In a recent article, Hooper and Spicer make several arguments against legislation that would mandate the use of bicycle helmets. While they present reasonable objections to the utilitarian as well as the justice defence of such legislation, their review of the empirical evidence contains inaccuracies, omissions and a bias in the selection of empirical data. While there are legitimate reasons to argue against mandating helmet legislation, these arguments should still be based on clinically and scientifically sound evidence.
- Research Ethics
- Scientific Research
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.