Abstract
In Reply. —Drs Bayliss and Goldman express philosophical positions against mandatory helmet laws. Their arguments do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Furthermore, they both demonstrate a misunderstanding of the validity of well-conducted case-control studies. 1 All the cyclists in our studies had experienced a bicycle crash, thus all could potentially have sustained a head injury. Therefore, the major potential confounding factors to be evaluated are the crash forces experienced by both case and control groups (speed, surface, motor vehicle involvement) so that the protective effect of helmets can be estimated. Our study took such an approach. We agree that bicycling is beneficial to the environment and to personal physical health. This is all the more reason to publish studies that offer bicyclists a way to avoid their most serious hazard, head injury. Contrary to Bayliss' statement, fatality risk studies that compare bicycle travel with motor vehicle and motorcycle travel using the
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.