A little bit of sanity finally found in Canada?

[j***@hotmail.com]

... but only in Manitoba whose government task force rejected helmet
legislation for child cyclists.

See article on The Vehicular Cyclist at:

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc

[Dragan Cvetkovic]

Post by j***@hotmail.com
... but only in Manitoba whose government task force rejected helmet
legislation for child cyclists.
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc

From the web site:

"The task force, struck to examine issues concerning child health,
was made up of representatives of all parties in the Manitoba
legislature. It recommended that the health of children could be
improved by focussing on nutrition, active transportation and
exercise."

Interesting.

Dragan

[Paul R]

Post by j***@hotmail.com
... but only in Manitoba whose government task force rejected helmet
legislation for child cyclists.
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc

Excellent start!

Now lets see how they approach the problem of improving the health of the
population.

[Dragan Cvetkovic]

Post by Paul R

Post by j***@hotmail.com
... but only in Manitoba whose government task force rejected helmet
legislation for child cyclists.
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc

Excellent start!
Now lets see how they approach the problem of improving the health of the
population.

I am a bit confused here. I have actually read the report and it seems that
the only reason Manitoba rejected helmets for kids is because they were
afraid poor wouldn't be able to afford them. They are still supporting
them though.. As per page 15 of the report:

"Some suggested that a wide-spread public education campaign would be
most effective in promoting helmets use while maintaining and
increasing the number of youth that cycle. Other thought that helmet
use should be legislated. The need to provide some sort of assistance
to low-income families who may not be able to afford the purchase of
helmets was noted".

and further on 26 page, under recommentation:

"Therefore the task force recommends that:

[snip]

32. the provincial government undertake a strong public education
campaign promoting the use of bicycle helmets, while introducing
measures to help low-income families buy helmets. This campaign
will serve to increase helmet use and bicycle ridership. The
campaign would be evaluated by measuring the extent of helmet use
after three years"

So, rather a mixed message. Let's not introduce helmets because some can't
afford them, but instead of e.g. providing free helmets for those who want,
but can't afford them (after all Manitoba doesn't have that many
inhabitants), let's organise a campaign. With non-clear goals and
effects. And probably costlier than "free helmet for every kid". :-|

Bye, Dragan

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Dragan Cvetkovic

Post by Paul R

Post by j***@hotmail.com
... but only in Manitoba whose government task force rejected helmet
legislation for child cyclists.
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc

Excellent start!
Now lets see how they approach the problem of improving the health of the
population.

I am a bit confused here. I have actually read the report and it seems that
the only reason Manitoba rejected helmets for kids is because they were
afraid poor wouldn't be able to afford them. They are still supporting
"Some suggested that a wide-spread public education campaign would be
most effective in promoting helmets use while maintaining and
increasing the number of youth that cycle. Other thought that helmet
use should be legislated. The need to provide some sort of assistance
to low-income families who may not be able to afford the purchase of
helmets was noted".
[snip]
32. the provincial government undertake a strong public education
campaign promoting the use of bicycle helmets, while introducing
measures to help low-income families buy helmets. This campaign
will serve to increase helmet use and bicycle ridership. The
campaign would be evaluated by measuring the extent of helmet use
after three years"
So, rather a mixed message. Let's not introduce helmets because some can't
afford them, but instead of e.g. providing free helmets for those who want,
but can't afford them (after all Manitoba doesn't have that many
inhabitants), let's organise a campaign. With non-clear goals and
effects. And probably costlier than "free helmet for every kid". :-|
Bye, Dragan

I think the point is they are rejecting manditory helmet use legislated
by law. Educating risks (no matter how minute) is good. Forcing
through petty laws is not. That does nothing but cave to the control
freaks who want to impose thier will on others (who, by the way, don't
care whether you get injured or not, or health risks).

Good for Manitoba for allowing freedom of choice prevail

[j***@hotmail.com]

These are all good points.

Don't expect the life-style control freaks from Safe Kids Canada and
other evangelista groups and individuals to give up. They have plenty
of resources for legislation advocacy and manipulation of the media. It
means anti-law campaigners must always monitor such groups and the
legislators that front for them.

Get the state out of the headrooms of the nation.
(acknowledgements to Pierre Elliot T)

[AI]

Good point. Keep the states head out of it's ass. PET is the best

Post by j***@hotmail.com
These are all good points.
Don't expect the life-style control freaks from Safe Kids Canada and
other evangelista groups and individuals to give up. They have plenty
of resources for legislation advocacy and manipulation of the media. It
means anti-law campaigners must always monitor such groups and the
legislators that front for them.
Get the state out of the headrooms of the nation.
(acknowledgements to Pierre Elliot T)

[DiscoDuck]

Why don't we all start an email campagn and write to every elected
official in BC asking them to repeal this law?