eLetters

167 e-Letters

  • Authors'Reply
    Joan Ozanne-Smith

    Dear Editor

    I am writing in response to a letter from P Whelan of the organization Coalition of Law Abiding Sporting Shooters Inc.[1]

    The authors of this recently published article would like to rebut attacks on the scientific facts and study design related to our research. The authors were careful to state that the dramatic reductions in firearm related fatalities in Victoria and Australia occurred in the cont...

    Show More
  • Monash Uni Report "junk science"
    Peter W Whelan
    Dear Editor

    The article by Ozanne-Smith et al surely indicates the low standard of Scientific Study being carried out by Monash University Accident Research Centre.[1] In claiming that the drop in firearm related deaths, from 1979-2000, was because of "strong regulatory refom", is to ignore all the other important factors which may have occurred during that period. To claim that Gun Laws were the single reason for...

    Show More
  • Sports safety research is not without its challenges
    Caroline F Finch

    Dear Editor

    Whilst I agree with Nordstrom[1] about the clear research opportunities in relation to headgear effectiveness for soccer players, I would like to make a few comments.

    Firstly, the issues raised are not just restricted to headgear use in soccer – they apply equally well to many other sports, particularly other football codes – and nor do they only apply to headgear use. Much of sports safet...

    Show More
  • Authors' second reply
    Adrian D Cook

    Dear Editor

    Franklin and Robinson are correct to question the complexity of the evidence on helmet wearing among children.[1] As a brief report our paper was unable to explore this in detail but we are grateful for the opportunity to do so here. The helmet wearing surveys suggested that helmet wearing fell among children between 1994 and 1996.[2] Analysing accident data for the years 1995/96 alone shows a corresp...

    Show More
  • Re: Authors' reply
    Tony Raven

    Dear Editor

    Cook and Sheikh have accepted the fundamental error in their paper pointed out by Annan.[1-3]

    When the arithmetic error is corrected there are only two conclusions that can be reached. One, pointed out by Annan,[2] is that for every helmet worn, two people are saved. This is clearly untenable and so the only other conclusion, also pointed out by Annan,[2] is that there are other factors invo...

    Show More
  • Another serious error in Cook & Sheikh's analysis
    John Franklin

    Dear Editor

    There is another serious problem with Cook and Sheikh's paper.[1] The authors cite a TRL report [2] stating that, on major roads, helmet wearing (%HW) increased from 16.0%, in 1994, to 17.6% in 1996 then 21.8% in 1999. The TRL report continues: "this was due to an increase among adult cyclists wearing helmets: there was no change amongst child cyclists."[2]

    In fact, Table 3 shows %HW o...

    Show More
  • Every driver needs metabolic testing and the information needs to be stored in a "black box"
    Richard G Fiddian-Green
    Dear Editor

    I read the article by Shults et al with interest.[1] State driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) countermeasures [2] is a rational measure but one that has serious limitations including the confounding influence of recreational drugs, carbon monoxide, other environmental toxins, medications and cerebrovascular diseases. The immediate opportunity exists for implementing a far more rational an...

    Show More
  • Authors' reply
    Adrian D Cook
    Dear Editor

    We are grateful to Annan for spotting the arithmetic error in the discussion section of our paper of trends in cyclist head injuries.[1] It would be a mistake, however, to allow a minor mistake in the discussion to divert attention from the main finding of the paper, which was that cyclist head injuries fell during a time of increased helmet wearing. Population level time trend studies are limited in the am...

    Show More
  • Cycle helmets: time for a reality check
    Guy Chapman

    Dear Editor

    To focus on injury mitigation in cyclists to the exclusion of addressing the causes of crashes, as is the trend in public debate at present,[1] risks fundamental errors - not least the post hoc fallacy of assuming that cycling head injuries are the result of failure to wear helmets, rather than of the types of crashes cyclists experience.

    As a result of this obsession we have arrived at the ab...

    Show More
  • Re: Unwarranted Assumptions about FARS data
    R A Whitfield

    Dear Editor

    We thank Dr Carra for his comments[1] and we appreciate his attention to our work.[2]

    Our paper was directed to a method for ranking potential safety problems that merit additional statistical and engineering review. We envisioned a surveillance process to develop a rank ordered problem list. A follow-up review process should start at the top of the problem list and work down through it,...

    Show More

Pages