Do enforced bicycle helmet laws improve public health?: Evidence is conflicting

BMJ

Volumn 332, Issue 7545, 2006, Pages 852-

  Raven, Tony ^a  

^a Melbourn Scientific   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CYCLING; ERROR; FATALITY; HELMET; HUMAN; LETTER; NETHERLANDS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT; SAFETY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; UNITED KINGDOM; BICYCLE; HEAD INJURY; LEGAL ASPECT; NOTE; STATISTICS; TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

ACCIDENTS, TRAFFIC; BICYCLING; CRANIOCEREBRAL TRAUMA; HEAD PROTECTIVE DEVICES; HUMANS;

EID: 33645804984     PISSN: 09598138     EISSN: 14685833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.332.7545.852-a     Document Type: Letter

References (5)

1. Hagel B, Macpherson A, Rivara FP, Pless B. Arguments against helmet legislation are flawed. BMJ 2006; 332: 725–6. (25 March.)
2. Rodgers GB. Reducing bicycle accidents: a re-evaluation of the impacts of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Journal of Products Liability 1988; 11; 307–17.
3. Hewson PJ. Cycle helmets and road casualties in the UK. Traffic Injury Prevention 2005; 6; 127–34.
4. Hewson PJ. Investigating population level trends in head injuries amongst child cyclists in the UK. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2005; 37; 807–15.
5. Petitti D. Hormone replacement therapy and coronary heart disease: four lessons. Int J Epidemiol 2004; 33: 461–3.