On 3/20/2017 1:59 PM, sms wrote:
On 3/19/2017 8:18 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 18:54:54 -0700, sms
wrote:

When
cycling rates rose, they should have risen as fast as the population
went up.

Nope. If nothing changed except the population, the cycling rate
should remain constant because it's based on a percentage of that
population. Of course, everything else also changes, so it's unlikely
to be a constant rate.

Exactly. Demographics change. Roads change. Traffic changes. Bicycling
infrastructure changes. Mass-transit infrastructure changes. The economy
changes.

In Silicon Valley, the emergence of so many corporate bus systems has
reduced the number of cyclists combining a Caltrain commute with cycling
"the first and last mile" (or the first and last 5 miles). Get on an
Apple, Google, Yahoo, or Genentech bus near your home and there's no
need to deal with public transit, or the lack of public transit,
anymore. But there's been a tendency of the AHZs to blame any decline in
cycling on helmet laws, or helmet promotion, which of course has no
validity at all, it's just Trump-like "alternative facts."

The fact that helmet laws dissuade riding has been best demonstrated by
Australian data, which showed a STEP drop in bike riding of over 30%
exactly when the helmet laws were enacted. It was not a gradual drop,
as would be expected from gradually changing demographics, traffic
conditions, etc. The sudden drop precisely aligned with the sudden
imposition of the helmet laws.

Furthermore, bike share systems have become extremely popular in recent
years. Some cities and nations have repealed mandatory helmets laws
because of their obvious deterrent effect on bike use. (Mexico City,
Tel Aviv, Anniston AL, Boznia-Hertzegovina, etc.) Very, very few cities
have attempted to implement bike share systems while enforcing helmet
laws, and those few efforts have been failures. (See Melbourne, Brisbane
and Seattle.)

And again, logic would indicate helmet mandates and promotion would have
to have some dissuading effect; the only question is the size of that
effect. Obviously, _some_ people will not ride if told they must wear a
helmet. _Some_ people will not ride if told bicycling is so dangerous
that protective headgear is necessary. How would those ever be
compensated by people who say "Oh, it's that dangerous? And I'm not
allowed to ride without that ugly hat? Great! Now I'm convinced to take
up bicycling!"

--
- Frank Krygowski