Jay Beattie wrote:
> I would still
> like to see a domestic study which shows in some conclusive way that
> MHLs keep Americans off their bikes. I have not seen one study cited in
> any of these threads that proves the point.
Well, since we're not dealing in theoretical mathematics or symbolic
logic, "proof" is a subjective term. Some people think there's no
proof we landed on the moon, or that Clinton misbehaved with Monica, or
that G.W.Bush is ... well, you get my point.
> Personally, I don't think
> you can draw any conclusions from looking at the MHL effective date and
> comparing it to the number of riders going over a bridge or down a
> street.
For those who don't understand Jay's point, I believe this is what he's
referring to: After MHLs were passed in Western Australia, cycling
immediately dropped by a large amount. This was confirmed by trained
observers counting passing cyclists on the streets, at identical times
of year and weather. It was also confirmed by automatic bike counters
on bridges that cyclists had to cross to travel certain areas of the
city. And the reasons for the drop were confirmed by telephone
interviews, when the majority said they were riding less (or not at
all) because of the MHL.
But of course, that's not "proof."
(BTW, helmet advocates learned an important lesson. Be sure MHLs are
written so there is no chance to do "before" counts. That's been true
ever since.)
> I can tell you that ridership over the main Portland bridges
> has tripled since the passage of the MHL. See http://tinyurl.com/n4l55
I tried. Didn't work.
But are you claiming a cause and effect relationship between a MHL and
an increase in ridership? Did the riding triple immediately after that
MHL? Did surveys show that many people were taking up cycling - when
they would't before - because now they were being forced to wear a
helmet? Doubtful.
Several pertinent points: Oregon's MHL applies to those under 16, I
believe. If you're talking about bridges over the Willamette River, in
my experience very few of those riders are kids. The kids MHL would
probably have little effect on adult cyclists, at least in the short
term.
Also, Portland really is unique. They've got about the strongest bike
advocacy organization in the country. They've very energetically
promoted cycling since at least 1990, in many ways. A rise in cycling
in that environment is not representative of most MHL areas.
Finally, don't make the mistake Australian officials are now making,
saying "See? Cycling in 2006 is greater than it was in 1992 when the
law is passed! The law had no bad effect!" Obviously, rising
population (if nothing else) contributed to the eventual recovery of
bicyclist counts - although not cyclists per 100,000 population. The
question is, what would be the effect if there had been no MHL?
ISTM the absence of a helmet law would definitely increase cycling. We
know there are people who don't like helmets and won't ride (or won't
ride as much) if forced into styrofoam. There cannot be many people
who would say "Wow, I'm now forbidden to bike without a funny looking
hat. That's convinced me to start cycling!"
> . And our crash rate has gone down.
Crash rates always go down when the number of cyclists go up. It's
well documented. By rights, it seems your crash rate would be even
lower if the kids discouraged by the MHL were out riding.
- Frank Krygowski