Talk:Bicycle helmet/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Article is long and rambling, and not remotely neutral

This article is far too long and rambling. Worse, the article washes out the scientific understanding of bicycle helmets with a lot of biased skepticism. (Even though it's skepticism with a ton of citations.) What this page has done to bicycle helmets is what creationists would like to do to the page on evolution.

I know that people will want specifics, so here are some of the problems. The worst problem is that the page simply wastes thousands of words on the "debate". This makes an impression on the reader that there is an enormous debate among experts as to whether or not helmets are worthwhile. In fact, bicycle helmets are a normal topic in medical research. It's a topic that deserves more research, but the scientists who do this research are not in fact mired in arguments. Some of the key quotes in the article suggest that the real quarrel is between bicycling associations and the medical community.

The debate as presented is peppered with obscure rebuttals. For instance, consider the statement, "Hence, the evidence comes from two main types of observational study: time-trend analyses, rated as grade 2, and case-control studies with more potential ways of being wrong than either of the above, rated at grade 3 on a standard scale." Yes, it has a citation, but how is this scale "standard"? Yes, case-controlled studies are rated at grade 3, but that does not mean that case-controlled studies are therefore low-grade science, because the "Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence" is a set of guidelines that should not be taken dogmatically. And no, time-trend analysis (which are the article's main evidence that bicycle helmets aren't worth it) are not "rated as grade 2" in the cited chart. Cohort studies are rated as level 2, but that's not the same as an epidemiological time-trend study. That sort of evidence is not rated on the chart at all, and it is generally grossly inconclusive even compared to case-control studies.

Again, this is just one example of the excessive argumentation and bias in this article. The whole article would need to be rewritten to be trustworthy. Greg Kuperberg (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

An article on cycle helmets needs some discussion of the cycle helmet debate. It it a bit like Evolution, no matter how it is written, someone will always claim that the article is biased against their personal viewpoint. Case controlled studies are notoriously bad in the history of the helmet debate (c.f. the 85% claim). Martin451 (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs some discussion of the cycle helmet debate. What it actually has is a ton of discussion of the debate. Worse, it's a discussion that is dominated by opposition to helmet use and does not accurately summarize the position of the medical community. As sometimes happens on Wikipedia, discussing the debate has turned into a long complaint that someone is trying to make people wear bicycle helmets. Greg Kuperberg (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is some redundant material, and with your stimulus I might have another go at it; I didn't want to stir up a hornet's nest by deleting someone's treasured verbiage. But the central argument is mainstream stuff, as the references make clear; the argument is not only within the medical community, but among transport professionals and ordinary cyclists as well.

The time-trend studies would come in on the chart as 2c, "ecological" studies. Indeed, the point of this sort of scale (various versions of which are widely used) is that any study can come to the wrong conclusion, and I notice that the time trend studies do disagree with each other. They can't all be right. The scale isn't any sort of rebuttal, it just gives the (entirely mainstream) position, that case-control studies have more and worse ways of being wrong than time-trends, and that helps to structure the article. Analyzing which studies are right would be original research. The article merely reports them, as it should. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I fought the good fight of this article being biased a few years ago. I got so upset, that I quit looking at it for the past 2 years. It is better--but still biased. So I'm supportive of your taking it on! Dean P Foster (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I will definitely agree that there is a very clear bias against helmet use. It seemed like half the article was opposed to it and then it said Opposition and I was thinking "Wait...what?" It should probably be completely rewritten with a clear and balanced support and opposition. If I had the time and interest, I would consider doing it myself. --Metallurgist (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

If the available evidence does not even offer a viable model for supporting helmet wearing as a means of reducing serious head injuries then in my view, it is difficult to see how any amount of rewrites could alter that fact. --Sf (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The debate is still not settled and there is evidence for both sides. This article pretends that there isn't. There are cycling groups for and against mandatory helmets. Metallurgist (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Legislation

Another very serious problem with the article is that the legal question of making bicycle helmets mandatory for adults (apparently there is a push for this in the United Kingdom) bleeds together with the scientific question of the safety value of helmets. The latter section has a tone of wanting to prove something to the establishment to prevent an unwanted law. Besides being biased, the article is therefore also provincial, because in many other countries there is no move to make bicycle helmets mandatory; in some jurisdictions it is only mandatory for children and in others it is not mandatory at all. Even though it debates helmet laws for thousands of words, the article does not bother to explain what the laws are. Greg Kuperberg (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There are at least two countries (Australia and New Zealand) where helmets are already mandatory for adults. If anything I think this section should be expanded to include more detail of legislation around the world. The push for helmet laws does go hand in hand with the scientific debate, as the argument for helmet laws is based entirely on the efficacy of helmets. Martin451 (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the section that summarized helmet laws should not be expanded, because it doesn't exist. What is true is that an appropriately terse legal section should be created. As I said, it doesn't help anything that after complaining for 5,000 words that someone is trying to make people wear bicycle helmets, the article doesn't even explain who. Greg Kuperberg (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a reference to a page that does purport to list such laws. I'm not sure how good it is. I have thought of putting a list in but in the end wasn't sure it was worth it. If anyone else wants to have a go, feel free. But keeping it up to date might be more than we can expect for Wikipedia and I'm not volunteering for that job; pushes for helmet laws seem to crop up all over the world these days, though few are passed and fewer still enforced. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Many countries (and individual counties/municipalities) have helmet compulsion for adults and there is a global campaign :. Australia and New Zealand are not the only countries with helmet compulsion for adults. Helmets are compulsory, always or subject to place, with varying degrees of strictness of enforcement, in at least the following countries [13]: Finland, Spain, Canada (in many geographic jurisdictions), USA (in many geographic jurisdictions), South Africa [14] and Israel. ( This is not a complete list and additionally does not mention AU + NZ, nor compulsion for children.) Intense campaigning for compulsion for adults or scaremongering promotion by officials and traffic safety organisations that often believe in compulsion, has recently been seen in Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, UK, and surely many other countries. The Netherlands is in a peculiar position in that they have the best safety record for cyclists, and the lowest helmet wearing rate. The WHO Helmet manual includes a box on the Dutch approach to helmets which is that they should not be promoted by official bodies. Other measures work vastly better. Still some official bodies seem to be pushing helmets, especially for children. [15]. On a global scale the motorist sponsored ( FIA Foundation ) campaign, Commission for Global Road Safety, in cooperation with the World Bank the the World Health Organisation + UNICEF push for helmets, referring to cherry-picked research. Helmet compulsion for adults has so far been thwarted in the UK, France (see Fubicy web), Norway (see Wikipedia article for refs) and Iceland. This outcome seems to have been because of fierce opposition by cyclists organisations, occasionally supported by public health officials, primarily based on the argument that the net public health effect would likely be negative. The WHO has been invited by the European Cyclists' Federation to a discussion on the scientific basis for helmet promotion and compulsion on a number of occasions but have so far declined to go into the matter. The same goes for the EU Commissioner for Transport.

As to whether the debate on compulsion is intense, perhaps it could be qualified as relates to traffic safety issues and to cycling. Certainly in the intersection of those two sets, nothing can measure up, although the debate on separated facilities for cycling would come in as a strong second. So I suggest something like '... on of the more intense issues of debate in traffic safety and particularly regarding cycling'

As to the deterrent effect of helmet compulsion, this is quite well documented. As an aside, in an article from Vietnam, it is claimed that helmet compulsion for mopeds, meant electric bicycles (where helmets were not required by law) suddenly became very popular and were sold out [16] Another article from Vietnam exemplifies the common practice in many countries that schools set rules thsat amoiunt to helmet compulsion for their pupils irrespective of national or regional codes of law. [17] Mokgand (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Anecdotally speaking I can say that helmet laws in Australia have seldom been enforced since they were introduced nationally. I will try and find an appropriate citation and add this to the article. Non helmet compliance ranges between 20-50% depending on specific location and I'm sure this would influence accident statistics - but it never seems to get a mentionBenvenuto (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

biased

this article is super(duper) biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.50.176 (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If you don't like helmets, don't wear them. Geesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.228.189 (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

TO THE GUY WHO WROTE THIS COMMENT: THE WHOLE POINT OF THE ALLEGED BIAS IS TO ADRESS THE HAVE IT BE JUST THAT"don't like them don't wear them," BUT CURRENT LEGISLATION IN MANY PLACES IN THE US DOESN'T ALLOW THAT TO BE(SEEMS SORT OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL). FOR THE RECORD I AM A USER OF BICYCLE HELMUTS AND WOULD ENCOURAGE AND CHILD OF MINE TO DO THE SAME; HOWEVER, I THINK THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IS VERY INTERESTING AND HAS BEEN PRESENTED IN A "DEBATE" SECTION THERE IS ALSO SUPPORT SECTION.

Time for another go at Good Article status?

It's nice to have praise, this time from the Fietserbond - The Dutch Cycling Union. From http://www.copenhagenize.com/2008/08/helmets-clever-dutch-and-arrogant-danes.html:

I got put through to a wonderful chap named Theo who is a Traffic Consultent for the Fietsersbond. Here's a transcript of the interview: ... Is there anywhere on your website where Dutch cyclists can get information about bike helmets? "No. There is a good page on Wikipedia about bike helmets that links to good resources. That's sufficient."

Very nice of him to say so, but we still have a poorly-referenced first section, and I feel that the Debate section could be tightened up somewhat. I appreciate deeply that there are strong points of view on either side of the debate, but there is a great deal that can be said on this subject and an encyclopedia doesn't need to say absolutely all of it. A little reorganization and trimming could help. I might give it a try this weekend. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have done some work, mostly removing the text at this diff[18] in case anyone feels that the article is better with it. This edit will in no way appease those who want to deny the existence of a debate, but there are now a couple of references which explicitly establish its reality and tone. It also won't make happier those who want to push any one point of view. But I hope that I have rewritten a few points to make them clearer and removed quite a lot of text that at best made non-notable points and at worst gave detailed documentation of tedious wrangling. Opinions may well differ; I look forward to your comments. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC) 

Standardi[sz]e the spelling?

This is a very minor point, but I notice someone just "corrected" the spelling of "totalling" to "totaling". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English suggests that an articles should use one style for consistency. Should we change all the spellings to American spellings? There are a few -ise verbs in the article, for example. Is there any point? This sort of mindless pedantry is just up my alley, so I'll have a go this week, on and off, if it's worth doing. Tomasrojo (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Tone, how-to tags

Not sure what the anonymous editor meant by adding these tags. Specifically the how-to tags. If he or she would like to explain here, that would be very helpful in meeting their concerns. Also, not sure what use it is wiki-linking the word "bitter". The link just leads to a disambiguation page.Tomasrojo (talk)

He is well known vandal. Astronaut (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Good article

I find this article very well written, highly relevant and as neutral as it can -and should- be. There are numerous arguments by those in favour as well as by opponents to bicycle-helmet use or legislation, and numerous scientific quotations and argumentations. The criticism above is not reasonable in my opinion. M. Fotopoulos. Orthopedic Surgeon, Copenhagen, Denmark.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.242.0.66 (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Split Proposal

As others have noted, this article is dominated by the sections relating to the debate over helmet use, rather than by encyclopaedic content relating to bicycle helmets themselves. While the overall article length is somewhat lower than the usual criteria, I believe this warrants splitting the article, as per Wikipedia:Splitting

"If an article becomes too large or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article it is recommended that a split be carried out."

The proposed split would leave section 1 ('About helmets') in the main article, and move sections 2 and 3, perhaps to Bicycle helmet debate.

If there are no objections, I'll go ahead with the split and put together a (hopefully) NPOV summary to link to the new article.

Shipman wp (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Murray Langton (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you proposing to move "Criticism of current standards; new designs", "Helmet compulsion in cycling sport", and/or "Legislation and culture"? NebY (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. I've changed my mind since I called for a split. I watched students using Wikipedia, some for the first time, and they were very confused when major elements were in a separate article. The article is a useful unit and isn't long enough to justify a split - I can think of a few more peripheral comments to be trimmed anyway, and if I'm feeling bold enough I'll get on with it in the next few days.Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree; I think it's better as it is. It's not a very long article.Tomasrojo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC).

good article?

This article is being used to tell its audience a anti-helmet bias POV piece of bullshit. An article like this should not be slanted for or against helmet use, it is supposed to be just about helmets! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamrock (talk • contribs) 02:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above sentiment (though not its articulation). The helmet debate sections are uncomfortably biased. Yes I know all the points carry citations, but it's possible to find citations for both points of view. What concerns me is there is a clear imbalance in the expression of points. MTB UK (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is of course a point of view. Your discomfort however is mirrored by those on the other side of the debate. I suggest that the article is notable for NPOV in a difficult area. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Public Health Law Research

"Public Health Law Research, an independent organization, published in 2009 an evidence brief summarizing the research assessing the effect of bicycle helmet laws or policies on public health. There is enough evidence to establish that bicycle helmet laws are an effective public health intervention aimed at reducing head-related morbidity and mortality. "

A good reference to what seems like a perfectly respectable secondary source, so I've left it in, albeit slightly copyedited. Without committing original research, I note that they have asserted that helmets reduce mortality without actually citing any research that even tries to address the issue, and this does tend to bring their competence into question. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not like they don't cite any research. Their recommendation is based on 15 studies that say laws increase helmet usage, and 3 studies that say helmets reduce head injuries. JethroElfman (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That's why I've left it in. However, there is a big difference between good science, and referencing a couple of reviews to produce a conclusion that the reviews don't even address. I'm really not impressed. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

References

info box in The helmet debate: science section

I've removed citation request from the info box in the The helmet debate: science section as it's not really necessary and in any case, how does one find a reference to support the claim that no research has been published?Obscurasky (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"This section deals mainly with helmet use by road commuters and children." There's a positive assertion which needs a citation. (It may well be true, all I'm saying is that it needs a citation)

"In other areas of cycling, such as mountain biking, helmet use is more widely accepted" Another positive assertion. Also may well be true, but I'd question its relevance in a section about science. If referenced, it belongs in the first section about the history of helmets and their use.

and "no evidence has been published on its advantages or disadvantages." A negative assertion, but relevant to the section. Negative assertions need references too, and while I agree it's more difficult, such things have been produced. I suggest looking at reviews of the literature or reports on them by cycling magazines.

I'll leave this for a bit, but I suggest that if citations aren't produced fairly soon then these assertions need to be removed. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Whilst the text in the info box is pretty self-evident, I agree it is almost impossible to find citations for. I've removed the most contentious sentences, but left the first - removing this would be the worst of all worlds as it would give the impression that the data below it relates to areas such as mountain biking, when it does not. So far as I can see, all the studies quoted relate primarily to road users or children, and none relate to mountain bikers. It would, then, be misleading to imply any sort of inclusivity for this section. Obscurasky (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't recall any studies limited to mountain bikers, and I'm not saying you're wrong, but we do need a citation. My vague impression is that most of the evidence relates to road users simply because they do most of the mileage, and some relates mainly to children. But some, I think, relates to all cyclist injuries in an area, and I presume that at least some mountain bikers would be included; for all I know, most of the injuries. I'm not trying to "compromise" and I have no particular agenda on this issue, but Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable and, so far, this isn't. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's the best solution here. I believe that removing the information bar would create the impression that these studies apply equally to all forms of cycling. Having looked at the citations, it's pretty clear they don't, but there's no way to provide a citation to demonstrate this. Obscurasky (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not sure that any of the studies excluded mountain bikers or adults, but will stand corrected if you can find a suitable source. Some of the primary papers would probably give their inclusion and exclusion criteria in usable form. In the meantime I've removed the bar. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I see the info box has now been removed. The problem is that the helmet debate does not extend to all sections of cycling, to the same extent as it does for road cyclists - and this is not clear in the text and requires some clarification. Obscurasky (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I am still not sure that this is correct. Without checking original papers, my impression is that almost all studies have related to cycling injuries within an area, and don't exclude any of them. I'm not actually aware of studies that omit mountain biking, but any study that does should mention the fact in a quotable way. We do need references. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard is confusing the 'studies' and the 'debate'. The data for the studies may well include mountain bikers, but the debate itself is not relevant to the vast majority of mountain bikers as there is near universal acceptance of helmet use. The article implies the helmet debate covers all areas of cycling, but this is not true.MTB UK (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If almost all mountain bikers wear helmets then all we need to do is cite a reliable source that says so. I'm not disagreeing! Just that this is Wikipedia and we need reliable sources. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a misinterpretation of Wikipedia.

It's not for me to prove there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden. It's down to the person implying the helmet debate covers mountain bikers to demonstrate that it actually does. MTB UK (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The existing citations don't seem to differentiate. Again, I'm not arguing about the reality; I don't know what that is and from your nickname I presume that you do, at least locally. Can you come up with a reasonable source that says that modern mountain bikers almost all wear helmets? Even that they do so in the UK? Shouldn't be too difficult, though my quick Google is obstructed by sales messages. Anyhow, on the basis of your remarks I have put a comment in to the main page, with a (citation needed). I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have come across a page that does document (in France in 2006/7) much higher rates of helmet wearing among "sportive" riders than among others, and have used it to document the point. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The helmet debate: science section title

Why is the word 'Science' in this title? I appreciate the importance of not getting involved in unfounded 'speculation', but that shouldn't be a problem is the section is kept encyclopedic. Wouldn't it be more appropriate if it was simply titled 'The helmet debate'?Obscurasky (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The debate is divided, to an unusual degree, between science and opinion. There is a lot of opinion, much of it very strong, without any close relationship to the science. Helmets became gospel in the USA by 1991 according to the LAB, before any significant science came out, and the debate and the science have proceeded along distinctly separate tracks. A current example is the comment put in by User:PaulStatt; he references an organization that has "judged" that bicycle helmets save lives, and they quote some references which don't, in fact, even try to count anything about deaths. Whatever the basis for that "judgement" may be, it isn't science. In this area there is a particularly large disconnection between primary science and expert opinions, and the present structure just makes it slightly easier to make that important difference a little clearer. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I'm affraid it still seems a rather odd title choice to me. It makes it seem as if the section is about the science, not the helmet debate itself.Obscurasky (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, do you have any better titles? "Science: testing the hypothesis that helmets are effective" and "Opinions for and against the use of helmets" perhaps? Suggestions welcome. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the headings in accordance with the above. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Separate Dispute, Controversy, and Debate from the Main article.

It is safe to say that this page has enough bias to be labeled as such. Sure there are numerous references, but references can be biased too since this has been a hot topic. The debate seems to originate solely from the United Kingdom, no doubt because of a mandatory requirement. The rest of the world doesn't debate the safety of bicycle helmets. Only in places were freedom of choice seems to be an issue. I have posted a multitude of statistics (with references) that show the benefits of helmet use... but it seems the references weren't good enough (or not from the U.K.) for some folks (such as Richard Keatinge) and were deleted within hours. It seems only British statistics are worth anything here.

But I don't even care about the debate... just don't clutter up the main article with it. There is more crap about how a bunch of UK advocacy groups don't like to be told to wear helmets, than useful information about the helmets themselves. Over half of the article! Take it somewhere else. Then link that article to this one. Leave the POV tags until Richard Keatinge, or some other anti-helmet advocate creates a separate page and deletes this crap.

When you say "The rest of the world doesn't debate the safety of bicycle helmets", do you mean there is no discussion or that the case for "the safety of bicycle helmets" is broadly accepted? When you speak of the "rest of the world," are you referring to the USA and Australia (where helmet use is largely mandatory) or France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Russia, China and Japan (where it is not, but whose publications may be incomprehensible if you only read English)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.36.204 (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Dean (I assume it's you), several editors pointed out that your "statistics" were original research based on invalid data, see the archives. And the NPOV of the rest of the page is in general really painstaking, which is what I'm here to work for. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but the page now (in part thanks to your earlier comments) gives a fairly comprehensive yet brief overview of the main facts and opinions on all sides of the debate from all over the world. The pro side gets at least as much coverage as the rest! For what it's worth I note that most of the science comes from Australia, not the UK, which has no mandatory helmet requirement.

I have removed most of your POV tags from sections where they do not belong, leaving the one about racing cycling where you may have a point and where more citations are certainly needed. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge.... apparently you "own" this wikipedia article. According to the history, you label every change that you may disagree with as vandalism so you can get people blocked. However, I sincerely sympathize that you "...have worked hard on NPOV for this. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)". I have been pouring through the archives and history of this article. This is clearly a very hot debate (as mentioned numerous times). There have been many requests, according to the discussion, to create a "Bicycle Helmet Debate page" only summarize on this "main" page. Why are you being stubborn with this? You will have to police this article until retirement. And I also agree that the "debate" portion of this article is too much to be on the main page. When people search for "Bicycle Helmet", the information they find first should be concise and to the point. They should not have to be bombarded with rhetoric from either point of view. An average person searching wiki is more likely to be looking for information about proper wear, history, and types... not necessarily the debate.

Please consider what I have said. Thank you. Joeviocoe (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Joeviocoe, I've not tried to get anyone blocked, nor (I hope) have I labelled good-faith edits as vandalism, nor do I have any idea that I own this article. It's just one of 163 pages on my watchlist at the moment, though in terms of argumentation probably second only to Gibraltar and possibly the Huns. How long will I go on being an active editor? No idea, this is, after all, all voluntary work. Retirement is still over a decade away for me.

Putting the debate on another page is an arguable idea which I suggested myself a while back, see the archives. That suggestion met with no favour from other editors, and I changed my mind partly in deference to those others, and partly on seeing my students use Wikipedia on a different subject. They got very confused because the debate was on a different page to the main article. I've seen no reason yet to change my mind back, but of course may do so some day.

As for rhetoric, I see very little of it. We do have a fairly good account of the debate, but most of it is suitably-brief descriptions of the main arguments. I agree that we could profitably have more on history and so on - over to you I think. You will notice that the history and so on comes before the debate, which I do think is appropriate and means that a (very) casual reader gets the history and instructions without having to look through the debate. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Debate section needs to be radically altered

As an avid cyclist who does not wear a helmet and who opposes mandatory helmet laws, I want to add my voice to the chorus that believe this article fails miserably at NPOV. Fundamentally, it's far too debate-heavy (by a factor of 100) and consequently far too long. Furthermore, the lengthy treatment of this debate obscures its poor quality -- the debate sections are abysmal and awash with egregious bias.

Unfortunately, what seems to have occurred here is the all-too-frequent Wikipedia phenomenon of article-custodianship: User Richard Keatinge has been the de facto monitor of this page, and as of today can boast by far the most edits (190) of any user over a dedicated four-year career to this article. While I'm sure Richard has added much content and fended off plenty of vandals in this time, this disproportionate activity on the part of a single user is almost never a good development for a page -- and this is clearly the case here.

To be more specific about what content I find objectionable, I'd like to point to Greg Kuperberg's comments from two years ago. Greg made very many correct general observations about this article's debate section and its fairly insubstantial argumentation style. My personal top five (by no means comprehensive) irritants:

1. it stresses (and impresses) extreme contention in the medical community, where it does not exist.
2. it argues complexity, where the issue/research is not untowardly complex compared to virtually any other medical field.
3. it underscores uncertainty and contradiction, which is completely common fare in serious research.
4. it muddles through generic study-weakness arguments which are silly, out of proportion, and out of place.
5. it introduces -- then immediately rebuts -- every pro-helmet argument, with clearly unequal treatment between sections.

Frankly, it's fine to point out some of the methodological issues in the research literature -- succinctly, within the context of their utter routine nature in medical research (which, I'm willing to concede, the author of this debate section may not be familiar with). This article however does so repeatedly, ad nauseam, at virtually every possible opportunity with the clear intention of promoting one viewpoint and undermining another. To someone less than absolutely convinced of the sound-ness of this reasoning, it comes across as very weasel-like.

The real issue here I believe is a failure among the dedicated corps of enthusiasts on this page to distinguish between the public policy debate (in which they are invested) and the medical research debate. While the latter may inform the former, they are actually completely distinct entities, and should absolutely be treated as such. The public policy debate is ongoing, volatile, and mostly confined to vocal and emotional special interest groups -- cyclists, cyclist groups, and various public health groups; the medical "debate" is civil, basically in consensus, and evolving to a more nuanced and evidential viewpoint, albeit at a slower pace.

As written, I really see almost no value at all in the debate section. I will wait a few days before taking action to allow people to comment, but I intend to eliminate 80-90% of it.

Richard: I and I'm sure most here would thank you for your interest and dedication to this topic; you and others have certainly provided a good base from which to fashion a contrite and informative article. However, it's crystal clear to me that this article's current B-rating is inflated (notwithstanding the self-congratulatory quote you posted above), and it frankly can not substantially improve without you (and others with an agenda) taking a serious time-out. If you're very committed to detailing the intricacies of the public policy debate, you should do so on a dedicated page. LacrossaTheRed (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, LacrossaTheRed. I guess I've done more cutting than writing on this article, presently one of 189 on my watchlist (I've done much more writing on archery and history articles), and quite possibly more cutting may be desirable. I've often been reluctant to remove too much for fear of being seen as a serial slasher, and also because there is value in giving at least an outline of the main arguments. How detailed an outline is appropriate for Wikipedia we may well discuss. I also agree that there is separation here between the political debate and the scientific; the present article structure reflects this fairly well. In general, by the way, the medical organizations are part of the political debate, not the scientific one.

To discuss the points that you find objectionable, the scientific contention is real and is fierce; civility is distinctly strained. I do see some hints that it may be moving towards a consensus - nobody has seriously contradicted Robinson's findings - but the hospital-based studies still have some credibility and many medical organizations are still invested, to use your word, in helmet use.

I don't think that Wikipedia is the place to go through detailed arguments on the weaknesses of particular studies - correct me if I'm wrong. But if any reader wants to understand the complexity of the literature, assessment of quality is probably the only way to make sense of the subject, and the present brief mention of quality issues in relation to study types seems a useful guide in the right direction. The uncertainty and contradictions are a major feature of the scientific issue; I agree they're not unique and the strong POVs of the political debate in this area do make a dispassionate scientific presentation more difficult. But the uncertainties are important, indeed fundamental.

Some might like just one side of the argument in this article, presented very simply. That is indeed a widespread point of view and one which the article describes and references carefully. But we also, as we should, present the fact that there is no scientific or political consensus, that the arguments on both sides, in both aspects of the debate, are widely-discussed and rationally defensible. There are arguments and counter-arguments to practically every point, and I and many others have worked on presenting them fairly.

To summarize, nothing is perfect and this is Wikipedia, nobody owns this article. The debate section now describes with reasonable NPOV a vigorous contention; to suggest removing 80% of it strikes me as indefensible and a serious violation of NPOV. I look forward to suggestions and indeed some trimming or summarizing may be good. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Richard, firstly, I apologize for perhaps being a tad overly antagonistic in my initial remarks. However, I don't think the suggestion that this article represents a meticulous NPOV rendering holds up to any scrutiny.

With respect to taking sides, I honestly don't care: I'm less interested in a logical resolution of this debate -- or a "vigorous contention" of some facet of it -- than that it be strictly limited. As it stands, the debate sections are approximately 50% longer than the rest of the article. This is absurd, and does a disservice to the general interest viewer who has scant interest in the intricacies of these arguments. For the people that do, a separate page detailing the various back-and-forth is most appropriate.

I'm going to begin consolidating the sections today; I expect a good deal of resistance, but we'll see where this goes.LacrossaTheRed (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Boldness is good - go for it! You might want to consider drafting on a temporary page first? Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is it a problem that something which is hotly debated has a large debate section? Guy (Help!) 12:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a problem because this is an article about bicycle helmets, not the public policy debate over helmet compulsion for cyclists. The debate doesn't need to dwarf the rest of the article.

I'll make changes to a temp page first. Unfortunately work got a little ahead of me this week, but I'll have some free time this weekend. LacrossaTheRed (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Just out of interest, I made a rough breakdown of the present article. I estimate that it has three screens of history:

         o 1.1 History of designs
         o 1.2 History of standards
         o 1.3 Design intentions and standards, 
         o 1.5 Fit and care
         o 1.6 Helmet compulsion in cycling sport

two and a half of science:

         o 1.4 Criticism of current standards; new designs
            * 2 Is cycling risky enough to require helmets?
   * 3 Science: testing the hypothesis that helmets are effective
         o 3.1 Are helmets useful? Desirable effects of helmet use
               + 3.1.1 Time-trend analyses
               + 3.1.2 Case-control studies
               + 3.1.3 Anecdotal evidence
         o 3.2 Are helmets harmful? Undesirable effects of helmet use
               + 3.2.1 Less bicycle use
               + 3.2.2 Risk compensation
               + 3.2.3 Rotational injury
               + 3.2.4 Strangulation by helmet straps

And two on the political dispute:

   * 4 Opinions for and against the use of helmets
         o 4.1 Supporters
         o 4.2 Opponents
         o 4.3 Legislation and culture

... I can only say that I hope that you can come up with significant improvements and get them accepted. I presently can't imagine them, but then that's what Wikipedia is all about. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Strangulation

The section on children being strangled by helmet straps while NOT cycling is emotive and irrelevant to the main topic of the article. Benvenuto (talk) 06:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's an emotive fact, and unwelcome to certain strongly-held points of view, but our presentation of the fact can hardly be drier. And it could hardly be more relevant to bicycle helmets. I don't suppose we want a separate article on bicycle helmet straps. However, the title may be worth discussing. I find that strangling is not in fact what's being described, these children were hanged, and that is possibly the word that should be used in the heading. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we incorporate this in a section of hazzards through improper wearing and use of bicycle helmets rather than as a section on its own. Or shift it to the article on accidental hangings...Benvenuto (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

- Could do, what other hazards? Possible ones might include greater risk of accidents, worse rotational injury, and so on, but the evidence for these is highly debatable, and they are associated with using the helmet as intended rather than being a side effect of mass use. Whereas the hangings are causally clear... personally I'd leave them in their own section. Anyway, unless anyone's got any objections, I propose to change the word to "hanging". Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change. Do you have any reference for improper fit being anything to do with the hangings? As far as I know these events are only possible if the helmet is securely fitted as per recommendations - this keeps the helmet on during violent maneuvers but conversely means that the straps act as an effective restraint system for the head. I seem to recall that after the Swedish hangings, they developed a looser system of straps, which tended to come off in accidents... I appreciate that nobody actually recommends wearing bike helmets off bikes (though see http://www.thudguard.com/ for a rather similar device). Perhaps your sentence "Incorrect fit is the major cause of accidental hangings of children wearing helmets while engaged in other activities (see below)." would be better as a reminder not to use these things off bikes? Perhaps "To avoid rare serious accidents, a bicycle helmet should not be worn off a bicycle"? Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

amended as per suggestion.Benvenuto (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Richard here. The hanging problem is, as far as I know, not due to incorrect fit. Helmets should be fitted firmly so that they stay on during impact, which unfortunately is also conducive to hanging in certain circumstances. Otherwise, good work so far, Benvenuto.Tomasrojo (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've taken out the claim that poor fit is the cause of hanging, but if anyone has a reference that makes this claim, please re-instate. (My section-edit committed before I could write a coherent comment.)Tomasrojo (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

At http://www.productsafety.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/982117 I find Product Safety Australia writing: "Use bicycle helmets for cycling only. Children have died from strangulation playing outdoors and indoors while wearing bicycle helmets. Parents and carers should take extreme care to ensure that children do not wear bicycle helmets when they are not riding a bicycle." It might be worth using. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. We already refer to newspaper reports of the deaths in question. What do others think? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have now used this reference for a quoted comment on care. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Political opposition to bicycle helmets

Should we include a section on the ideological dimension to the helmet debate? Most of the argument I have heard here in Australia starts on a political argument, which is then backed up with medical/scientific arguments rather than the other way aroundBenvenuto (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You're bolder than I've been - I've been thinking of this one for some time. I've noticed the political arguments each way, but I haven't managed to find any acceptably reliable sources; blogs, and the spoken equivalent, are the main sources, and they need interpretation. If we come to a consensus that our interpretation is uncontroversial, I suppose we can accept them. I paste your new section, and follow it with my best guess at a comment on similar lines about political support. I hope it will be obvious that the text as it stands is not acceptable as encyclopedic prose.

Warning: the next four paragraphs include parody which is not intended seriously

Political opponents often use the pejorative terms Nanny state and Big government to describe public health interventions and consumer protection measures such as disease surveillance, mandatory or government-subsidized vaccination, food labelling regulations, tobacco regulation, and product safety regulations (including mandatory bicycle helmet use) associated with the modern liberal Welfare state.

Libertarianism, especially Right-libertarianism is the major inspiration for these opponents, but few of them use purely ideological arguments to oppose compulsory helmet use. In a similar way to Climate change denialists, political opponents to mandatory helmet laws use scientific "proof" to bolster their arguments, often succumbing to faulty reasoning, cherry picking, and misrepresentation of sometimes outdated or inconclusive scientific data. However similar some anti-helmet rhetoric is to that used in various forms of Denialism and Pseudoscience, it is important to note that in this case, no scientific consensus exists yet on compulsory helmet use and valid scientific objections exist.

Political supporters often mix demands for helmets with dislike of cyclists, regarded as an out-group without legitimate rights on the road. Cyclists may be described as organ donors and satisfaction expressed at their likely gruesome fates. This is often mixed with hostility to other out-groups, especially other road users and forms of transport other than cars.

Authoritarianism and plutocracy are the main inspirations for these supporters, very few of whom ride bicycles themselves. However, few of them use purely ideological arguments to support helmet use. Support is often based on the untested assumption that helmets must be valuable and the incorrect guess that cycling is a dangerous activity; many are unaware that these ideas can actually be scientifically tested. In a similar way to fascism, political supporters of helmets may use selected "scientific proof" that seems to support their fixed ideas. The evidence that the mass use of bicycle helmets has no useful effect is usually ignored, sometimes denied, and occasionally opposed by pseudoscience. However, it is important to note that, in this case, no scientific consensus exists yet on the failure of helmet use and valid scientific objections exist.

To put it mildly, I do not think that any of the above is defensible as encyclopedic content. I propose to remove all of it from the article very soon - and, while I'm at it, strike through the above. I suggest strongly that we need reliable sources, that is to say, respectable publications that actually express what we are trying to say. So far I haven't found any for the issues touched upon above. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Duly removed and struck through. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Mission achieved Richard.Benvenuto (talk) 07:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

National standards

I think the last three paragraphs of the section 'History of standards' (which should be in the section below) and the section 'Design intentions and standards' are rather weak. For one thing, I'm not happy with the way they talk about helmet standards as if there is unified consensus. The repeated claim that standards have weakened/lowered over time is also questionable; Does this apply to all national standards, or just some? And even if this is generally the case, it's surely incorrect to imply that helemts themselves are not improving?

Another area of concern for me is the repeated claim that the primary aim of a helmet is to 'reduce acceleration'. While some standards do cite this as an aim, most, including the ANSI, state the primary aim as absorbing impact energy. http://www.bhsi.org/stdcomp.htm#CONSTRUCTION

It's also clear that the section is biased towards road/race bikes. For example, the claim that "The trend is toward thinner helmets with many large vents" is not true for mountain bikers. Obscurasky (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know all the standards are expressed as acceleration although the preambles may talk about energy absorption. From Jim G Sundahl, Senior Engineer, Bell Sports. 19th January 1998. Letter to the U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, c/o Scott Heh, Project Manager Directorate for Engineering Sciences Washington, D. C, 20207 (some typos fixed):

"Now I want to offer some common sense and basic physics. First, energy management is often discussed regarding helmet standards. This is a false concept. No helmet standard in the world even measures energy management of absorption nor have a pass/fail criteria for energy management. A helmet can absorb zero energy and still pass any helmet standard in the world. Energy absorption is a function of input velocity minus rebound velocity. No standard requires a laboratory to even measure rebound velocity never mind dictating that the coefficient of restitution be less than 0.5 or something, A helmet can rebound with the full input velocity and pass quite well. Moreover, it can be imagined that any number of liner materials could absorb energy better than contemporary helmet liners but in fact produce a very poor helmet. A couple of good energy managers are soft lead sheet and modeling clay. Impacting either of these produces negligible rebound velocity. In other words, they absorb virtually all of the impact energy. None of us are advocating these materials for helmet liners because energy absorption is not very important for helmets. I think that any discussion of helmet test criteria that includes the word “energy’ is suspect and might be misleading.

Acceleration management is what helmets are about. All helmet standards measure acceleration and enforce a pass/fail criteria that includes a maximum acceleration rate. Some standards measure other aspects of the acceleration/time event. This acceleration/time event is caused by an initial velocity between a head/helmet and an anvil. The higher the initial velocity the more distance, thickness of liner, is required to control the acceleration/time curve to a given set of parameters. The mass of a test headform has no effect upon this thickness." Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Norway

"The Norwegian Government has eschewed adopting bicycle helmets after their research determined that widespread use in Australia and New Zealand increased risk by 14%" This statement grossly distorts the report that is cited. The conclusion of the report on this subject is that helmets "may reduce head face and brain injuries", although they "may reduce the frequency of cycling" Full text: http://toi-prod.coretrek.no/getfile.php/Publikasjoner/T%D8I%20rapporter/2007/889-2007/889-2007-nett.pdf This sort of dishonest editing has no place hereBenvenuto (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The Norwegian report is (on bike helmets) a ragbag of (referenced) statements, positive and negative reflecting the overall state of the literature. They don't really try to review the entire body of evidence, and perhaps anything short of block-quoting the entire section on helmets could be seen as cherrypicking. But the increased risk is in there.

“ There is evidence of increased risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand the increase is estimated to be around 14%." ”

And they have indeed avoided making any recommendation. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Cycle helmet bibliography

Here is a cycle helmet bibliography that may be of some use. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Expired References

Many of the references in this article – particularly the skeptical ones – now return 404s. Since the non-skeptical references tend to be unbiased as well, highlighting the debate seems to be fair as there is a dearth of unreliable information. 06:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.70.6 (talk)

You can mark the dead links with the [dead link template] Erik Sandblom (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

text too academic

Hi, I'm new here, but I've edited the Swedish helmet page.

I think the introduction to the science section should be simplified and clarified like this:

Are helmets useful? Desirable effects of helmet use

No randomized controlled trials have been done on the subject. The evidence comes from two main types of observational study, case-control studies and time-trend analyses. Case-control studies usually show a large protective effect while time-trend analyses usually show no protective effect at all. (section ends)

Time-trend analyses

Time-trend analyses compare changes in helmet use and injury rates in populations over time. This type of study usually shows that as helmet-use increases, head injury rates among cyclists do not fall faster than for road users without helmets such as pedestrians and motorists.

Authors do not agree on how studies should be selected for analysis, nor on what summary statistics are most relevant. Potential weaknesses of this type of study include: simultaneous changes in the road environment (e. g. drink-drive campaigns); inaccuracy of exposure estimates (numbers cycling, distance cycled etc.), changes in the definitions of the data collected, failure to analyse control groups, failure to analyse long-term trends, and the ecological fallacy. (section continues with the text there now)

Case-control studies

In a case-control study, hospitalised cyclists are divided up into those with helmets (cases) and those without (controls). This type of study usually shows that helmets have a large protective effect. (section continues with the text there now)

Can I do this? :) Erik Sandblom (talk) 10:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. I wonder if you'd also want to rework the text to include something from the latest review (arguably the best attempt to test hypotheses)? I paste the conclusions here:

“ Based on the studies reviewed in this paper, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. A re-analysis has been performed of a meta-analysis of the protective effects of bicycle helmets reported in Accident Analysis and Prevention (Attewell et al., 2001). The original analysis was found to be influenced by publication bias and time-trend bias that were not controlled for.

2. When these sources of bias are controlled for, the protective effects attributed to bicycle helmets become smaller than originally estimated.

3. When the analysis is updated by adding four new studies, the protective effects attributed to bicycle helmets are further reduced. According to the new studies, no overall effect of bicycle helmets could be found when injuries to head, face or neck are considered as a whole.

4. The findings of this study are inconsistent with other meta-analyses, in particular a Cochrane review published in 2009. However, the study inclusion criteria applied in the Cochrane review are debatable.

”

The whole thing is at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V5S-52592GF-1/2/8bcbd9c50a77c95f3b9cb5be4891fa4f I look forward to your ideas. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Elvik does seem to be the latest and best review of case-control studies, but I'd suggest keeping the Cochrane review in because it's so widely quoted, and because it is a Cochrane review. Perhaps you could comment on this draft:

===Are helmets useful? Desirable effects of helmet use===

No randomized controlled trials have been done on the subject. The evidence comes from two main types of observational study, case-control studies and time-trend analyses. Case-control studies usually show a large protective effect on head injuries while time-trend analyses usually show no protective effect at all. (section ends)

====Time-trend analyses====

Time-trend analyses compare changes in helmet use and injury rates in populations over time. This type of study usually shows that as helmet-use increases, head injury rates among cyclists do not fall faster than for road users without helmets such as pedestrians and motorists.

Authors do not agree on how studies should be selected for analysis, nor on what summary statistics are most relevant. Potential weaknesses of this type of study include: simultaneous changes in the road environment (e. g. drink-drive campaigns); inaccuracy of exposure estimates (numbers cycling, distance cycled etc.), changes in the definitions of the data collected, failure to analyse control groups, failure to analyse long-term trends, and the ecological fallacy.

Robinson's review of cyclists and control groups in jurisdictions where helmet use increased by 40 % or more following compulsion concluded that "enforced helmet laws discourage cycling but produce no obvious response in percentage of head injuries". This study has been the subject of vigorous debate. A more recent review, by Macpherson and Spinks, includes two original papers (neither of which meet the criteria for inclusion in Robinson's review) and concludes that "Bicycle helmet legislation appears to be effective in increasing helmet use and decreasing head injury rates in the populations for which it is implemented. However, there are very few high-quality evaluative studies that measure these outcomes, and none that reported data on an (sic) possible declines in bicycle use."

====Case-control studies====

In a case-control study, hospitalised cyclists are divided up into those with helmets (cases) and those without (controls). This type of study usually shows that helmets have a large protective effect. According to a review of studies published since then, correcting for biases reduces the apparent effect on head injuries, and no overall effect of bicycle helmets could be found when injuries to head, face or neck are considered as a whole.

Comments? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That looks much better! I like the brief mention of Elviks study. I'm assuming you will continue the case-control section the way it is now, starting at "The most widely quoted case-control study..." etc. Erik Sandblom (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It was your idea to improve this - to you goes the credit, and it is for you to do the edit. Go for it! Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Done! Hope I didn't ruin anything. I think the entry could be further improved by focusing on the best studies on each side of the debate, ie Robinson's and GB Rodgers' time series studies (against) and the Cochrane review of case-control studies (pro). We could expand on what the Cochrane review is, what the results are, and that it is updated now and then. I feel Macpherson/Spinks criticism of Robinson is not so helpful for casual readers, and neither is the criticism of Thompson-Rivara's initial study with the 88% harm reduction number. Leaving these things out would make the article more accessible while still offering a useful summary of the debate. The external links section should be marked up with cyclehelmets.org being anti-promotion and helmets.org being pro-promotion. This would be a better guide to the debate than leaving the article cluttered the way it is now.

I also feel the opinion section should be limited to the standpoints of organisations and not individuals. Opponents to legislation include ECF, CTC, two Swedish cycling orgs and others. The standpoints may be bolstered with references to studies mentioned in the science section.

Erik Sandblom (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

References

Risk section cleanup

Some of the sources in the risk section aren't so good, like the Ontario Coalition for Better Cycling which doesn't exist anymore, and the helmets.org page which doesn't give the (high) proportion of car crashes in cyclist deaths. I would like to rewrite the section as follows:

In the USA, head injuries comprise two-thirds of hospital admissions among cyclists. Ninety per cent of cyclist deaths are caused by collisions with motor vehicles.

Per mile, cycling has an overall risk of injury and death similar to walking but higher than driving. Measured per hour, the risk of driving, cycling and walking are similar.

When taking health into consideration, a different perspective emerges. Studies from Denmark and the Netherlands show that regular cyclists live longer because the health effects outweigh the risk of crashes. A study of commuters in Britain (including non-cyclists) found that heart failure was a 20 times more common cause of death than motor vehicle crashes. This study also showed that men who cycle regularly have half the risk of fatal heart failure. A study of 60 000 women in China found similar results.

Section ends.

Erik Sandblom (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems good; shorter is better and I've been hesitant to remove bits for fear of upsetting anyone. We're trying to outline three points that are widely-used in this context: there are a lot of injuries in total (most of the serious ones due to motor transport), the individual risk is small, and cycling is good for your health on average despite the risk of injury. I'd therefore suggest keeping in at least one or two figures for total injuries. I'd keep the third paragraph shorter too. The heart failure business strikes me as a bit of a distraction and I'd leave it out. After removing a bit of duplication this would leave us with something like:

In the USA, two-thirds of cyclists admitted to hospital have a head injury. 773 bicyclists died on US roads in 2006. 92% (720) of them died in crashes with motor vehicles. About 540,000 bicyclists visit emergency rooms with injuries every year. Of those, about 67,000 have head injuries, and 27,000 have injuries serious enough to be hospitalized.

Per mile, cycling has an overall risk of injury and death similar to walking but higher than driving. Measured per hour, the risk of driving, cycling and walking are similar. UK figures show that it takes at least 8000 years of average cycling to produce one clinically severe head injury and 22,000 years for one death.

Regular cyclists live longer because the health benefits far outweigh the risk of crashes, up to 20fold according to one estimate.

What do you think?

Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I prefer Erik's version as it presents a more global perspective. I'm not an expert but imagine that risk statistics would vary among countries due to a number of factors, and is important to focus on global trends here. --Elekhh (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Er, actually, Erik's version mentions more countries, those which have produced evidence that cyclists live longer. I've left them as references. As far as I know every sedentary human population benefits from a bit more exercise, and I can't see that we need to mention where those studies have been done. And mine actually has risk stats from more countries. Well, one more, anyway. But as you wish... Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I was simply referring to the prose, and the wording you proposed starts with "In the USA", and mentions UK in the end. What I meant was that I think is worth mentioning in the text where is the data from, not just in the reference. As cycling has the highest modal share in countries like the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, reading a text referring to the US and UK only, does not provide the impression of a global perspective. --Elekhh (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Elekhh and Richard. I agree the heart failure thing is a little odd, but I've seen this study quoted so many times as saying "benefits of cycling outweigh risks 20:1" and I thought it would be good to explain where that comes from. It's an interpretation not actually mentioned in the study. I'm fine with leaving it out, but in that case the 20:1 thing should be omitted entirely because the study doesn't actually say that.

Where did the number 720 deaths with motor vehicles come from? I looked at the source given, at helmets.org, and couldn't find it. I feel you have a few too many numbers the section now, so I think we should leave out the inflationary non-head injuries and emergency room visits. Erik Sandblom (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems good to me. Personally I'd be happy with more risk figures from other countries as Elekhh suggests, or with fewer per Erik, and I'd agree with taking out the non-head injury data. I wouldn't think either of them central to this issue.

I'd probably leave out Hillman's 20:1 figure even though it's widely quoted. I cut and paste its entire method section here: "The life expectation of each cyclist killed can be established from road accident and actuarial data. The increased longevity likely to be attributable to those engaging in exercise regimes several times a week, compared with those leading relatively sedentary lives, can be derived from studies in the UK and US and special tabulations by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Relating these to the numbers in the population who currently cycle regularly, as revealed in the National Travel Survey, shows that, even in the current hostile traffic environment, the benefits gained from regular cycling outweigh the loss of life years in cycling fatalities by a factor of around 20 to 1." That is not sufficient to allow anyone to check it, and also I can't find it online today. The CTC is quoting 10:1 I think, though I can't find it.

My copy doesn't have a methods section and the 20:1 figure is not explicitly mentioned. Are we looking at the same study? Mine is a paperpack: Cycling: Towards Health & Safety. British Medical Association 1992. by Mayer Hillman et al. ISBN 0-19-286151-4 Erik Sandblom (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It was online. I can't remember where and I can't find it. The snippet was from an email that I archived, sorry. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm has been updated since 2008. I have updated our figures accordingly.

Would it be worth using a recent formal analysis, De Jong, Piet, The Health Impact of Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Laws (February 24, 2010). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1368064? From the conclusion: "A (positive) net health benefit emerges only in dangerous bicycling environments under optimistic assumptions as to the efficacy of helmets." And from the abstract "In jurisdictions where cycling is safe, a helmet law is likely to have a large unintended negative health consequence. In jurisdiction where cycling is relatively unsafe, helmets will do little to make it safer and a helmet law, under relatively extreme assumptions may make a small positive contribution to net societal health." This would give us:

In the USA, two-thirds of cyclists admitted to hospital have a head injury. 630 bicyclists died on US roads in 2009. Collisions with motor vehicles accounted for 75.7 percent of bicycle fatalities, and 61.7 percent of motor vehicle collision deaths were due to head injury. 151,024 head injuries were estimated to be associated with bicycles in 2004, of which 10,769 were hospitalized.

Per mile, cycling has an overall risk of injury and death similar to walking but higher than driving. Measured per hour, the risk of driving, cycling and walking are similar. UK figures show that it takes at least 8000 years of average cycling to produce one clinically severe head injury and 22,000 years for one death.

Regular cyclists live longer because the health benefits far outweigh the risk of crashes. Helmet laws seem to offer net health benefit only in dangerous bicycling environments under optimistic assumptions of the efficacy of helmets.

?

Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The percentage of cyclists killed by motor vehicles is wrong, that's only for children. As I said earlier, for injuries, we should stick to hospitalised patients and not inflate the numbers with emergency room visits. Piet de Jong's study is too tangential and controversial for this section. But it would be good to put in the "Less bicycle use" section. We need to mention that the research on cyclist longevity comes from Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK. Erik Sandblom (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

OK I put in de Jong's study in the "Less bicycle use" section and added a comment (inside your comment) above about Hillman's elusive 20:1 quote. Erik Sandblom (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Cyclist longevity also from Shanghai. Is it time for you to make a bold edit? Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes! I did it, and I was bold! I didn't include Wardlaw's 8000 years to produce a severe head injury because I think it's a Really Big Number which isn't so helpful for casual readers. Instead, I moved it to the "Less bicycle use" section to underline that cycling is more healthy than dangerous. I haven't read that study anyway because it needs a sign-in. Erik Sandblom (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for joining this discussion late, but I also have issues with this section, not least with the title; just what is 'ordinary cycling'? (unless this reference is to penny-farthings)? And in any case, the title is a question, but the section doesn't seek to answer it in any meaningful way - the word helmet doesn't even appear in the section.

The whole paragraph, beginning When taking health into consideration is misleading and misplaced. These health benefits are the same whether the cyclist is wearing a helmet or not. There is nothing in this paragraph that has anything to do with the section title or, let's be honest, anything to do with the title of this article. Obscurasky (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I think it's safe to say that almost none of the cyclists in the four health studies were wearing helmets, yet the health effects still outweighed the crash risk. That says something about the need for helmets and the riskiness of cycling. We could find a source for the helmet-wearing rate.

I moved the 8000 years to produce a severe head injury part. Do you think it would be an improvement to move it back? Erik Sandblom (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Obscurasky is correct, this section is about giving examples of the arguments that other people use (whatever we personally think) for or against the use of bicycle helmets. Specifically these are "there are a lot of accidents" on one side and "individual risk is very small" on the other. We have lost all the totals of accidents and I think we should put a couple of examples back, then also reinstate Wardlaw's figure (or a better one if you can suggest it) for individual risks. That is, if we need this section at all. I think we probably do, but I'm open to persuasion. And I'll try to think of a better section title.

The health benefits of cycling are much greater than the risks. Again I tend to agree with Obscurasky, this belongs in a different section. It's relevant only as part of another widely-used argument, that discouraging cycling does far more harm to health than any protective gear could ever compensate for. I might have an attack of boldness myself before long... Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

On the Swedish wikipedia helmet page we have the health/longevity arguments in the pro/con section. The risk of injury is briefly summarised in the introduction and slightly embellished in the section about Sweden. I'm hesitant about putting in Really Big Numbers out of context because they don't help in understanding the issue. In my opinion, the fact that people sometimes quote these Really Big Numbers is not a justification for them to be included on wikipedia. The section now starts off stating that two-thirds of cyclists admitted to hospital have a head injury. I think explains quite well why many people think cyclists should wear helmets! Erik Sandblom (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

So where to go from here? The point about helemt use 'discouraging cycling does far more harm to health than any protective gear could ever compensate for' is already well made elsewhere in the article and, I believe should be deleted completely. That doesn't leave very much, and I'm pretty sure what is left could be incorporated elsewhere in this article. Obscurasky (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally I'd suggest using two to four examples of Really Big Numbers, plus something about the proportion of nasty injuries that are head injuries. They're used to argue the helmet point and I think that's enough justification to include them. Also they do help me to understand the issues, and other people seem to feel the same. And I'd incorporate the bit about 'discouraging cycling does far more harm to health than any protective gear could ever compensate for' elsewhere in the article, possibly just recycling the references. I'll put another draft up unless this proposal is firmly rejected. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A useful number would be how many cyclists are hospitalised for head injury in the UK every year. This number could be contrasted to Wardlaw's 8000 years to produce a severe head injury, also in the UK, for perspective. But I still don't see the relevance of non-head injuries in a helmet article. Emergency room visits are perhaps irrelevant too. Erik Sandblom (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Just want to add that trying too hard to be fair may lead to "he said-she said" which isn't so helpful to the reader. Non-head injuries are not relevant here, even if someone uses them to justify helmet use. Erik Sandblom (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

References

Risk compensation section update and cleanup

User Dorre just added a new study showing that helmeted adults go faster: Risk compensation and bicycle helmets. There are a lot of half-serious sources in this section which can be replaced with peer-reviewed sources. So I would like to rewrite it as follows:

Wearing helmets may cause cyclists to feel safer and thus take more risks. This effect is known as risk compensation and is consistent with other road safety interventions such as seat belts and anti-lock braking systems.

In tests, adults accustomed to wearing helmets cycled faster when wearing a helmet than without, indicating a higher tolerance for risk. Tests also show that children go faster and take more risks when wearing safety gear (including helmets), and that parents allow children to be more risky when using safety gear.

Motorists may also alter their behavior toward helmeted cyclists. One small study from England found that vehicles passed a helmeted cyclist with measurably less clearance (8.5 cm) than that given to the same cyclist unhelmeted (out of an average total passing distance of 1.2 to 1.3 metres).

Rodgers re-analysed data which supposedly showed helmets to be effective; he found data errors and methodological weaknesses so serious that in fact the data showed "bicycle-related fatalities are positively and significantly associated with increased helmet use". A range of theories have been proposed to explain why helmet use might indirectly translate into more or worse accidents. In short, the analysis of helmet effectiveness is confounded by changes in human behaviour apparently induced by the presence of protective headgear.

Section ends. Erik Sandblom (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

sounds good to me. Murray Langton (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

And to me, but since it isn't just the cyclists who can feel the effect, I'd add a new second sentence. I'd also keep the individual researcher who randomised his helmet use. This would give:

“ Wearing helmets may cause cyclists to feel safer and thus take more risks. Also, other road users may take more risks with helmeted cyclists. Thus, helmet use might indirectly translate into more or worse accidents. This effect is known as risk compensation and has been shown for other road safety interventions such as seat belts and anti-lock braking systems.

In tests, adults accustomed to wearing helmets cycled faster when wearing a helmet than without, indicating a higher tolerance for risk. Children go faster and take more risks when wearing safety gear (including helmets), and that parents allow children to be more risky when using safety gear. One researcher randomized his helmet use over a year of commuting to work and found that he rode slightly faster with a helmet.

Motorists may also alter their behavior toward helmeted cyclists. One small study from England found that vehicles passed a helmeted cyclist with measurably less clearance (8.5 cm) than that given to the same cyclist unhelmeted (out of an average total passing distance of 1.2 to 1.3 metres).

Rodgers re-analysed data which supposedly showed helmets to be effective; he found data errors and methodological weaknesses so serious that in fact the data showed "bicycle-related fatalities are positively and significantly associated with increased helmet use".

”

Thoughts?

Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to keep the commuter with his helmet? The sample size is one and there is now better research with a larger sample size, showing the same thing. Erik Sandblom (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I've missed that - it sounds good, can you give me the reference Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm referring to the study Dorre linked to the other day: Risk compensation and bicycle helmets Routine helmet users reported higher experienced risk and cycled slower when they did not wear their helmet in the experiment than when they did wear their helmet, although there was no corresponding change in HRV. Don't the two studies say essentially the same thing? Erik Sandblom (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry. I'd probably keep the single researcher but only as a reference. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok I made the changes and kept the single researcher as a reference. Erik Sandblom (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

References

Helmet compulsion in cycling sport NPOV tag

The tag has been up since May 2010, but I don't see any discussion. What exactly is the POV claimed? The section does not appear to be for or against helmet compulsion in cycling sport. It merely explains how it came about, with references. Without some details about what the POV might be, the tag should be removed. -AndrewDressel (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the NPOV infraction is hard to see. Perhaps the offender is this sentence: "No studies have been published yet into whether injuries to racers have reduced as a result." It seems perfectly concise and factual to me, but it's the only sentence I can see that someone else might take issue with. Perhaps the NPOV tag can go, unless someone else says what the problem is very soon.Tomasrojo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC).

"Helmet compulsion" is the term of choice by antihelmetarians.I suggest a more neutral term. Enforced helmet use? Mandatory helmet use? Helmet compulsion is deliberately couched to make it sound like some form of psychiatric conditionBenvenuto (talk) 06:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it was chosen to impute a psychiatric condition - but your title is indeed better. No-one's suggested any other reason for the NPOV tag and I am removing it. NebY (talk) 07:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue is hardly worth arguing about, but compulsory wearing, enforcement of use, is exactly what's being discussed, and a mandate - a grant of authority - is not. (It hadn't occurred to me as relevant to this context but indeed "compulsion" is a term used in psychiatry.) How about "enforced" or "compulsory" helmet wearing? Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Re the section title, see this. GregorB (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it. Obviously it has darker connotations than the synonym "required". 68.4.138.13 (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite

i'll start a rebuild by rewriting from scratch. The article can grow. The article does not need to be long. People can add a little more to it. I submit to the crowd that my rewrite is a balanced beginning. I encourage everyone to add small sections that they can justify. Everyone's goal is to keep it clear and concise. There is no need to add the same content that is already available in another article, so please refrain from doing that.

Attempting to rewrite it from its current position would require 100 hours to read all the references. Those who know the references are best suited to add some of them back into the article.

-geniescience

2/. A mention is needed that compares (or contrasts !! ) bicycle helmets to motorcycles helmets. I hope someone knows which reference to add. Let nobody say in response that there is no comparison.

3/. Compare the current article on motorcycle helmets to this one which existed until today. Please read both side by side. Comparing and contrasting, you will agree with me that this bicycle helmet article needs a total rewrite.

-g

Please stop your disruptive editing. A rewrite does not require a purge of nearly all content. -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#How_experienced_editors_avoid_being_dragged_into_edit_wars

I would like to encourage those who are intent on cleaning this article up, to do so.

It is true that any handful of people can revert my article, and force me to adopt another strategy, which will take more time and more talk.

I think this article is so bad that it requires someone to be bold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geniescience (talk • contribs) 18:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You're not encouraging anything. The article is not perfect, but then actually neither is the article Motorcycle helmet. Please discuss the points you feel need addressing individually. MTB UK (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

To discuss points that need addressing individually, read the entire talk above. It is long! MTB, I'm glad we agree that this bicycle helmet article is "not perfect" and I'll guess that means "not good" because perfection everywhere else is unattainable.... Let's not dismiss the comparative article for motorcycle helmets. Pay attention to the fact that there is NO big debate in that article there.

For this article I encourage a total rethink. Too many hours are wasted in fine-tuning, like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

One of the rules of wikipedia is to ignore all previous rules if they are getting in the way of a quality encyclopedia.

96.21.220.109 (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Geniescience

Differentiating scientific debate and marketing

In the lede at present we have: "There is an active scientific debate, with no consensus, on whether helmets are useful for road cyclists, and on whether any benefits are outweighed by their disadvantages." As far as I know - correct me if I'm wrong - all the science is about all helmet use. None of the papers differentiate by what the cyclists were doing. However, we have a referenced comment that helmets are generally used for some specific types of cycling, but much less popular for others, and the lede may benefit from expansion. I propose therefore to rewrite the above sentence, and add a description of market penetration. The result might read:

"Helmets have achieved widespread acceptance in most forms of cycle sport, and in some areas voluntary use is common among utility cyclists. Some jurisdictions enforce their use on the roads. There is an active scientific debate, with no consensus, on whether helmets offer measurable protection for cyclists, and whether any benefits are outweighed by their disadvantages."

Comments? Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Your proposed change looks fine to me. Murray Langton (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The wording is better, and acknowledges that the (general) debate does not extend to all forms of cycling, but is it really the case that there's no scientific consensus that helmets are useful for, for example, downhill or off-road mountain bikers? I'd like to see some kind of citation included in the text, to demonstrate that the wider scientific debate does actually extend to these areas. Obscurasky (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You have a point about the science, the papers don't seem to mention whether they include off-road cycling. In Sweden, the official injury statistics only cover cyclists in road traffic, and I assume that includes road racing. I'm not sure about other countries. Erik Sandblom (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. The science is based on either routinely-collected figures, mostly from hospital but some from the police, and on special data collection, almost all from hospitals. You make a good point that police figures generally include on-road cycling only, but these are the basis for a minority of the science. Most of it is based on hospital data and I can't think of any of it that limits itself by the location of the accident. Some of it also includes data on helmet use; as far as I know all of the best data is based on third-party counts taken specifically on roads, though some is based on questions to cyclists. I would say that the science is all based on trying to identify the benefits of helmets in general, wherever they are being used.

On the other hand, the main argument against helmet use or promotion is simply that the real risk is not high enough to justify them, however effective they may be. That may not apply in some of the more extreme forms of sport cycling. Does anyone have any figures for serious injuries in these activities, related to time spent in them? Do we need a brief comment on that aspect in the lede? This might give us something like:

"Helmets have achieved widespread acceptance in most forms of cycle sport, and in some areas voluntary use is common among utility cyclists. Many utility cyclists feel that the risks of cycling are not high enough to justify helmet use. Some jurisdictions enforce their use on the roads. There is an active scientific debate, with no consensus, on whether helmets offer measurable protection for cyclists, and whether any benefits are outweighed by their disadvantages." Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That's good, though maybe you'd like to be brief:

"Helmets are commonly used in cycle sport, and in some areas also among utility cyclists. There is an active scientific debate, with no consensus, on whether helmets offer measurable protection for cyclists, and whether any benefits are outweighed by their disadvantages."

Regarding the Swedish statistics, they come from hospitals and not the police. The Swedish hospital statistics differentiate between road traffic injuries and other injuries. See eg the English abstract: VTI: Trafikskador 1998–2005 enligt patientstatistik Erik Sandblom (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Erik, I'd support your suggestion. On the data, that's interesting. I was thinking specifically only of the data that has been used as a basis for the scientific arguments, and I still can't think of any that makes any distinction by type of cycling done. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem, for me, is that the wording still implies that there is 'active scientific debate' about the usefulness of helmets in every area of cycling. Whether or not the data used includes mountain bikers, etc, is irrelevant - can you demonstrate that a single scientist has ever argued that helmets are not useful for mountain bikers?

Unless a citation can be found to demonstrate that the scientific debate does extend to areas such as downhill or off-road mountain biking, my suggestion is that we simply change 'road cyclists' to 'utility cyclists'. ie; "There is an active scientific debate, with no consensus, on whether helmets are useful for utility cyclists, and on whether any benefits are outweighed by their disadvantages." Obscurasky (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know none of the scientific debate differentiates at all by type of cycling, or even bothers to mention the possibility. But perhaps we'd better get a fresh opinion. The question then is whether or not to include the word "utility", "road", or any other indication that the scientific debate is limited to one sort of cycling, in the second sentence of Erik's suggestion for the lede: "Helmets are commonly used in cycle sport, and in some areas also among utility cyclists. There is an active scientific debate, with no consensus, on whether helmets offer measurable protection for cyclists, and whether any benefits are outweighed by their disadvantages." I suppose we could set up a formal RfC, but I'd be grateful for any third-party comments that enable us to come to a consensus more quickly. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Is "utility cyclists" going to be broadly understood to mean anyone that's not actually racing or mountain-biking? Who refers to themselves as "utility cyclists"? Is the term much used by cycling advocates, transport planners or bike vendors? Is the scope as described at Utility cycling the one we want, excluding as it does "any cycling not done primarily for fitness, recreation such as cycle touring"? Perhaps it would be better to refer instead to "apart from certain specialised forms of cycling souch as racing and mountain-biking" or some such. NebY (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the details, and with apologies for being unclear, the question is whether we qualify in any way the "cyclists" in the following sentence: "There is an active scientific debate, with no consensus, on whether helmets offer measurable protection for cyclists, and whether any benefits are outweighed by their disadvantages." I cannot see any reason to do so. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's essential to qualify "cyclists"; simply because I do not believe that the scientific debate extends to every form of cycling, and I have not seen any evidence to demonstrate that it does. It's almost inconceivable, for example, that a scientific argument exists to say that helmets are not beneficial for downhill cyclists. Obscurasky (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

On the one hand, it would be possible to argue that a qualifier should not be introduced without evidence, and even that the evidence should not be OR (for example, if one of us conducted a survey inferring the scope of different studies from the evidence used). On the other hand, perhaps we could use a woolly qualifier such as "cyclists in general"? NebY (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me, or what about another way around the issue: "There is an active scientific debate, with no consensus, on whether bicycle helmets offer measurable protection in real accidents, and whether any benefits are outweighed by their disadvantages." Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

For that to work, I think you'd need to define 'real accidents'. Obscurasky (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, what about keeping it even shorter: "There is an active scientific debate, with no consensus, on whether bicycle helmets offer measurable protection, and whether any benefits are outweighed by their disadvantages." Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

As I've said already, it's almost inconceivable that a scientific argument exists to say that helmets are not beneficial for downhill cyclists. Look, I don't want to appear as if I'm just banging the same drum over and over, but I simply can't accept that your suggested text is factually correct in the case of mountain bikers, downhill cyclists, etc. Does the scientific debate really extend to every form of cycling? Unless you can demonstrate that it does, it would be completely wrong to make such a statement in general terms. Obscurasky (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I can only repeat, as far as I know the scientific argument makes no mention of any particular type of cycling. Let's get another opinion. Maybe NebY or someone else would be kind enough to make a choice? Or we could try an RfC. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I sympathise with both of you. I do understand Obsurasky's difficulty in accepting that there are scientific arguments that helmets are not beneficial for downhill racers. Similarly I take Richard's point that most studies don't specify a particular subset of cycling. Absent a survey of the literature, I can only suggest we work around it with one of those little fudges that the English language allows so well, "There is an active scientific debate, with no consensus, on whether helmets are useful for cyclists in general, and on whether any benefits are outweighed by their disadvantages." I realise I've already suggested this, but I never gathered whether it would be acceptable to both of you as Richard promptly made an alternative suggestion that wasn't acceptable to Obscurasky. I hope it is at least an improvement/fudge that we could apply while perhaps still discussing further rewriting. NebY (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

OK with me... Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

OKish with me too... but this is an issue that needs looking at. If the scientific argument makes no mention of any particular type of cycling, that's not enough to assume that it must also, therefore, relate to mountain biking, etc. Obscurasky (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

section titled 'Are helmets harmful? Undesirable effects of helmet use'

I've inserted the word 'may' here as neither citation makes a definite connection between increased helmet use and a reduction in the number of cyclists Obscurasky (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wearing helmet incorrectly

A man wearing a bicycle helmet incorrectly.

What does this caption mean? Is it a joke? Unless we can explain what is incorrect about this, it is not helpful at all. Rainwarrior (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks pretty well fitted to me, but I vote that the photo be removed completely as it serves no purpose - it's just a dude in a helmet and there is already a diagram to show correct fit. Obscurasky (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's supposed to be lower on the forehead. I'd support removing the image and the caption. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I have just removed the picture. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Put back the head injury statistics

The edit of 7th October removed head injury statistics from the risk section. Head injuries are the most relevant part of that section so I think it should be put back. I'll do that soon, and I encourage others to come up with some numbers on risk of head injury per km or per hour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik Sandblom (talk • contribs) 20:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok I put it back. Also removed the statement from the British MP because he was waffling. It's better to give the facts than to have a he-said-she-said listing of opinions.

From one thing to another, I feel the two history sections are much too long and don't have enough footnotes. I would like to shorten them considerably. Perhaps BHSI.org could be invited to host the information on their site. Erik Sandblom (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)