would love to know where this non-sense comes from: "A bicycle helmet can reduce risk of serious head and brain injury by as much as 90%. Unfortunately, 89 percent of people killed in bicycle crashes with motor vehicles were not wearing a helmet. ", as it has been reported and discussed time and again around the world that these figures are just plain misleading and only meant to generate fear. Please look through http://cyclehelmets.org/ for a more comprehensive look at helmet effectiveness.

And seriously, rewarding helmet use with coupons to fast food places? Are they trying to get people obese *deliberately*?

So.......thank you to the TPD for attempting to provide incentives for kids to wear helmets. We stress to our kids the importance of wearing them and we lead by example. I was a fairly fearless rider as a kid. Put together my "ultimate" BMX bike back in the early 80's. Did way too many stunts and took risks. Once I knocked myself unconscious in the middle of the street by hitting the back of a neighbor's truck when I wasn't looking. Suffered a concussion that I swear still gives me trouble (headaches, occasional dizziness) decades later. Had I been wearing a helment that would not have happened like that. I don't care about the statistics and "fear mongering" comments. I don't care if it reduces injury by ONE percent. The point is, they reduce injury. Yes, I find it ironic that they are rewarding safe behavior with junk food, but at least it will increase awareness. I may have my kids start biking more. I want those Spinners tickets ;)

Jim,
I looked at cyclehelmets.org and I have a huge problem with the fact that they use some nice equations to mathematically prove, well, absolutely nothing because it is still based off of some pretty fuzzy guesses and assumptions and due to the obviously slanted opinion that the site starts with, I have to question the numbers they begin with. Do people really not ride bikes because of helmet laws? I don't think so (but I admit I could be wrong)
I also disagree with some of your statements. "You realize that pedestrian-vs-motor-vehicle accidents are just as prolific (and depending on the city, happen far more often than cycle-related accidents)..." I'm betting that percentage wise, cyclists are in far for accidents incolving head injury. And "Why would we put patently poorly designed head-gear, risking an equal amount of safety with at least an equal amount of danger" I do not believe that even the worst head gear creates more injuries than it prevents.
I'm actually against seat belt and helmet laws for adults, mainly on a "less government meddling" platform, but just as I believe small children should be required to be in car seats, children should be required to wear helmets on a bike.
I do think fast food is a bad reward though. Gift card for sporting goods perhaps?

Oh dear! I just squashed a kid under my behemoth SUV.

Ha, no foul - he wasn't wearing a helmet so it's ALL HIS FAULT!

Safety is a good thing. I don't see anything wrong with promoting good behavior for kids that are wearing helmets. I also want to thank our local McDonald’s, Burger King, and Friendly’s for supporting the efforts. At least these businesses are participating........and not all of the food on their menu is junk food. What kid wouldn't want to stop in for a nice cold drink after they have been riding all day, or even for an icecream at that? I know I would.

Just one more thing that I want to mention.......It’s actually the law that young people 16 and under wear a bike helmet. So statistics or not, the law is the law. We should be greatful to the Tewksbury Police Dept for providing one to the kids that don't have them.

The Tewksbury PD is the biggest group of incompetent fools. They can't/will not do finger printing despite me calling and walking into their HQ over 10 times in a week, being told "come back later, only our investigators can do finger printing." When I asked "when is a good time to call or come in" the arrogant officer tells me "there is no good time." I walked into the Wilmington PD and had this done in literally 10 minutes with no hassle and no appointment.

Example #2 of ignorance: A few years back, a group of teenage girls were driving drunk on my street, crashed into my neighbors yard, damaged and destroyed his property, along with totaling THREE vehicles, damaging my home, yard, and driveway. The teens had open containers of alcohol all over the car. The Tewksbury PD showed up with three squad cars. None of them had working flash lights, and they did not arrest these girls, they did not hold them, they did not test them for alcohol, and their reasoning for this was "we don't want to ruin their lives." I guess in Tewksbury the law is subjective.

Tewksbury cops are a joke.

I wear a helmet when I ride my bike, but I know my kids hate to wear theirs. I think that, given a choice, they would rather skip the bike than wear a helmet. For the most part, I think they are a good idea.

As for the Tewksbury PD, I think it is great that they are rewarding kids with coupons.

@ Mr. Florence - I don't think you can label the entire department based on a few experiences that you felt weren't handled properly. In your example # 2, I don't know any of the details other than what you wrote. In my opinion, I think it is great that the police department is using their discretion on handling the case. If you had a brother/sister/son or daughter involved in a similar case, I am sure you would also appreciate the same treatment. I assume the damage was covered by insurance and hopefully you were compensated. Strict compliance to every law and regulation is not always the best option.

IDEA: If the TPD is issuing "rewards" to kids who wear helmets, then they should issue "punishments" (citations) to parents whose kids don't wear helmets.

. . . and, enough of the black hoodies at night (wrt my previous post, above).

Let's not fault the TPD for things that are not their responsibility, or bring into this conversation things that are not relevant to this topic.

The TPD is under very good management today, and most are fairly well-educated and experienced. Many are even parents, themselves. Let's try to keep in mind that none of us could understand all that they deal with on a daily basis--from their points of view--and none of us can do their jobs better, or we would be!

Well I have to agree with you Mr. Florence in your Example #2, totally biased, and so not right!!!! They don't seem to have any problem's arresting someone that allegedly smoked marijuanna whlie driving a vehicle, but this individual did not cause any accidents or have any problems while driving. No reason to be pulled over except for the fact that another motorist supposedly witnessed it. In this case the book was thrown at the driver, revoked the license for a lifetime (immediate threat) which takes an act from God to get it back by the way ..........what is wrong with this picture? Completely subjective and so NOT RIGHT that the same laws are not being used consistently!!!!

HELMETS: As someone who has suffered 3 brain injuries, they save lives, wear them.

THE TPD ISSUING HELMETS: Who's really paying for that?

EDUCATION: It's the parents' job to be educated about bike safety and instruct and outfit their children appropriately. A parent who cannot teach his/her own child the rules of the road and cannot fit them w/a helmet is incompetent and I dare say, endangering their child if they send them out of the house without.

MY EXPERIENCE: For years, I have been a nervous wreck heading down Shawsheen St to Oakdale in the dark. More times than not, I encounter teens on black BMX bikes wearing dark clothing, black hoodies, no helmets, no reflective tape on clothing or bike, no lights, and their on the wrong side of the street to begin with, heading into my oncoming car!

TO PARENTS: If your kid gets hit, you have no one to blame but yourself. Second note, if your kid hits me under the above conditions it will be me who sues you for stupidity, incompetence, endangering a child.

IN YEARS PASSED, I have spoken to the TPD about the above, and to my amazement, the response has been, "The parents don't care." It's not the TPD's job to educate and raise your kid; it's yours.

DAYTIME: The rules are the same. Bicycles must ride WITH the traffic. Walkers must walk AGAINST the traffic. To do the opposite is asking for trouble for yourself, and bringing trouble to drivers who don't deserve to be at the receiving end of your ignorance.

What is it with English-speaking countries? I'm starting to think we're a bit thick. Why are the police wasting their time worrying about whether a few kids are wearing a crappy plastic helmet? They do not "save lives". They do not prevent brain injury. They are not designed for collisions anything like that. No helmet manufacturer will claim that they have those sorts of magical powers.

Do Dutch children wear helmets? Certainly not. Why? Because instead of putting all of the responsibility and blame on them, their authorities have made a conscious decision to design their road network in such a way that children can ride safely away from traffic. And they do. In large numbers.

It has nothing to do with the space available, the Netherlands being flat or any of the other usual nonsense. It is because of a deliberate political decision. One that our governments appear to be too incompetent and lazy to make.

E: That's terrific that the Dutch have gone that far, and I'm curious about your reference to "the English speaking countries". Are they the only countries who don't do as the Dutch do? What about the French-speaking, Spanish-speaking, Italian-speaking, German-speaking, and so on? Perhaps population density has some bearing on whether it is possible to implement such a plan.

I can hit a pothole on my bike, tumble over the handlebars, hit the pavement head-first, and wind up with a concussion. Don't you think a helmet would help prevent injury in that case? I'm just not sure why so many claim that helmets do not prevent brain injuries . . . .

"...Do Dutch children wear helmets? Certainly not..." Speaking as someone who cycles across northern Europe yearly from his home in Denmark the above statement is a bit in-accurate. Some Dutch do wear helmets and some do not. This is a matter of having the right to choose, not whether the helmet is effective or not.

Helmets have can be helpful in accidents up to 13 kph (about 8 mph) for the rare knock on the head, or for debris kicked up by passing cars. But since many central Europeans are typically cruising to work, shopping, or going out with friends at speeds of 20 kph or more, the safety of a helmet is questionable, and this concern has been backed up by various tests.

They are just not as effective as the anecdotes claim. Sure, it has happened, but those numbers are rather small in reality. What is not said is the little details that make it possible: falling hands first, head second on a hard surface (reducing the impact speed); being intoxicated (body is loosened up to receive the shock easier); bouncing off a telephone pole or wall before striking head; head impact well below the critical speed (like barely moving at 2-3 mph), etc. These factors more attribute luck to the accident than actual helmet effectiveness.

The issue at hand should be: "why are police providing a reward that says 'wear a helmet and get free junk food'..." -- it's like switching one problem for another one (helmet safety for obesity concerns), and makes little common sense.

"E":

In the world of "What's So", the pothole IS there. All the "shoulding" in the world won't change the outcome, if you're the one who hits it. [I would advise you not to ride Andover Street/Dascomb Road in Andover, and other parts, as they have the type of sewer drains with bars--not square grids--except the bars are in the verticle position, not the horizontal. Get your wheel stuck in one of those doing 25mph, you'll find out a few things about brain injuries. Don't bother calling their DPW; I already did, years ago. The response was, "Well, there's no way we're going to go out and turn them all (a quarter turn) around!" Fine, deal with the lawsuits!]

Do you realize you can receive brain injuries just from riding a roller coaster? Yes, it's that easy. Just sayin' . . . .

"...Get your wheel stuck in one of those doing 25mph, you'll find out a few things about brain injuries..." and at that speed no amount of helmet will protect you.

In Denmark, if drainage grates are not turned perpendicular to the cycle path, the city will (and has on a rare occasion) get in trouble to the benefit of the cyclist. Perhaps, if you dig deeper into your State and local regulations, you might find a similar regulation that

"...Do you realize you can receive brain injuries just from riding a roller coaster?..." Yet we don't see legislation for helmets for coasters, or pedestrians for that matter.

"...Just sayin' . . " Stop saying, and start doing! Start challenging this kind of poorly thought out event with logic, facts, and common sense. Yes, it's a hard challenge (all the really worth ones are, right?), but the reward is a place where people of all ages can cycle safely in your community, getting healthier and doing good things for the environment. If you want to wear a helmet, or not - that is *your* choice, not the government's - take the responsibility back! Get them to make the roads safer, not 'band-aid' it with offers of obesity!

For the record, I don't think a helmet will abosutely save you from an injury if hit by a car. But I do expect that wearing a helmet will "HELP" protect your noggin when something more typical happens. Like falling off the bike, or hitting something (like a curb or crack in the sidewalk) that sends you sailing. Or when a dog scares the crap out of you and you lose control of the bike (happened to my brother when we were little and he wound up with a pretty good concussion - before helmets were worn on bicycles). I think these type of injuries are where the 90% number comes from. Bike or motorcycle vs. any moving vehicle - hopefully it would make the head injury less but the injury to the rest of the body would be significant.

As for being a jerk about the Tewksbury PD.... whatever. I have called them for various reasons and was never once treated badly. They handled each issue with professionalism and I'm glad to have officers that know the town as well as these officers do.

Are you seriously complaining that the police are giving kids treat coupons for wearing helmets?? OMG. How often do children get to have encounters with the police? If they are lucky, NEVER. They will never have any need to call them. However, most of the time, they meet kids under less than positive circumstances. The police taking the opportunity to have positive interaction with the youth of this town is a great experience for these kids. Having kids view the police with a positive experience is worth far more than a coupon for a treat. The kids out riding bikes ARE active. I think they can calorically afford a treat. I am amazed at how ignorant some people can be about good people doing a good thing. If you don't want your kid rewarded, you can tell them to say no thank you. If you want to decide what the reward will be - DONATE IT.

Dear "Comment": Is that your only ID?