Article Text
Viewpoint
Response
Helmets or not? Use science correctly
Abstract
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
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Linked Articles
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Liberty or death; don't tread on me
- Effect of helmet wear on the incidence of head/face and cervical spine injuries in young skiers and snowboarders
- Evaluating the impact of cycle helmet use on severe traumatic brain injury and death in a national cohort of over 11000 pedal cyclists: a retrospective study from the NHS England Trauma Audit and Research Network dataset
- Prevalence of helmet use by users of bicycles, push scooters, inline skates and skateboards in Toronto and the surrounding area in the absence of comprehensive legislation: an observational study
- A population-based case-control study of hospitalisation due to head injuries among bicyclists and motorcyclists in Taiwan
- The effects of provincial bicycle helmet legislation on helmet use and bicycle ridership in Canada
- Economic disparity in bicycle helmet use by children six years after the introduction of legislation
- Factors associated with incorrect bicycle helmet use
- Preventing head and neck injury
- Population preventable fraction of bicycle related head injuries