Helmet legistlation is bad, but I mostly take offence to this level of journalism. Very easy to pick apart, but will the message get across?
Please comment with your insights. My own insights (cannot post yet since I'm at work and facebook login is blocked):
What a terrible article. I'm an avid cyclist, and most of the time I choose to wear a helmet. London health officials, please stop being dumb.
"Cycling on the roads these days are a hazard and you have to take . . . protections,"
That's because of distracted drivers and other such hazards. Helmets are useless when you're accelerated by 2 tons of steel.
"local MPP Dianne Cunningham .. pushed similar legislation ... after her son suffered a brain injury in a car crash."
Then people should wear helmets in cars, I don't see how this relates.
"Only 34% of Ontarians wear bike helmets while usage in provinces that have a law has climbed to between 51% to 66%."
That's because people who don't want to wear helmets stopped cycling. 14% of people know that.
"Each dollar spent on a helmet reduces injury costs about $30."
Not when they stop cycling and stop receiving the benfit of a healthier lifestyle.
"A properly-fitted helmet reduces risk of serious head injury by as much as 85%."
Says who? This probably comes from the 1989 Thomson study that is flawed and has been debunked in 1993. Via the scientific method the study has been duplicated with less favourable results: "helmets give 25% reduction in risk of head injury for adults, but no reduction for serious injuries." (http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/helmet_research.html).