HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Acton, C. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Acton, C.

Helmet laws and health

Department of Paediatrics and Child Health, Royal Children's Hospital, Herston Road, Herston, Brisbane, Queensland, Q4029, Australia

Correspondence to:
Dr Acton.

Keywords: FoWoCo; double standards; lamentations; helmet laws; bicycle helments

In 1884, Louis Pasteur told his students that "when meditating over a disease, I never think of finding a remedy for it but, instead, a means of preventing it".

That laws enforcing helmet wearing for cyclists do more harm than good is an ethical, philosophical, and scientific debate. As stated by Unwin in 1996, the law has principles, precedence, and consequences, all of which have undergone much evaluation and heralded benefits. These are a reduction in the number of head injuries in cyclists as well as a reduction of their severity in most Australian states.

Pasteur's principle of prevention may be applied to either the incident or the injuries resulting from it. The effectiveness of an approved helmet in preventing head injury, both serious and minor, is proven worldwide by case-control studies.

The riding behaviour of injured cyclists has been examined rigorously and most investigations negate the "risk compensation" theory, . . . [Full text of this article]