To the editor:
Re: "Two-headed helmet debate," Sept. 30
Thank you Kay Cahill for presenting the helmet debate in a balanced fashion. There are, however, a few shortcomings to the column.
It is clear from StatsCan and other reliable data that helmet laws greatly discourage cycling. The increased health care burden caused by this loss of regular exercise far outweigh any reduction in head injuries. Head injuries can be serious and costly. So are obesity and heart disease, which are at epidemic proportions.
Conversely, cycling head injuries are extremely rare at just 0.5 per cent of those in Canada. Even with seat belts and air bags, motor vehicles account for 36 per cent making the risk of head injury 50 per cent higher in a car. With their greater numbers and higher risk, mandatory helmets for motorists would be 48 times more effective at reducing head injuries. It is pure discrimination to force this onerous law solely onto cyclists.
Furthermore, cyclists are always safer when there are more of them. There is no credible evidence that provinces with helmet legislation have seen reductions in head injuries relative to ridership. Suggesting that bare-headed cyclists should forfeit medical coverage when, by riding, they are already greatly reducing the burden on our health care system is a non-starter.
Ron van der Eerden,
Vancouver
