Originally Posted by
RazrSkutr
Renata D'Aliesio's article lacks any sources for the most important factual claims in it:
1. It cites some old geezer who fell off a bicycle and split his helmet and claims that his life was thus saved.
2. It claims that helmets save lives:
I thought the article was biased and, more importantly, lacked any citations for the more important assertions that she shoe-horned in there among the fear-mongering. The Globe and Mail can do much better and the sub-editor needs to go back to journalism school.
Of course the article states that it is the geezer who fell, and proponents of helmets who are making such claims, and then goes on to say that what they claim, research has shown not to be necessarily true.
The number of serious head injuries from cycling has dropped in Canada, to 665 in 2009-10 from 907 in 2001-02, but, according to a yet-to-be published study, it doesn’t appear helmet laws are the chief driver behind the decline. In evaluating data from 1994 to 2008, Canadian researchers found that helmet legislation on its own had no measurable effect on the rate of hospitalizations for cycling head injuries.
Of particular note is the name of an author quoted, one Mr. Ryan Zarychanski, who last I read was quoted in an article in which he was advocating mandatory helmet laws all across the country saying,
It's atrocious that in 2010, every province does not have some sort of helmet legislation... Clearly, helmet legislation works and clearly it reduces serious head injuries and facial lacerations."
Now he's saying,
“There is uncertainty whether [wearing helmets], combined with everything else, makes a large difference. Does that mean legislation doesn’t work? I don’t know. It means it’s complicated.”