J
Jay Beattie
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> 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."
To be conclusive or even pursuasive, it has to be more than an MHL
passage date and raw data showing the number of riders. Otherwise, I
could make the argument that you anticipate -- that the passage of the
MHL in Oregon tripled the number of cyclists crossing the Portland
bridges.
> (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.
Did you get the long link in my subsequent post?
> 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.
Most of the weekday bridge traffic is commuting adults, but the Steel
and Hawthorne are thick with kids during the weekend, particularly the
Steel, which is part of a bicycle/pedestrian path that goes up/down
both banks of the river.
> 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.
I was on the BTA board in 1990. Thank you. And I also voted against
any statment pro or con concerning the MHL when it was proposed in
1993/4. The same polarizing arguments made here were made on our board.
I believe one of our board members testified against it on behalf of
another group.
BTW, in many ways, having a powerful advocacy group has just upped the
tension level with cars -- unintentionally of course (BTA is not
Critical Mass). I have never lived in any other city where there is so
much ink spilled about cars versus bikes. It is really getting
unpleasant now there is such competition for space on the road.
> 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.
I have never met those discouraged kids, but I hope to one day -- maybe
I can get them over their helmet discouragement and on to bikes. I
always loved that statistical truth that crash rates go down when the
numbers go up -- that is why I always try to ride with ten or more
people, beause I will be statistically less likely to crash. On the
Portland bridges, another mitigating factor is change in deck surface
-- the Broadway Bridge had a wood deck sidewalk. The pigeons would sit
in the structure and do their thing, and when it rained, it was like
riding on banana peels. I crashed a couple of times on that one. -- Jay
Beattie.
> 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."
To be conclusive or even pursuasive, it has to be more than an MHL
passage date and raw data showing the number of riders. Otherwise, I
could make the argument that you anticipate -- that the passage of the
MHL in Oregon tripled the number of cyclists crossing the Portland
bridges.
> (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.
Did you get the long link in my subsequent post?
> 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.
Most of the weekday bridge traffic is commuting adults, but the Steel
and Hawthorne are thick with kids during the weekend, particularly the
Steel, which is part of a bicycle/pedestrian path that goes up/down
both banks of the river.
> 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.
I was on the BTA board in 1990. Thank you. And I also voted against
any statment pro or con concerning the MHL when it was proposed in
1993/4. The same polarizing arguments made here were made on our board.
I believe one of our board members testified against it on behalf of
another group.
BTW, in many ways, having a powerful advocacy group has just upped the
tension level with cars -- unintentionally of course (BTA is not
Critical Mass). I have never lived in any other city where there is so
much ink spilled about cars versus bikes. It is really getting
unpleasant now there is such competition for space on the road.
> 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.
I have never met those discouraged kids, but I hope to one day -- maybe
I can get them over their helmet discouragement and on to bikes. I
always loved that statistical truth that crash rates go down when the
numbers go up -- that is why I always try to ride with ten or more
people, beause I will be statistically less likely to crash. On the
Portland bridges, another mitigating factor is change in deck surface
-- the Broadway Bridge had a wood deck sidewalk. The pigeons would sit
in the structure and do their thing, and when it rained, it was like
riding on banana peels. I crashed a couple of times on that one. -- Jay
Beattie.