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.

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.