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.