The point is that this anticycling campaign puts the onus on cyclists, not on the drivers of trucks and cars that threaten our lives.

And helmets are superfluous for utilitarian cyclists if there is proper separated infrastructure. This crap is a way of avoiding what needs to be done to achieve cycling – and pedestrian – safety.

This campaign is anti-cycling, period. I wonder why people in Amsterdam and Copenhagen aren’t all running around with exposed brains…

Peter, video games have a ratings system because some of them are not appropriate for certain age groups. These comic books are targeted at children who are not mature enough to understand what they mean. What they will do is embed a life long ingrained belief that riding bicycles will result in horrific injuries and death

I got a little mean with the old bitty, I apologize, but I imagine its all about how you grew up and where you live. My kids received these comics from their school which is in an area where most kids as young as 6 are allowed to ride to school alone which they do dangerously, I will say it, in the hood. Since they received these, as well as free helmet, they are no longer racing dangerously to school and actually wearing the helmets they were given. Just one example of it actually working given the targeted audience.

I mean, maybe I am? I get that there’s a lot of violent imagery in pop culture these days, but I’m clinging to the (perhaps overly optimistic) notion that it isn’t for 8 and 9 year olds. Are most people’s third and fourth graders playing Call of Duty? That seems pretty young.

More than believing children are immune to violent imagery, it’s the context this was presented in. Call of Duty is a video game, it’s up to individual parents whether or not their kids are going to play it. Handing out a pamphlet which was literally designed to scare 8 and 9 year olds out of a beneficial activity, in an educational context, is entirely inappropriate.

For further context on my own personal opinion in this, I’m 26 years old. I’m not sure at what age I become an “old bitty” but I’m hoping I’m not over the hill just yet. 😉

The issue I take with them isn’t with the actual recommendations for safe cycling, those I can totally agree with. The issue is more with the presentation of cycling as this horrific, dangerous activity that will leave you trampled and bleeding for any indiscretion.

It just does very little to encourage kids to ride, and to an 8 or 9 year old (the age group the booklets are aimed at, where Driver’s Ed is for teenagers), I’m not sure gory, fear-based material is appropriate. You can and should teach kids about bicycle safety without scaring them out of ever wanting to hop in the saddle, and as a former 8 year old I can attest to largely avoiding activities that I thought would kill me. Moreover, and more importantly, the $18,000 + program just does nothing to address the real issues which threaten kids on the street, such as speeding and dangerous infrastructure. It puts the onus on children to protect themselves rather than holding adults responsible for protecting children.

Second, most of the messages make sense to me–except the wheelie one (though I’d need more context). I’ve looked through the comics, though, and couldn’t find which one had that. So, except for that, they’re saying, “Wear a Helmet,” “Ride on the Right with Traffic,” “Stay out of the Door Zone,” “Don’t run red lights,” “Stop at Stop Signs,” “Avoid riding in a Vehicle’s Blind Spot,” and “Have a light when you ride at night.”

Which of these don’t you agree with?