is.
The edit was
Is there consensus from the pro-law & anti-law groups that this section, in as far as it goes (c.f. other discussion to extend it), brings the article up-to-date by stating the current situation in an NPOV manner and can be included?
(Note the BRD process is not meant to be a route to blocking process on an article either by silence or continually repeating the same arguments - e.g. there is specific warning against BRDRD... However as this is a new BRD I trust all here will allow some latitude on this point to others who wish to make a point they've made previously.)
I would suggest
This allows for all views or conclusions to be included and not just academics. Colin at cycling ( talk) 06:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
3 academics from Australian universities have published research that is (allegedly) unsupportive of helmet laws.
The Macquarie/deJong paper did not conclude anything with respect to helmet laws in Australia. De Jong said that "A (positive) net health benefit emerges only in dangerous bicycling environments under optimistic assumptions as to the efficacy of helmets and a minor behavioural response. Resolution of the issue for any particular jurisdiction requires detailed information on the four key parameters." Compared to places like Holland and Denmark, Australia is most certainly "a dangerous bicycling environment". De Jong does not define "optimistic assumptions as to the efficacy of helmets"; the Carr, Thompson/Cochrane, Attewell and Elvik analyses all showed that helmets are very efficacious for preventing/mitigating serious head/brain injuries. De Jong does not define "minor behavioural response", numerous data sources indicate that there was (little or) no reduction in (overall) cycling as a result of the helmet laws in Australia; the longitudinal Vic, NSW, SA and WA analyses indicate that the helmet effect would have vastly outweighed any "risk compensation" effect.
The USyd/Rissel paper was retracted more than 2 years ago, and 'superceded' by the UNSW paper/s (by Walter et al.), which showed a clear and sustained benefit. Re Rissel's criticisms of the 2011 Walter paper, in March this year the Australian Injury Prevention Network noted that "Recently a team of researchers at the University of NSW responded to criticisms which questioned the validity of their study on the impact of mandatory helmet legislation (MHL) for cyclists in New South Wales (Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2012, 45: 107–109). Extensions of their analyses confirmed the original conclusions that MHL had a beneficial effect on head injury rates over and above background trends and changes in cycling participation". ( http://www.vision6.com.au/download/files/40328/1626727/AIPN%20Newsletter%2012%20March%202013.pdf).
That leaves UNE/Robinson. Sitush has previously commented something along the lines that if different analyses of the same data yield different results then something is rotten in Denmark . . .
The Vic/NSW/SA cyclist counts indicate that there was a reduction in cycling to school. The SA household survey results indicate that there was no decrease in overall cycling, because the reduction cycling to school, which comprised about 20% of cycling activity in that age group prior to the law, was accompanied by an increase of equivalent size in cycling to/around other venues.
Casualty data from Vic/NSW/SA indicate that there was (little or) no reduction in cycling as a result of the helmet legislation.
Analyses of the Vic/NSW/SA/WA data by Monash Uni (Carr et al.), the SA Dept. of Main Roads (Marshall and White), the Uni of WA (Hendrie et al.), and UNSW (Walter et al.) showed considerable injury reductions.
In "analysing the same data", Robinson
The AIS3/4 injury reductions in the Vic/Carr study are consistent with the results of the Thompson (Cochrane), Attewell, and Elvik meta-analyses of case-control studies (fatality reductions are also consistent with the results of the Attewell and Elvik meta-analyses).
Robinson's 2006 article used a graph from Hendrie et al. to illustrate that "the trend in head injuries among cyclists is similar to that for other road users", but failed to note that Hendrie et al. found that (after taking the trends into account), there was a considerable drop in the proportion of cyclists with head injuries (p<0.001) after the helmet law in WA.
Hagel (2006) noted that the r-squared values corresponding to fig. 2 in Robinson's 2006 paper "suggests that much of the variation in the percentage of head injuries is explained by helmet use", and that a similar association was apparent in the NSW data on bmj.com.
Robinson's conclusion that helmet laws are a bad thing is underpinned by the 'assumption' of a 30-40% reduction in cycling. In arriving at this 'assumption', Robinson has 'overlooked' considerable evidence to the contrary. Robinson is not a reliable source (on helmet matters), and should not be referenced in this article.
The current situation is that a recent study by UNSW researchers found that, consistent with the findings of the earlier studies by Monash, UWA, and the SA Dept. of studies, the helmet legislation was associated with significant reductions in cyclist head injuries.
Linda.m.ward ( talk) 07:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I think we have dealt with all currently raised issues and are on the cusp of consensus. We've had a version without sources of this edit in the article for around 2 days with discussion on Talk moving on to investigate extending the edit - a discussion which itself appears to be on the cusp of consensus. That version covered the existence of the debate and referenced the academic work in Australia but without sources. The above mentioned publication from New Scientist I believe puts to bed those lingering concerns that one of the original sources related to Australia, and no concerns over the other source have been raised - it was simply excluded to maintain NPOV when the former was. So for consensus I offer the following text, being the last text that was in the article followed by those sources:
(Note: This merger is 3 sentences. To be NPOV the second contains "supportive ... unsupportive" while the third lists the sources in the order unsupportive then supportive.)
I believe we can move to a new, so called "bold", edit. On this we find in WP:BRD:
Wikipedia continues:
Have a good day folks. Kiwikiped ( talk) 20:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Well I was obviously over hopeful that the consensus would be wider than it was when the information from New Scientist was introduced. Rather than being hopeful this fool should have heeded the advice to take small steps: WP:BRD's "You do not have to get it all done in one edit. If you can find consensus on some parts, make those changes...".
I note that Richard Keatinge (as I read it), while not agreeing that there are solid grounds to exclude a reference to de Jong's paper, suggests that not doing so would be prudent. That of course means that at present (see C below) CARRS-Q has to go as well, the article must be NPOV.
Richard Keatinge, if I understand correctly, made some sensible suggestions (though I may not thank him for the "others yet to be made" - you lot make me work far too hard to find consensus here!). Combining those with recent history we have the following points:
1) The text:
was in the article for a couple of days and this Talk page moved on to discuss additions to that section under the topic "Suggested addition- The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons" started by Dsnmi (which appears to be close to, or at, consensus and is waiting on this topic to conclude). The statement is factual - and it is not dependent on the views anyone one might have as to the conclusions of any of said research, and of course having a view on the conclusion of a paper is a proof-of-existance of the paper (at least outside Wikidom) - and NPOV. That it was in the article and the Talk page moved on also appears to suggest acceptance/consensus/resignation. This should be fine to re-insert.
2) Richard Keatinge suggests "we reference one or more of the various reliable sources for the existence of debate". Including such references would of course be good, Wiki likes sources, unless of course we end up in an endless merry-go-round arguing over which sources are reliable on this topic. I invite Richard Keatinge, and the rest of you, to suggest such sources (see B below). To get you going I went off on a hunt myself, and with the help of the Wayback Machine I'll suggest Hard-headed approach to helmets, by The 7pm Project, Network Ten. This is a news item. It mentions (listed here in the order in the news item): Dorothy Robinson (University of New England), NSW Roads and Transport Authority, Prof McDermott (Monash University), Sue Abbot (citizen), an unnamed Judge, and Prof Rissel (University of Sydney) - so academics, government, the judiciary and even a citizen! Also it mentions no papers by name, avoiding that little thorn (see 3). It's only a suggestion of course.
3) Richard Keatinge further writes "and if we feel brave two wide-ranging papers, one suggested by each of the two main Ps of V".
So converting points into steps:
A) On the basis that little steps are best I'd suggest that (1) can occur before any selections under (2) or (3). Therefore I'll invite Linda.m.ward or Richard Keatinge to make that edit, as before. A first step. That will also allow the topic "Suggested addition- The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons" started by Dsnmi to conclude, if they do agree there is consensus - there are outstanding invites to folk involved to make the edit.
B) I invite Richard Keatinge to immediately start a new topic to resolve (2) and to offer some of those "various reliable sources for the existence of debate" as a starting point. If someone wants to throw in Hard-headed approach to helmets please do so.
C) Well we've tried (3) before, inviting folk to suggest papers. Unfortunately that whole debate was diverted into arguments about the contents of the papers themselves rather than as examples of output of one of the main POVs. So being "brave" has been tried, and I don't think the two main POVs here are ready to progress on this one, (B) will have to do. If folks do wish to tackle this I just request you wait until (A) and (B) are done first.
I hope we'll all see (A) done and (B) started... and please avoid playing on merry-go-rounds. Kiwikiped ( talk) 04:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Here is the text of the reference provided by User:Kiwikiped:
Almost 20 years ago, Australia became the first country to make it illegal to ride a bike without a helmet. Now the helmet debate is rearing its head again.
University of New England statistician Dorothy Robins says of her studies that “if helmet laws were effective, we should have seen a reduction in head injuries. But instead, we saw a reduction in cycling, which leads to increased sedentary lifestyle diseases… actually increasing health costs.”
However the NSW Roads and Transport Authority research found helmets can reduce head injury by 60 per cent and brain injuries by 58 per cent in the event of a crash.
Professor McDermott, who spearheaded the original campaign to make bike helmets compulsory in Australia, says if the current laws were overturned head injuries would rise and it would be “as backward a step as it would be to tell motorists they don’t have to wear seatbelts.”
Recently, Sue Abbott was pulled over by the highway patrol in the NSW country area of Scone and fined for not wearing a helmet while cycling. She says she has not worn one in 46 years.
Ms Abbott believes wearing a helmet actually increases the risk of brain damage, and that forcing her to wear one is a breach of her civil liberties. She took her fight to court, persuading the judge at the District Court there is still no clear evidence of the benefit of helmets.
After spelling out her case, the judge decided he “fell down on [her] side of the ledger” and that “it’s one those areas where it ought to be a matter of choice.”
Associate Professor Chris Rissel, from Sydney University school of public health, says the Australian laws discourage casual cycling and recommends a trial repeal in one city for two years to allow researchers to make observations and see if there’s an increase in head injuries. He says “on the basis of that, you could come to some informed policy decision.”
The 7PM Project will be talking to Sue Abbott tonight.
Thus it is not a news report, it is a leader for a segment on the TV show. Also, it is from early September 2010, shortly after Voukelatos and Rissel had their paper which purported to show that the helmet laws had no effect in NSW was published - but before it became known that that research was fatally flawed (as in wrong data, incorrect arithmetic, and incorrectly drawn graphs - see http://www.smh.com.au/national/call-to-repeal-law-on-bicycle-helmets-20100815-12573.html and then see http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/authors-admit-errors-in-study-on-bike-helmets-and-head-injuries-20101229-19a9x.html). Therefore the opinions provided at that time on this issue by the various commentators mentioned were (in good faith) misinformed by incorrect research. Not just methodologically questionable research- (in fact the Voukelatos and Rissel approach was basically OK albeit a bit simplistic - but their execution of that research approach was just plain wrong: their numbers literally didn't add up. For these reasons, the reference to the 7pm Project report is not appropriate. Tim C ( talk) 01:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree. WP is just not the right platform for highly contended subjects. Thus the scope of this article should be just the non-contentious, undisputed and indisputable facts, as User:Sitush suggests. If people want to publish their personal take on bicycle helmet research in Australia on the internet, then there are plenty of other avenues available to them. User:Richard Keatinge has told us repeatedly in the past how popular the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation web site is - User:Kiwikiped, User:Colin@cycling and others can always submit web articles to that organisation for consideration. Academic researchers can submit articles to journals, of course, and/or post material on wikis and other web pages run by their universities or research institutes. Tim C ( talk) 08:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
We have had the wording, apart from a the title, for a while now; it has even been in the article. The debate has centered on the source to be used and the last suggested source has met no objections. The current proposal, with the reference formatted is:
Following WP:BRD I invite either Richard Keatinge, Tim C or Sitush to make the edit to the article. Anyone else involved in this thread is of course also welcome to make the edit. If all decline, as per WP:BRD I will make the edit after a suitable pause. Kiwikiped ( talk) 20:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The phrase, as I've said before, "Two decades after" (not "More than" as in your "quote") was picked simply to state the position as of today without using a phrase, such as "Today", which automatically dates. If you'd prefer to drop this phrase how about:
I am assuming you are not arguing that Wikipedia should do original research and weigh up the relative professional opinions of Prof Rissel, Prof Grzebieta, Prof de Jong, Prof McDermott, et al. It has long since been agreed that this article will not even report the details of debate, as the subject is so contentious, we're certainly not going to start doing original research!
Yes, filling this 20-year gap in the article has proved a challenge, it is unfortunate that there has not been more constructive input - but that is how this POV-imbued environment works. Kiwikiped ( talk) 02:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
To match the pattern of the first title I think the title of this section could be reworded a little, bringing me to:
I love the racism of "Australian academics at a number of Australian universities". Are there no non-native academics at such universities? If there are then are we sure that they are uninvolved in this particular sphere? It is sloppy writing, as is using "professional" - it is safe to assume that an academic at a university is a professional. - Sitush ( talk) 21:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I have trimmed this section down to, I hope, the bare minimum compatible with the above discussion. I realize that not everyone shares my interest in the ongoing debate (personally I'd put in a couple of sentences and several references more), but I suggest we'd be letting readers down if we don't even mention the existence of such a thing. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 09:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
RobinsonDL1996
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/HE12076.htm
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: More than one of |author=
and |last=
specified (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)