Peer and Adult Companion Helmet Use Is Associated With Bicycle Helmet Use by Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the helmet status of riding companions (child or adult) influences helmet use by children (5-14 years). METHODS: This study is part of a larger prospective observational survey that was conducted in a defined urban region of Toronto, Canada (1990-1997, 1999, and 2001). Trained observers collected data on children who were riding bicycles in April through October each year. Observation sites included school yards, parks, major intersections, and residential streets. RESULTS: Of the 2094 children who were observed riding a bicycle, 50% were riding alone, 36% were riding with at least 1 child companion, and 14% were riding with at least 1 adult companion. Compared with riding alone, children were less likely to wear a helmet when riding with nonhelmeted child companions (relative risk [RR]: 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22-0.38) and were more than twice as likely to wear a helmet when riding with either helmeted child (RR: 2.18; 95% CI: 1.97-2.42) or adult companions (RR: 2.67; 95% CI: 2.44-2.93). Compared with children who were riding with nonhelmeted child companions, children were more likely to wear a helmet when riding with nonhelmeted adults (RR: 3.93; 95% CI: 2.86-5.40), helmeted adults (RR: 9.18; 95% CI: 7.04-11.98), or helmeted children (RR: 7.49; 95% CI: 5.72-9.82). Adjusted analyses showed no difference between companion helmet status and helmet use by children before and after legislation. CONCLUSIONS: Helmeted and nonhelmeted adult riding companions were positively associated with child helmet use. The association between child riding companions and child helmet use was positive for helmeted child riding companions and negative for nonhelmeted child riding companions. Efforts need to be made toward improving adult helmet use and children's perceptions and attitudes toward helmet use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".