<url:http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/9/3/266>
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
amount of inference that can be drawn directly from them, but they
nonetheless remain a useful strand of information that reinforces the
findings of the case-control studies[2] and other population
studies[3] showing cycle helmets to be an effective health
intervention.
In response to the comments of Chapman,[4] the accident figures are
difficult to interpret since any comparison between the crude injury
rates of pedestrians and cyclists requires some denominator measure of
how much of each activity takes place. Chapman makes some interesting
observations about the high profile of cycling injuries, and it is
indeed a shame that cycling is perceived as a dangerous activity, but
to suggest that advocates of cycle helmets promote this fear is
fallacious. We would also like to point out that the assumption that
those campaigning for cycle helmets are not cyclists themselves is
completely unfounded; one of us (AC) is a highly experienced cycle
tourist and commuter and a long- standing member of the London Cycling
Campaign. We also both encourage our children to cycle – wearing
helmets, of course!
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University