organise protest against adult helmet law

[Yan]

Flyboy, there are a lot of things in life you can't prove, that's why we have common sense.

And don't try to compare cycling with sleeping. That's like comparing tuberculosis to a cold.

Also:
1. Legislating helmet use is not legislating inactivity.
2. Legislating inactivity would not save tax payers any money because of increased obesity and its associated health risks.

[flyboy9503]

as stated in a new zealand report, less cyclists were counted after the helmet law was
made mandantory. so legislated laws lead to less bicycles on the road and less accidents.
what kind of a solution is this to using a bike for physical fitness. is cycling really a dangerous
activity? maybe we should ban it completely! wear a helmet if you wish but don't force others
to do it by making excuses that helmets save lives! they are useful in extreme low speed incidents
such as falling off your bike while standing still. just read the labels attached to your helmets. the
big gains through this legislation will be made by the helmet manufacturers. styrofoam and plastic
are not sufficient to save your life.

[Turd Ferguson]

that is fine but we don't need new laws . do we need to be controlled by an over zealous government
What laws will be next? I think i should move to another country where the people are valued and not
controlled

You should move to Texas.

[J T CUNNINGHAM]

"You should move to Texas." QUOTE.

Less of a "Nanny State", than Ontario!


Regards,
J T

[flyboy9503]

yes texas sounds better. there are many states where a motorcyclist can drive without a helmet never
mind bicycles. you would think people would be dropping like flies because of the dangers. bicycling is not
a dangerous activity and we can wear helmets if we wish but it should not be a requirement by law. Yes
i will probably get a ticket for riding my harmless bicycle. Incidentally we should revoke all health care
if you are involved in any accident which can be proven to be your fault or through your own carelessness
whether you are wearing a helmet or not. As well it should be revoked for any activity with known
risks such as skydiving, scuba diving, roller skating, jay walking, drunk driving, you get the picture.
We need the government to respect our personal freedoms and not put out a new law every time a
perceived problem is discovered. If cyclists were more careful in their habits ie stopping for stop signs,
riding with lights at night, not cutting in and out of traffic there would also be less accidents.
There is no helmet requirement in Holland and they have a lot more cyclists than we do. Maybe the
government should have a cycling license requirement and have testing done if cycling is so dangerous
in ontario. Statistics do not support a helmet law, and helmets are not substantial enough to save your
life. if you are serious about wearing a helmet then get a motorcycle helmet.

[J T CUNNINGHAM]

"ONTARI-ARI-ARI-O, A PLACE TO STAND."

(But no place to sit!)


Regards,
J T

[elwood_66]

er... yes cycling is dangerous, surrounded by cagers that don`t see you, others that are opening doors in front of you, in your case, zero crash protection, effen eh right its dangerous. I ride a motorcycle and i am acutely aware of the dangers of riding in traffic.

www.helmets.org/stats.htm (http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm)

http://www.helmets.org/henderso.htm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0816/is_10_20/ai_111768004/pg_1

http://www.hotelfun4kids.com/travelnews/safetynews/bikesafety.htm

[chephy]

This law is pretty much the parallel with the mandatory seat belt law, there is no good argument against it. There are tons of good arguments against it. Decreased cycling for one. It's a law that makes cycling more dangerous and inconvenient for everyone.

[macteacher]

Does there even need to be a law? Wearing a helmet should be an automatic response.

[bbgobie]

There are tons of good arguments against it. Decreased cycling for one. It's a law that makes cycling more dangerous and inconvenient for everyone.

Your argument that wearing a helmet is more dangerous is just....

It's like the argument that not wearning a seat belt is safer because on the 1 in a billion chance the car rolls just right, you may just get thrown out a window that's already broken and thrown free of an impending fireball death into a tree is just that.

I'll play the odds, wear my seat belt and my helmet thanks.
You can continue to bet your health so you don't get helmet hair.

[J T CUNNINGHAM]

"I'll play the odds, wear my seat belt and my helmet thanks." QUOTE.


The odds are that most people DO NOT get into accidents whilst riding a bike

or in an automobile. Seatbelts are a sop to the insurance industry, (read as "no fault")

and bike helmets are a continuation of "from cradle to grave", mentality by liberal government.




Regards,
J T

[Turd Ferguson]

as useless as air bags, and seatbelts in airplanes right?

[skiracing]

I thought this thread would naturally die.... but nope, it just keeps going.

[J T CUNNINGHAM]

"I thought this thread would naturally die....

but nope, it just keeps going." QUOTE.



YUP,

and that's no accident!


Regards,
J T

[stevegor]

Just wear the flammin' thing and stop ya moaning.....I mean, what's the problem?

But seriously folks, I've had a few nasty spills off the bike, one when I was struck from behind by a car travelling at 50mph/80kmph, and the helmet helped to save my life, but the straps sliced my scalp and left ear up REAL BAD, and it didn't stop me breaking my back either....

[elwood_66]

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e282/RSW66/trucked-1-2.jpg

I walked away from this crash thanks to airbags and seat belts. (although i reckon the only purpose for seat belts on planes is to identify the bodies)

[kamalster]

I was once cut off by a car that raced by me and cut right in front of me. I went over the hood with my bike, and my head hit and cracked the car's windshield. If I hadn't been wearing a helmet, it's my head itself that would have cracked the windshield, and there is just NO WAY you can believe that wouldn't have caused some SERIOUS trauma and possibly brain damage. As it was, I rolled off the hood of the car, got up and walked away with just a couple of scrapes and bruises. I'm sure almost every person on these boards has a similar story.

flyboy, if you want to hide behind questionable statistics, you go right ahead. I'll gladly strap on my helmet every time I get on my bike, even if I'm just going a kilometer down the road to pick up dinner.

[J T CUNNINGHAM]

"I'll gladly strap on my helmet every time I get on my bike, even if I'm just going a kilometer down the road to pick up dinner." QUOTE.

I am "glad", that it is your CHOICE, as is presently mine not to!


Regards,
J T

[spoker]

No helmet? No problem.

Just send me your Ontario Health card so I can tear it up.

I choose not to fork over my hard-earned tax dollars to keep you hooked up to a hospital ventilator when you are a drooling vegetable because you chose not to wear a helmet.

Simple.

[flyboy9503]

here is the point as with any freedom we have. don't push your ideas forcefully upon others. wear
your helmet if you wish. it is good for a 8 kph crash as stated on the manufacturer tags. no law should
be made to force us to wear a helmet for a safe leisure activity. this is a politician gone crazy with
no respect for our freedoms.

[flyboy9503]

and that is the point it should be our choice to wear or not to wear! are we adults or just imbisols
to have all of our decisions made for us.

[flyboy9503]

and if you scuba dive, sky dive, walk on dangerous streets, ride amusemnent rides, drive impaired,
or do anything else that has any possible danger please hand over yours.

[flyboy9503]

i don't hide behind statistics. they are available to anyone who wants to use them. why doesn't our
government actually show how many cyclists are injured per year and state where they occur.
they aren't all head injuries. if you want to wear a helmet then do so but don't force the rest of
us to concur with your ideas.

[flyboy9503]

you obviously don't believe in freedom of choice. if you want the government to run your life then so be it. i would prefer to make my own decisions based on how i perceive the risks.

[flyboy9503]

you are so right about the liberals

[flyboy9503]

you make it sound like cycling is a dangerous activity which it isn't!

[Turd Ferguson]

here is the point as with any freedom we have. don't push your ideas forcefully upon others. wear
your helmet if you wish. it is good for a 8 kph crash as stated on the manufacturer tags. no law should
be made to force us to wear a helmet for a safe leisure activity. this is a politician gone crazy with
no respect for our freedoms.

or protecting you from yourself.

cheerio...

[Quickener]

You guys are behind the times. We've had a mandatory helmet law in Halifax for over 10 years now. Up until about last year an option was given to either pay over a hundred dollars or take a course in bicycle safety, now there is only a fine system and fines are given out regularly. It was shocking to see how many people didn't wear helmets when I visited Toronto last summer, it seemed strange. You'll get used to it.

This law is pretty much the parallel with the mandatory seat belt law, there is no good argument against it. The minuscule amount of personal freedom lost is still far outweighed by the small chance that you'll get into an accident and your helmet will save your life (and/or save you from being a vegetable, save your family and friends from emotional and financial burden, save the health care system thousands upon thousands of dollars).

This argument really bothers me. Minuscule amounts of freedom should not be for sale.

Ordinances like this are marketed as health & safety measures, but the reality is that they're probably a lot more about generating revenue than disallowing someone with poor decision making ability from killing themselves.

If you really want to make a dent in accidental death rates, then put more strict regulations on car manufacturers to reduce the danger & death toll of rednecks in unsafe, ginormous SUVs.

[J T CUNNINGHAM]

"put more strict regulations on car manufacturers to reduce the danger & death toll of

rednecks in unsafe, ginormous SUVs." QUOTE.

YUP, more rules, more regulations, more legislation, more offices, more (un)civil

servants, more red tape, more enforcement, more lawyers, more courts, more jails,

more social workers, more taxes, more 'cradle to grave', BS!

. . . . . . . . . . .GIVE US MORE!

WE NEED IT, WE REQUIRE IT, WE DEMAND IT!

(L)liberal Canadians will get what they deserve, not what they want.

(It just so happens that everyone else will be forced into the same pile as they.)


"Regourds",
. J T

[spoker]

and that is the point it should be our choice to wear or not to wear! are we adults or just imbisols
to have all of our decisions made for us.

Apparently, some of us are just "imbisols".

[Turd Ferguson]

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/432422

Cyclist hit by car TheStar.com - GTA - Cyclist hit by car
May 28, 2008
Curtis Rush
Staff Reporter
A cyclist was struck by a car this morning near Lake Shore Blvd. E. and Parliament St.
The impact of the collision sent the man flying into the windshield of the car, which was cracked but did not shatter.
The man was taken to St. Michael's Hospital with serious head injuries, but he is expected to live, according to police.
There was a considerable amount of blood at the scene.
The woman driving the car was shaken, but not hurt.
Police say the cyclist and the car were both going northbound on Parliament St. when the accident happened just before 9 a.m.
The cyclist apparently cut in front of the car and he was struck.
The man's bicycle was flung about 10 metres from the point of impact.
Police say the man wasn't wearing a bicycle helmet.
The accident is still under investigation and witnesses are asked to call Traffic Services at 416-808-1900.
Last week, a cyclist was killed when he struck a car door that was being opened.
The impact sent him into the street, where he was struck and killed by a cube van.

[J T CUNNINGHAM]

"Police say the man wasn't wearing a bicycle helmet." QUOTE.


It doesn't appear that he needed one; no brain to protect before the "accident".


Regards,
J T

[Turd Ferguson]

"Police say the man wasn't wearing a bicycle helmet." QUOTE.


It doen't appear that he needed one; no brain to protect before the "accident".


Regards,
J T

..

[elwood_66]

nope cycling is not dangerous we don`t need no stinkin helmets....sheesh

[fredf]

I don't know why I'm bothering to respond to this thread but it's so outrageous that I can't resist. The comments about freedom are bloody nonsense. We all accept infringements on our 'freedoms' in order to manage a civil society.
Are you against seatbelt laws? Drinking laws? The necessity to have some skill before driving a car.
One can make legitimate arguments about the science that shows that helmets really help, although I think there is evidence that says they do save injuries.
But can we forget the extreme libertarian point of view in Canada where we all benefit from societal regulations. Yes, they are often intrusive, but, on balance, they have made a very pleasant society.
If you're outraged by mandatory helmets you need to get a life.
And, when I'm out driving in my car (which isn't very often) I'll take you as a cyclist as seriously as you take yourself by not wearing a helmet. So look out.

One last thing. Ever notice how every 'serious' rider wears a helmet? Only the lackadaisical amateurs don't. Nothing wrong with being an amateur, but maybe they can learn something about safety.

[flyboy9503]

..

what an insult to all parties involved. how can you say that the man's life would be saved
by wearing a helmet. your statement shows a lack of compassion and intelligence on your
part. before you speak up you should have all of the facts. a helmet protects up to 8 kmh.
at what speed did the accident happen.? you speak like a politician!

[flyboy9503]

I don't know why I'm bothering to respond to this thread but it's so outrageous that I can't resist. The comments about freedom are bloody nonsense. We all accept infringements on our 'freedoms' in order to manage a civil society.
Are you against seatbelt laws? Drinking laws? The necessity to have some skill before driving a car.
One can make legitimate arguments about the science that shows that helmets really help, although I think there is evidence that says they do save injuries.
But can we forget the extreme libertarian point of view in Canada where we all benefit from societal regulations. Yes, they are often intrusive, but, on balance, they have made a very pleasant society.
If you're outraged by mandatory helmets you need to get a life.
And, when I'm out driving in my car (which isn't very often) I'll take you as a cyclist as seriously as you take yourself by not wearing a helmet. So look out.

One last thing. Ever notice how every 'serious' rider wears a helmet? Only the lackadaisical amateurs don't. Nothing wrong with being an amateur, but maybe they can learn something about safety.

just because you wear a helmet doesn't make you a better person or cyclist. many helmeted
cyclists don't obey the rules of the road and a helmet won't save them. freedoms are supposed
to be a part of society but you might prefer communism where your decisions are less. please
produce the evidence that helmets save lives.

[kamalster]

what an insult to all parties involved. how can you say that the man's life would be saved
by wearing a helmet. your statement shows a lack of compassion and intelligence on your
part. before you speak up you should have all of the facts. a helmet protects up to 8 kmh.
at what speed did the accident happen.? you speak like a politician!

Funny, I hit a car at 32kph, cracked the windshield with my helmet, and yet walked away with no head injury at all. This 8 kph limit you're mentioning is what the helmet manufacturers claim as the maximum limit to avoid any possible lawsuit from people who get hurt at higher speeds despite a helmet (which can still happen - nobody's saying a helmet is completely failproof or will protect your head 100%). The data and statistics are there for you to see, you just choose to see the "facts" that will support your argument.

[Treker]

First off I'm a proponent of helmets. :thumb: My helmet saved my life when the driver merged into my lane w/o seeing me. Lost the helmet,saved the skull. I even think they'd make sense in a car given what can occur in an accident travelling at 100+kph. Anyway, I digress.

Anyhoo, I found an article out of the UK a year or so ago that pointed out that after the introduction of mandatory helmet laws, the frequency of bike accidents acutallyincreased. I guess the study's point was that with helmets on, cyclists are more apt to do things that they might not otherwise do if they were not wearing one. Interesing view point and I don't know if the empirical evidence supports that.

One aecond-to-last point about the socialized health care that we enjoy in Canada: it's ludicrous to believe that we can consistently enjoy 'free' health care despite our life choices. If on the other hand, we bore the brunt of our costs thru our own health insurance, I'd bet that many of us would make more rational choices. I love to speed down a country road with the wind at my back as much as the next guy. But if I crashed and had to foot the med bill myself as well as fund the higher insurance premiums, you can be sure that I'd take it easier next time. But with socialized health care, there is no incentive to do so. An utterly contemptible situation.

As as for laissez faire being hard right, that's a misconception. :notamused: Adam Smith, who coined the term in the 18th century, suggested that that method was the best manner in which to operate a state economy. In other words, let the 'invisible hand' guide economic activity and choice. He further suggested that it's in one's self interest to help the less fortunate. And for that he's an enemy of the Left? I find it interesting that the US that so many Canadians like to malign, has a higher degree of philanthrophy that we in Canada. Maybe it's because we rely on the state to look after the poor. Totalitarianism on the other hand is hard right.

[J T CUNNINGHAM]

This person thanks you for your input.

Regards,
J T

[donkim0822]

Thanks for the stats. They are an eye opener. Really, I love my brain :D
Besides, we are all friends, fathers, sons, mothers, grandsons, sisters, brothers of somebody we dearly care for. If someone would have to part from their loved ones and it could've been avoided by wearing a helmet, well, that would be REALLY sad.

in the similar tones, I've been unsuccessful getting a few of my buddies off of their smoking habits. Guess it's their "freedom" to freely harm their body. :eek:

er... yes cycling is dangerous, surrounded by cagers that don`t see you, others that are opening doors in front of you, in your case, zero crash protection, effen eh right its dangerous. I ride a motorcycle and i am acutely aware of the dangers of riding in traffic.

www.helmets.org/stats.htm (http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm)

http://www.helmets.org/henderso.htm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0816/is_10_20/ai_111768004/pg_1

http://www.hotelfun4kids.com/travelnews/safetynews/bikesafety.htm

[flyboy9503]

1 % of head injuries occur on a bicycle 7% to pedestrians 34% to car drivers. who should wear a helmet
by law to save our government money for ohip? your freedom of choice is being dictated by an over
zealous government . john milloy stated last year that we all should be legislated to wear helmets so
the police would not have to decide who to ticket, it could be anyone, not just the children. there is no
solid evidence that helmets save lives but they could save you from a concussion. wear a helmet if you
want but don't call the rest of us who value freedom of choice fools. you can ride a motorcycle in many
states without a helmet. are they fools or just different? bicycles are safe don't discourage a good
thing. how can anyone say a helmet saved their life, it just spared them injury.

[elwood_66]

they are fools...

[Turd Ferguson]

what an insult to all parties involved. how can you say that the man's life would be saved
by wearing a helmet. your statement shows a lack of compassion and intelligence on your
part. before you speak up you should have all of the facts. a helmet protects up to 8 kmh.
at what speed did the accident happen.? you speak like a politician!

I edited the statement 4 days before your post realizing it was out of line.

You must be either stupid (I'm leaning towards this), or extremely bored.

Get over it.

[flyboy9503]

there is still hope that this law requiring cyclists, skateboarders ,tobogganers,skaters and even toy vehicle
drivers to wear helmets will never see the light of day. the law also states that the police may arrest any one who fails to identify
themselves while being charged under this act. you will be exempt from this law if you have any
religious reasons for not using a helmet. that could be anyone or we will have to form a new religion
that believes in freedom of choice and no helmets. is this the type of law that we need,that could get
you arrested while riding a bicycle? read 2.1 of the highway traffic act and also john milloy's
proposed revision to the act. you might also get a ticket on the ski slopes or while tobogganing or skateboarding according to what is written in the proposal. so look out for the police at your favourite resort!
promoting safety is good but legislating it is not the proper way to do it in a free country.

[James_Kim2]

speaking of smokers, recent report shows that smokers use less tax money than non-smokers because, smokers tend to die younger. Thus, the goverment does not have to pay other expensise associated with the person, such as pension, healthcare and more

[J T CUNNINGHAM]

"Thus, the goverment does not have to pay other expensise associated with the person, such as pension, healthcare and more." QUOTE.


And there you have it, CAMEL PLAIN, my favourite (favorite - USA) smoke was BANNED from CanaDA

three years ago; government intellegence!


Regards,
J T

[esaunders]

Hey guys,

For those who've been saying that there's no evidence that bike helmets prevent/reduce injury. Could you read the following and get back to me?

Thanks a bunch


References
1. Thompson RS, Rivara FP, Thompson DC. A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets. N Engl J Med 1989;320:1361-7.
2. Kraus JF, Fife D, Conroy C. Incidence, severity, and outcomes of brain injuries involving bicycles. Am J Public Health 1987;77:76-8.
3. Waller JA. Bicycle ownership, use and injury patterns among elementary school children. Pediatrics 1971;47:1042-50.
4. Sacks JJ, Holmgreen P, Smith SM, Sosin DM. Bicycle-associated head injuries and deaths in the United States from 1984 through 1988: how many are preventable? JAMA 1991; 266:3016-8.
5. Friede AM, Azzara CV, Gallagher SS, Guyer B. The epidemiology of injuries to bicycle riders. Pediatr Clin North Am 1985;32:141-51.
6. Selbst SM, Alexander D, Ruddy R. Bicycle-related injuries. Am J Dis Child 1987;141:140-4.
7. Rodgers GB. Bicycle and bicycle helmet use patterns in the United States: a description and analysis of national survey data. Washington, DC: US Consumer Product Safety Commission, 1993.
8. Guichon MP, Myles ST. Bicycle injuries: one-year sample in Calgary. J Trauma 1975;15:504-6.
9. Kraus JF. Epidemiologic features of injuries to the central nervous system. In: Anderson DW. Neuroepidemiology: a tribute to Bruce Schoenberg. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1991:333-53.
10. Lundar T, Nestvold K. Pediatric head injuries caused by traffic accidents: a prospective study with 5-year follow-up. Child's Nervous System 1985;1:24-8.
11. Belongia E, Weiss H, Bowman M, Rattanassiri P. Severity and types of head trauma among adult bicycle riders. Wis Med J 1988;87:11-4.
12. Weiss BD. Bicycle helmet use by children. Pediatrics 1986;77:677-9.
13. Dorsch MM, Woodward AJ, Somers RL. Do bicycle safety helmets reduce severity of head injury in real crashes? Accid Annal Prev 1987;19:183-90.
14. Wasserman RC, Waller JA, Monty MJ, et al. Bicyclists, helmets and head injuries: a rider-based study of helmet use and effectiveness. Am J Public Health 1988;78:1220-1.
15. Wasserman RC, Buccini RV. Helmet protection from head injuries among recreational bicyclists. Am J Sports Med 1990;18:96-7.
16. CDC. Bicycle-related injuries: data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System. MMWR 1987;36:269-71.
17. Weiss BD. Childhood bicycle injuries: what can we do? Am J Dis Child 1987;141:135-6.
18. Hodgson VR. Impact, skid and retention tests on a representative group of bicycle helmets to determine their head-neck protective characteristics. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University, Department of Neurosurgery, 1990.
19. Hodgson VR. Skid tests on a select group of bicycle helmets to determine their head-neck protective characteristics. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University, Department of Neurosurgery, 1991. 20. Bike helmets: unused lifesavers. Consumer Reports 1990;55:348-53.
21. Bishop PJ, Briard BD. Impact performance of bicycle helmets. Can J Sport Sci 1984;9:94-101.
22. Kukula K. Head protection is becoming easier to live with. Bicycling 1986(May);28-35.
23. American Society for Testing and Materials Committee on Standards. Standard specification for protective headgear used in bicycling (F1447-93). Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials, 1993.
24. American National Standards Institute. American national standard for protective headgear -- for bicyclists (ANSI Z90.4-1984). New York: American National Standards Institute, Inc., 1984.
25. Snell Memorial Foundation. 1990 Standard for protective headgear for use in bicycling. St. James, NY: Snell Memorial Foundation, Inc., 1990.
26. Williams M. The protective performance of bicyclists' helmets in accidents. Accid Anal Prev 1991;23:119-31.
27. Cass DT, Gray AJ. Paediatric bicycle injuries. Aust N Z J Surg 1989; 59:719-24.
28. American Society for Testing and Materials Committee on Standards. Standard test methods for equipment and procedures used in evaluating the performance characteristics of protective headgear (F1446-93). Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials, 1993.
29. Snell Memorial Foundation. 1994 Supplementary standard for protective headgear for use with bicycles. St. James, NY: Snell Memorial Foundation, Inc., 1994.
30. Snell Memorial Foundation. 1994 Standard for protective headgear for use in non-motorized sports (Snell N-94). St. James, NY: Snell Memorial Foundation, Inc., 1994.
31. Graitcer PL. Standards and certification. Headlines: the Newsletter of the WHO Helmet Initiative 1993;2(3):1-2.
32. Public Health Service. Healthy people 2000: national health promotion and disease prevention objectives. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services 1990;DHHS publication no. (PHS)91-50213.
33. DiGuiseppi CG, Rivara FP, Koepsell TD, Polissar L. Bicycle helmet use by children: evaluation of community-wide helmet campaign. JAMA 1989;262:2256-61.
34. Howland J, Sargent J, Weitzman M, et al. Barriers to bicycle helmet use among children. Am J Dis Child 1989;143:741-4.
35. Vulcan AP, Cameron MH, Heiman L. Evaluation of mandatory bicycle helmet use in Victoria, Australia. 36th Annual Proceedings. Portland, OR: Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, 1992.
36. Cote T, Sacks JJ, Lambert-Huber DA, et al. Bicycle helmet use among Maryland children: effect of legislation and education. Pediatrics 1992;89:1216-20.
37. Dannenberg AL, Gielen AC, Beilenson PL, Wilson MH, Joffe A. Bicycle helmet laws and educational campaigns: an evaluation of strategies to increase children's helmet use. Am J Public Health 1993;83:667-74.
38. Towner P, Marvel MK. A school-based intervention to increase the use of bicycle helmets. Fam Med 1992;24:156-8.
39. Parkin PC, Spence LJ, Hu X, et al. Evaluation of promotional strategy to increase bicycle helmet use by children. Pediatrics 1993;91:772-7.
40. Rodgers LW, Bergman AB, Rivara FP. Promoting bicycle helmets to children: a campaign that worked. J Musculoskeletal Med 1991;8:64-77.
41. Rivara FP, Thompson DC, Thompson RS, et al. The Seattle children's bicycle helmet campaign: changes in helmet use and head injury admissions. Pediatrics 1994;93:567-9.
42. Morris BAP, Trimble NE. Promotion of bicycle helmet use among schoolchildren: a randomized clinical trial. Can J Public Health 1991;82:92-4.

[morkys]

Bicycle helmets are so comfortable I see no reason to not where them.

[J T CUNNINGHAM]

Bicycle helmets are so comfortable I see no reason to not where them.


The BOZO that tried to cross the DVP (whilst riding a bike?) didn't need one,

he only needed a brain!

(along with leg armour - he had his leg broken!)


Regards,
J T