The Editor,
Re: "Thick skulls don't prevent injury," Editorial, June 27. I know that community newspapers have trouble deciding which rubbish to publish when both sides have some degree of credibility.
In the case of bicycle helmets, some medical groups support the use of bicycle helmets. However, there is plenty of statistical evidence that shows bicycle helmets have no effect on the statistical safety of cyclists. In fact, stats from New Zealand show that mandatory helmet use actually increased the rate of injuries to riders.
So how is it that the Richmond News comes down on the side of mandatory helmet use? Bike share programs work just fine around the world without helmets, with no impact on injury stats. What does the Richmond News know that the cyclists of the world don't know? Does the Richmond News have a secret source of stats proving that entire countries such as the Netherlands are wrong? If so, please tell us what you know.
If you're supporting mandatory helmet use just because Ontario thinks it's a good idea, Ontario is not a good role model for anything sensible.
For what it's worth, more people in B.C. are killed by drunk drivers while waiting at bus stops. Even more people are killed by gunfire every year just sitting in restaurants.
Does this mean that we should require bus riders and diners to wear helmets and bullet-proof vests? I hope not!
Reilly Burke Richmond
