<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
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.<br>
<br>
The Reference Section is a numbered list in the same order the
documents are referenced in the text. Each item look like this:<br>
<blockquote>Author name, another author, "Title of the work Date1",
<i>Publisher or Source, </i>Date2 <br>
</blockquote>
There should be a date of some sort. It may be part of the title
(Date1) or it may be the publication date (Date2). <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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:-)<br>
I've also applied a heading style--larger font and bold. (Do
the first two paragraphs need a heading ? ? )<br>
<br>
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)<br>
I had to create the citation for Public Health Ontario, it was
missing.<br>
There are three extra references that were not used in the
text. I left them in.<br>
<br>
The article by D.L. Robinson is really excellent. <b>She</b>
cites many surveys and includes some very significant graphs--much
more than we can probably afford to include here.<br>
There were a couple of small errors: the numbers quoted were for
Melbourne and the law was for all of Australia.<br>
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:-)<br>
<br>
This turned out to be more work than I thought but I think it
looks good now,......<br>
<br>
(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:<br>
<ul>
<li>We see the helmet law as reducing mode share.</li>
<li>There are a significant number of people who would rather quit
cycling than pack a helmet
everywhere.</li>
<li>We want them back.<br>
</li>
<li>We must respect their choice.</li>
<li>Everyone should consider a helmet and make their own choice.<br>
</li>
</ul>
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.<br>
Not to be-labour the point, of course :-) :-)<br>
<br>
--Bill<br>
</body>
</html>