Use Your Loaf: Poor Quality Discussion Over Bike Helmet Legislation

Today during my drive home, I heard Professor Chris Rissel of the University of Sydney's School of Public Health giving an interview on ABC Radio. 

Professor Rissel said that he had been conducting research into whether legislation that requires cyclists in Australia to wear helmets is beneficial to public health. He said that there is evidence to suggest that the reduction in fatalities and brain damage achieved by the legislation is outweighed by its contribution to other health issues relating to obesity, through the decline in the rate of bicycle usage in the Australian population.
Yesterday, according to The Drum he cited statistics indicating that the number had of bicycles had grown only 21 percent between 1986 and 2006; a period in which the Australian population grew by 58 percent. In his radio interview today, he said there were many studies internationally citing Australia as an example of "what not to do to encourage cycling." 

The interview was followed by another interview with a Professor of Medicine, who was asked to give a detailed description of the kinds of brain injuries that can take place during bicycle crashes. This he did, in rather graphic detail.

Many radio listeners called after that and gave descriptions of injuries they had sustained themselves and stories of how bicycle helmets had saved their lives. The only slight interruption to this narrative of 'helmet as savior' and 'bare headed rider as irresponsible' was a single caller who described how he survived a bare headed bicycle crash into the back of a car and was told afterwards by a surgeon that had he been wearing a helmet he would have certainly been either dead or paralysed, based on some form of wedge effect that may or may not be applicable to other such cases.

There was no discussion of the public bicycle stations around Melbourne, the possible nature of a relationship between the helmet requirement and rates of usage, the actual rates of bicycle related head trauma and other conditions or changes therein since the introduction of helmet legislation. 

Now my aim here isn't to argue either way. All I would like to point out is that the outcome of the discussion occurred, whether right or wrong, had far more to do with the rules of newsworthiness than it did with any actual understanding of the research that had been conducted. How so? I shall endeavor to explain. 

Imagine for a moment that Professor Rissel's interview had been followed by an interview with a heart surgeon and the journalist (in this case it w as Libbi Gorr, but let us not blame her for the nature of her occupation) had asked him to describe, in graphic detail, the effects of various heart conditions upon a person't well being and the gradual process of one's internal organs being overwhelmed and choked with fat until they are no longer able to function and we die. Imagine then, if a number of people suffering from obesity were to have called and given testament to the debilitating effects of their condition and their constant fear of death through heart failure or diabetes. After all, as a report later in the evening pointed out, one in four Australians are obese and those are two of the most common health risks to the population, with numbers vastly greater than the incidence of those particular cycling related head injuries that could have been survived through the use of a helmet. Would that have left listeners feeling rather differently about it all? Might the percentage of listeners who spent this evening thinking 'well, perhaps professor Rissel may have had a point' have been somewhat larger?

Maybe, maybe not. After all, people do have other means of forming views on such matters. What is very clear is that we are far, far less likely to hear the kind of radio broadcast I just described than we are to hear shows that run something like Libbi Gorr's effort. Slow and gradual processes cannot compete for news worthiness with the immediacy and impact (if you'll excuse the unfortunate pun) of a head hitting a hard surface. Complex social relationships with multiple causes have no chance against the obvious causality of a simple, blow by blow description of a physical event. A disease is relatively shrouded in mystery when compared to physical trauma. This means that inevitably public sentiment must be distorted. It means that a first hand description of an evocative but statistically inferior (perhaps statistically inferior: Professor Rissel didn't get a chance to tell us whether or not he was able to identify a statistical correlation between helmet legislation and obesity) can influence what we think more than the presumably careful and meticulous work of a researcher over several years. Professor Rissel has been looking into the matter at least since 2010 which is the date given on his public profile for 'Safer cycling: A partnership project to better understand cycling patterns, hazards and incidents' and probably for longer. Though it is right that journalists should question what he is saying and compare it to other sources, the treatment that actually eventuated in this case, and in many such cases where the complex seeks to be heard amid the chorus of simplicity that dominates mainstream media (even the ABC) was dismissive and misleading. 

Prof. Rissel's profile on the University website can be viewed here:http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/people/academics/profiles/crissel.php

A relevant ABC article can be viewed here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-11/phillips-cycling-boom/4122046

Please consider supporting my blog by clicking the advertisements.

Investigative Journalism

The television program 'The Hamster Wheel' recently ran a skit about the sad state of investigative journalism. It showed a journalist standing next to a fax machine, waiting for the morning's stories to be sent in, then calling the numbers at the bottom of the pages to ask a couple of questions.

Sadly, judging by most of the articles in the mainstream media, the comedians have it right. Genuine investigative work by journalists has become a rarity. The reality is that journalists are expected to produce ever increasing outputs in a way that meets the requirements of the twenty four hour news cycle. The media have become better than ever at getting a story published quickly, but they have done so at the expense of analysis, fact checking and investigation. This is bad news for the role of the public sphere in democracy.

So is there any good news? Well, perhaps. Hope comes in many forms, but two of them in this case may be blogs and QandA.

The ABC's panel show where the audience, including viewers using twitter and other forms of communication, ask questions of politicians and other persons of perceived importance. The quality of the questions asked is not exactly Kerry O'Brian standard, but the discussions that ensue are often quite interesting and allow various perspectives to be heard, even if there is little chance of anyone actually changing their mind. The show certainly contributes to democracy. The problem is though, the participants are almost exclusively reliant on other mainstream media for information.

Blogs may go some way toward addressing this. At their best, bloggers can go to some lengths to bring important events and ideas to the attention of their readers. Fellow blogger Mark Glaser has been kind enough to list some historically significant examples in this post, at least in the USA. The blogosphere has further expanded since then, so let us hope that investigative blog journalism has done so with it.

Bloggers may not have as much in the way of funding and resources as mainstream media companies do. However, what they do have, is the time and freedom to do research. Some of us do not have as much as we would like, but certainly more time and freedom than a full time journalist. Ideally, there should be investigative journalists with both resources and time, but they are few (perhaps they all work for the ABC) and in the mean time us bloggers will have to do the best we can. This is more a commentary blog than a news blog, but perhaps I may start a news blog too, since there is clearly a need for one. If I do, I will update it weekly, not daily, so as to allow time for proper investigation.

Bigots' FB Page.

I can't believe people would express senseless views like this publicly. However, I still come across them from time to time. The mainstream media promote racism on a regular basis and contribute a lot to these kinds of views being held by people who don't know any better.

I encourage anyone who uses FB to report this page. It's quite blatant discrimination based on lies.

For what it's worth, the I'd just like to point out that unemployment cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be linked to immigration, as this page tries to imply. In fact our economy and the jobs we have rely heavily on it.

Political correctness is just derogatory word that racists have begun to use as a defense whenever they are told not to say offensive, idiotic or defamatory things about others in public. This is worrying. Words have consequences. Words can hurt people. If you hurt people physically, of course there are laws to stop you. The same applies if you hurt people with offensive words, for example, by creating stereotypes or misinformation about them.

When these people talk about 'Aussy Pride' what they really mean is that they have the arrogance to say they are better than other people in other parts of the world, no matter how little intelligence they exhibit, simply on the basis that they live in Australia and look something like their ideal image of what it is to be Australian. It's because of this that we need words like racism and bigotry.

Worst of all, the page uses the word 'islamification,' which presumably refers to some kind of conspiracy or agenda on the part of our friends and colleagues who believe in Islam. There is no evidence for any such agenda. All religions aim to encourage people to believe. The white majority from whom the page's creators undoubtedly derive are themselves descended from Christians and their religion has been spread world wide, often (though not always) through coercive means. For them to blame any social problems on those who practice Islam, a religion that values purity and peace, is both hypocritical and disrespectful.

So, dear readers, please take action and report the page to FB admin. The more complaints they receive, the sooner it will be removed. Also, please share this article to send a clear message to bigots everywhere about how wrong these kinds of views are.

Poverty

If those people who starve to death or die of preventable or treatable diseases every day were our friends, would we let them suffer and die? Of course not. Your friend is suffering, you help. Where are these people's friends then? Why are we not reaching out and making contact and being their friends? Can't we communicate globally with the click of a mouse now? Can't we socially network with them? Well, not really: they have no computers or Iphones now, as well as having no food. Does that make their problem twice as bad? It may. If we do all our communicating online, then how can they participate? Could we solve the problem of world poverty by setting up a Wifi network and handing out free Iphones instead of handing out food then? Could we run tours where people pay to be shown the reality of poverty and human suffering in the hope that once rendered visible it would no longer be tolerated?

Sadly, people have tried that using photography and television and it didn't work. People got used to seeing poverty. Now it's just another annoyance and we want it to go away. Well? Make it go away. Not just away from us, back to it's forgotten corners of the earth, but away properly so that it's victims can live in peace and have something to eat and a chance to study. 

Four Corners Mistake

This evening, four corners referred to Taiwan as a province of China. This is obviously wrong and is offensive to the twenty something million people who call it their home and country. The reality is, Taiwan has not been part of China at any time under its currant regime and that before the present period of independent governance it was occupied by the Japanese and before that by several other foreign powers.

Taiwan has its own elections, it's own head of state, it's own system of taxes and welfare, services, decision making processes, legal system and a world class health care system that is an example to other countries such as Australia where we still haven't included dentistry in national health cover.

In order to correct this mistake on the part of what is otherwise a quality currant affairs program, I intend to write to Media Watch. I hope they discuss the issue publicly. I'll be sure to keep you all posted if they do.

Asylum Seeker Detention Unlawful and Extreme - Conversation.

Earlier I shared a link to this article on Facebook. I commented that though I have very little respect for Sky News I was glad to see someone making this point.

A response from another friend prompted me to clarify a few points. The conversation went as follows:

Me: "Hate sky news, but yes, it is certainly an extremist act to lock people up indefinitely when they have committed no crime and haven't even been given a trial."

Friend: "Do we really want those people on our roads though? If yes, you know they will keep coming."

Me: "Roads? That seems like a very strange thing to say. There have never been enough asylum seekers to make any noticeable difference to traffic congestion and wouldn't be even if their numbers doubled or tripled. Anyway, since government policy is to try to increase the population with things like the baby bonus, any extra people, especially ones who have already grown up and gained skills and life experience, should be welcomed. I'm not all that pro population, but surely giving homes to asylum seekers should be a higher priority than having more babies born here."


Friend: "I disagree with you. Bear in mind that tax payers money will go to them, and they won't have the education needed to adapt in Australian culture. before they are released, and are allowed to live within us, the government must create some sort of education system, and ensure they find a job when they are released. we simply cannot release people in a new country. It's like releasing an animal in the wild, whre they'll have to find their own prey to survive, they'll grab the first one and think that's only there is. we have to educate them on what is prey and what is not. I have got my permanent residency in Australia the hard way, and so should they. if the requirements to come to Australia is an academic transcript, it must be followed."

Me:  "There are some things you need to consider here: 1. They have a legal right to seek asylum and to have it granted if they have genuinely fled from danger. This is international law and Australia must either adhere to it or give up it's international reputation, if it has not done so already. Australia, as a country, is committing a crime by imprisoning people illegally. It's an infringement of the universal bill of human rights and of Australia's constitution. 2. There are many ways and reasons to come to Australia and academic transcripts are just one of many criteria. 3. Migrants with or without transcripts have been shown historically to be of net benefit to the economy. Many unskilled immigrants set up small businesses and others perform jobs for which labor otherwise has to be imported in the form of temporary workers from Asia because locals won't do it. Such work includes fruit picking and work in food preparation for factories that supply supermarkets. 4. The cost of detaining these people while their claims are assessed is about four times as much as it would cost to allow them to live in society and pay them social security money.

I agree that there need to be proper educational resources made available. Our primary and secondary schools can be pretty hopeless and because refugees are often allocated to a school level based on age rather than ability, it is often difficult or impossible for those who arrive as teenagers to progress through the most direct channels to university. There are other ways, but of course that needs improving. Also, two terms of specialized ESL schooling, which is what is offered with a refugee visa now is obviously insufficient. Australia has a duty of care to these people and it is in the national interest to provide better education and integration services, both because it will help the economy by enhancing skills while reducing dependance on welfare and because it demonstrates a requisite level of respect for people's livelihoods upon which the country's reputation depends.

Anyway, there is not necessarily any need to increase refugee intake in order to make the system more humane. Simply providing social security and a place to live in the community would be far less costly than detention. Once claims are processed, people who are found to be genuine refugees are currently allocated to any of the refugee intake countries, not necessarily Australia, based on their intake quotas. The only differences would be a. a reduced cost to the tax payer and b. freedom for the asylum seekers during the processing of their claims."

Other friend: "The solution's remarkably simple, really - massively increase the resources devoted to processing the claims, and pay for it by not having to pay for such lengthy detention. The only arguments I'm aware of against this plan are purely political.

The main rhetoric I hear from the other side is along the lines of "we shouldn't make ourselves a soft target", and it's only just occurred to me to think that through properly. If we actually care about our legal obligations (or, y'know, human rights and welfare), we should want to be a very soft target indeed for genuine refugees. We don't necessarily want to be a "soft target" for those we don't judge to be genuine refugees, but it's utterly barbaric to achieve this deterrence by punishing all asylum seekers (or even any asylum seekers). As a modern democracy, what we should do with false claimants for refugee status is to process their claims quickly and thoroughly, and then promptly kick them out.

*****, Australia is fundamentally an immigrant nation - we've had wave after wave of immigrants more than twice as long as we've actually had a nation, and technically we're all immigrants anyway. I've heard quite a bit of rhetoric about the newest batches of immigrants, but I've not yet heard a substantial argument for why this particular episode is in any meaningful way worse or more dangerous than any other. The numbers are trivial in context of our existing population - we've dealt with much more significant waves in the past - and in stating your argument you're making some fairly serious claims without actually providing any evidence.

As ***** notes, overall population is a separate question. I also have grave reservations about overpopulation here, but the "boat people" we're talking about here are utterly insignificant to that debate. The vast majority of refugees come by plane anyway, and the vast majority of illegal residents are people (especially students) overstaying their visas. The public panic about "boat people" overrunning the country has no basis in fact."

Me: "I'm afraid that solution just makes too much sense to ever happen." 

Hope this clears up a few popular misconceptions.  

Another Climate Change 'Debate'

"Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." Author Unknown.

 Some farmers newspaper is having a go at a university for not wanting to host a debate between the two 'sides' of the climate change issue. So what? Probably nobody would notice. However, Andrew Bolt has added it to his blog, which is connected to a mass tabloid. Unfortunately, there are a larger number of Herald Sun readers in Australia than there are kangaroos. 

These people's main argument seems to be that the two scientists they invited to represent them should be considered credible on the basis of their previous work experience and qualifications. Actually having something intelligent to say or having published credible evidence that has been examined by peers and found to conform with the scientific method doesn't seem to rate very highly among their criteria. 

Of course, debating a climate change denier would be something like trying to have a reasoned discussion with a concrete wall: no matter what you say, the rude symbols someone painted there aren't going to change their message. It would be insulting to the academic community to ask them to participate in that kind of freak show. Universities are places of learning, not puppets in these people's sick political games. 

Debate is pointless when one side doesn't have a point other than it's own short term interests and refuses to listen to the other. Proper scientific debate, anyway, needs to be done on paper, not on a stage. In trying to reduce carefully recorded data, calculations and mapping to the form of 'facts n' figures' that can be slung across a room in the form of rhetoric, the vast majority of their meaning and value is inevitably lost. 

Dr Who

So, for us Australian Dr Who fans, the episode 'Closing Time' aired yesterday. Presumably our UK counterparts have already seen the end of the series, but I wouldn't want to spoil it by reading what they have to say.

The big question is, what did The Doctor and Amy see when they looked into 'their' rooms in the hotel/maze of the Minotaur?

The even bigger question is, what was it that The Doctor believed in and presumably ceased to believe in by the end of last week's episode. With Amy, it was belief in her lifelong hero, The Doctor, that was apparently quelled by his admission of failure. Could he simultaneously have lost faith in himself? Is that why he left Amy and Rory: because he no longer believed in his ability to keep them alive?

The Doctor may have been wakened by the loss of their belief in him. However, surely Amy will realise that in sacrificing that belief he was simply doing what was necessary in order to save them. When that realisation dawns, her faith will no doubt be restored. Can she convince him once more to believe in himself, before it's too late: before he must face whatever danger the final episode should hold?

Dog show

Was at the Melbourne Show the other day and among various forms of entertainment, saw a dog show. As a collie dog owner, I couldn't help but feel thrilled by the beauty of the rough collie dogs on display. Their long coats flowed in the breeze and they bounded about their exhibitors heals with apparent enthusiasm.

Though these dogs looked happy and many of their owners appeared to love them, I was still reminded of some of the problems with dog showing. Though many breeders are now no doubt aware of and trying to avoid inbreeding, it remains a major problem world wide. Over the past few years there have been reports on the ABC and BBC, like this one and this one respectively.

Alarmingly, the response by some was to suggest that journalists should somehow remain neutral with regard to the practice. According to this US article, for example, Caroline Kisko, who represents the Kennel Club, complained that the BBC's coverage was "Highly biased against us." This seems to be a standard argument used by anyone who has been criticised by journalists but has nothing valid to say in their defense. Of course, 'USA Today' simply go ahead and repeat that kind of drivel without very much context. 

Last year, the controversy led to this inquiry which was funded by UK based dog breeding organisations but was, perhaps ironically, highly critical of current practices. This month, a vet spoke publicly on the issue, raising similar concerns in the Australian context.

Despite the problems that continue to arise and the pain and suffering brought upon dogs born with genetic defects, some dog breeding organisations still apparently consider intentional inbreeding to be a valid practice. This advice website for breeders, for example, appears to advocate a certain amount of inbreeding, or at least fails to denounce it. Though it does point out some of the risks, the conclusion still appears to sit on the fence: "On the other hand, excessive inbreeding can limit the gene pool so that the breed loses vigor..." it reads at one point. 


My own collie, a beloved pet who does not appear to have any interest in winning ribbons for his beauty, inherited collie eye anomaly. His eyes appear very small. He can still see, though not very well. The eye specialist we consulted says he has a significant chance of retinal detachment occurring at some stage during his life, which could lead to blindness. Because we will look after him and, being a dog, his other senses are highly developed, his quality of life will still be good. However, there is no reason why a breed like collies should continue to have problems like that when vets and scientists are aware and can predict and prevent them. I love collies as a breed. They are intelligent, loyal and very gentle with other pets. For that to remain the case, their genetic diversity needs always to be given priority over the 'fixing' of any of their traits. 

Instant Advertisements.

At the end of the football grand final today (which is considered a highly important event in the Melbourne calendar, apparently) advertisements screened for one of the sponsors, Carlton Draft Beer. The advertisement was a slow motion replay of the players celebrating at the end of the game: a scene that had screened live only around two minutes earlier. The scene was accompanied by a sort of apparently operatically inspired jingle with lyrics about being inspired to join the cheer squad and making a banner with a slogan that made no sense, the last bit being repeated several times.

Presumably the jingle had been prepared earlier and the scenes to replay had been chosen on the spot, the two hastily combined on some editing software with the logo plonked in at the end. It would have been an easy advertisement to create, but no doubt immensely successful. The football fan audience would already have been  veritably mesmerised by the grand final festivity scenes and the dramatic vocals matched the mood perfectly. The timing was also perfect, since the traditional way in which fans of the winning ream celebrate and those of the losing time commiserate is by drinking copious quantities of beer. In those off hand moments when they find their hands empty and feel socially insecure, the words Carlton Draft will no doubt come to their rescue, to be blurted at publicans with little need to distract the mind from the important business of appearing suitably joyous or devastated in accordance with their team's fortunes.

It is certain that a lot of beer will be sold tonight and that a lot of it will no doubt be Carlton Draft. Two questions though: how widespread is this form of instant advertising likely to become and how far is it possible to blur the lines between television show content and advertising? More on this later.