Responses

Download PDFPDF
Bicycle helmet prevalence two years after the introduction of mandatory use legislation for under 18 year olds in Alberta, Canada
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Reply to Hagel and Rowe

    Dear Editor

    Hagel and Rowe reject(1) my criticisms(2) of their study of the impact of a child bicycle helmet law in Alberta, Canada(3). However they appear to have missed the point.

    The first issue raised in my letter concerning reduced cycling as a result of Alberta's helmet law, Hagel and Rowe say there could have been confounders which would discount the drawing of a conclusion from the smaller propo...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Evaluate all effects, including cycle use and injury rates, before recommending helmet laws

    Dear Editor

    According to good public policy, all laws with potentially detrimental effects (such as reduced cycling and reduced safety in numbers) should be evaluated. Far from being selective, my review examined every jurisdiction with a large increase in helmet wearing (more than 40 percentage points within a year). If helmet laws were beneficial, there should have been an obvious response. Yet there was no c...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Re: Alberta helmet article - logic problem and missing data . Authors reply.
    • Brent Hagel, Epidemiologist
    • Other Contributors:
      • Brian Rowe, Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta

    Dear Editor,

    In response to our article, Burdett makes two main criticisms. The first relates to the issue of level of cycling activity in the community post-legislation. The second relates to our interpretation of the evidence for child cyclist helmet wearing when accompanying adults are helmeted compared with non-helmeted children. We consider these points separately.

    On the issue of the level of cycl...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Important questions: effect on head injuries and cycle use?

    Dear Editor,

    There is considerable debate about enforced helmet laws. Surveys in Australia counted several thousand cyclists before and after legislation, at the same sites, observation times and time of year. Percent helmet wearing (%HW) increased mainly because non-helmeted cyclists were discouraged from cycling – reductions in numbers counted were 2 to 15 times greater than the increases in numbers wearing helme...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Alberta helmet article - logic problem and missing data

    Dear Editor,

    In their report on bicycle helmet use[1], Hagel et al recommend that Alberta's child helmet law be extended to include adults. They base this on (a) an increase in the rate of helmet use among the age group affected (under 18 years of age) from two years before the introduction of helmet legislation in 2002 to two years after, and (b) children being observed riding at higher rates of helmet use when accompa...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.