Tony Raven wrote:
Cathy Kearns wrote:

Worked for me for my children. One continues to ride a bike. The other
decided it wasn't worth it, and gave up bike riding when she entered junior
high. Prefered to walk the 1.5 miles each way. As we were looking at
colleges I was surprised to hear this child that gave up bike riding at age
11 wouldn't mind getting a bike for transportation when she goes away to
school, as by then she won't need to wear a helmet. (In California adults
(age 18) are not required by law to wear helmets while cycling.)



Which is an excellent illustration of one good reason many of us oppose
mandatory helmets - they put people off cycling especially children and
there is no clear evidence of any compensating benefit.


I am a little confused, though, why the daughter gave up riding when
she got into junior high. Did she give it up because she had to wear a
helmet? I understand the current comment made what, four years later,
that she wouldn't have to wear a helmet when she goes to college, but
did she say back in junior high that she was quitting because she had
to wear a helmet? That is always hard for me to believe, but I don't
have a daughter, and apparently they have different agendas than sons.
My 10 year old son wears a helmet. He cares how he looks, so there may
be some helmets he wouldn't wear if they made him look too dorky. But
otherwise, it is no big deal. Getting him to ride at all, though . . .
that's a big deal. Kids are so lazy these days, and it is usually easy
to get a ride in the car from mom and dad, so the incentive to ride
just isn't there anymore. -- Jay Beattie.