[Policy] Helmet policy - formatting style notes (and more)

[Bill Newman]

     I've re-formatted the References section with a style that I think 
would be useful for us to adopt.  There are no hard and fast rules--this 
is just similar to what a lot of people use.

     The Reference Section is a numbered list in the same order the 
documents are referenced in the text.  Each item look like this:

    Author name, another author, "Title of the work Date1", /Publisher
    or Source, /Date2

There should be a date of some sort.  It may be part of the title 
(Date1) or it may be the publication date (Date2).

     In the body of the text I've put numbers in parentheses after the 
first mention of the document or maybe the first quote from it. The 
number needn't be repeated unless the same work is quoted in some other 
part of the text.  (note that it appears after the period.) The number 
could be a superscript but they may a little harder to create and a 
little harder to notice if you are looking backwards from the list to 
where it was referenced in the body.

     I've applied a "text body" style for the paragraphs which specifies 
a reasonable space between paragraphs.  This was previously done by 
putting  a blank paragraph between each paragraph (not the word 
processing way:-)
     I've also applied a heading style--larger font and bold.  (Do the 
first two paragraphs need a heading ? ? )

     The first referenced document, by Carpenter & Stehr, was mentioned 
in the third paragraph of the Rationale section but is gone now.  I've 
left it out.  (It also seemed to be from an unlikely source and not very 
interesting. --IMHO)
     I had to create the citation for Public Health Ontario, it was missing.
     There are three extra references that were not used in the text.  I 
left them in.

     The article by D.L. Robinson is really excellent. *She* cites many 
surveys and includes some very significant graphs--much more than we can 
probably afford to include here.
     There were a couple of small errors: the numbers quoted were for 
Melbourne and the law was for all of Australia.
     But I've also rewritten that paragraph and included it, indented, 
after the original.  I don't think I've changed what you meant to say 
Ian, but you will have to decide.  Go ahead and delete one of them. (Ask 
me how to remove the indents:-)

     This turned out to be more work than I thought but I think it looks 
good now,......

     (Well not really.  I still think the sentence "Bike Winnipeg 
encourages people of all ages who ride bicycles to wear helmets so as to 
reduce their chances of head injury while riding a bicycle." is too 
strong. Because:

  * We see the helmet law as reducing mode share.
  * There are a significant number of people who would rather quit
    cycling than pack a helmet everywhere.
  * We want them back.
  * We must respect their choice.
  * Everyone should consider a helmet and make their own choice.

If we say the non-helmet people are wrong and need correction, the 
legislators will offer us a nifty little law smack them in line.
     Not to be-labour the point, of course :-) :-)

     --Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bikewinnipeg.ca/private.cgi/policy-bikewinnipeg.ca/attachments/20170125/2fc5348a/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: BWP004 Mandatory Adult Bicycle Helmet Law Jan 25 17.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 17483 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bikewinnipeg.ca/private.cgi/policy-bikewinnipeg.ca/attachments/20170125/2fc5348a/attachment-0001.docx>