On Fri, 17 May 2019 08:43:11 +1000, James
wrote:

On 16/5/19 6:10 pm, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 5:32:52 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 5/15/2019 4:23 PM, James wrote:

snip
The National Cycling Participation Survey results are free to
download from the Austroads website - after you register. The
only reason I posted a link from cycle-helmets.com is because you
don't need to register to download it from them.

Okay, fair enough. It's just that everyone gets very wary with a
reference includes cycle-helmets.com, a site that is well-known
for intentionally misinterpreting data, ignoring data that doesn't
fit their agenda, and constantly trying to equate correlation and
causation. If cycling rates fall, no matter what the actual reason,
if there was a helmet law then they insist that the helmet law was
the cause. The fact is that cycling rates rise and fall for a large
number of reasons. One poster recently pointed out that new bicycle
infrastructure caused a 75% increase in the number of riders.
Sometimes, as happened in China, it's vast improvements in public
transit that drastically reduced cycling rates. Sometimes it's
economic factors. Sometimes it's weather. Sometimes it's
demographic shifts.

The thing that jumps out immediately about that "survey" is the
statement "Participation is defined as the number of individuals
who have cycled for any journey or purpose and in any location over
a specified time period." Cycle around the block once a year, and
you're counted as a cyclist. Decide you're too old the next year
and don't take out the bike, and you're not counted.


A proper survey would be much more specific and look at annual
distance and number of cycling days per year. While the
"Participation Survey" can be interesting, the problem with it are
the organizations and individuals that try to draw false
conclusions from it.

SMS has misrepresented the survey.

The respondents are grouped into those who cycled at least once in the
last year, month or week, and ...

"2.4 Time ridden over past week.
Respondents who had ridden over the past
week were asked for an estimate of how much time they had spent riding.
We note that this measure is based on respondent recall over the
previous week and is likely to be at best a rough estimate. The number
of hours ridden in 2017 averaged 2.54 hoursper week (95% CI: 2.28 –
2.79); this is a statistically significantly decline on 2011 (Figure 2.11)"

Distance for many people is an unknown. Not everyone has or uses a
bicycling computer for every trip. The only estimate that everyone
is capable of making with some degree of accuracy, is how many hours
they cycled in the last week.

This survey was designed by professionals, not SMS.


Without getting into the prudence of an adult MHL, I could see a MHL
causing significant drops in certain populations. If traffic is no so
bad that you really need to ride a bike, then people with a "live
free or die" or "don't muss my hair" or overheat my head mentality
may not ride -- assuming there is any real effort to enforce the law.

In most of Australia there is a real effort to enforce the law. There
are only a handful of exceptions. One exception is Byron Bay. Though
situated in NSW, the state with the most heavy fines ($330 IIRC) and
strict enforcement near it's capital city (Sydney), helmet enforcement
around Byron Bay seems very relaxed. I've visited a few times over the
last year, and each time I am pleasantly surprised by the number of
young women riding. A sight unseen elsewhere (except perhaps Darwin
where the law was relaxed many years ago, but I haven't been there to
see first hand).


In Amsterdam, people would probably just ignore the law, and there
would be no change.

Finland has a MHL but there is no fine and no enforcement. Consequently
survey results find helmets are not a factor in people's decision to
ride or not. Mostly it is perceived safety and that riding a bicycle
makes you hot (yes, that is an actual reason the Fins surveyed gave).

In the London scrum, they may comply because
driving is impossible and riding is objectively dangerous. In
Portland, compliance is pretty high already and enforcement would be
nil, so there would be no change. It really depends on the
population. I don't see any reason why the drop in Australia
couldn't be "real" as opposed to or the result of some confounding
factor. Entire populations can become entrenched on some relatively
minor issues.


The latest round of MHL zealots in Australia think they have shown
scientifically that there was no drop in participation, or at least that
there is no evidence of one. They dismiss the census data that shows
that cycling used as the method of travel to work on the census day
dropped significantly after MHL-day, claiming that the data is not of
sufficiently high quality. Cherry picking now springs to mind.

They rely on a couple of surveys and dismiss all the other evidence,
conveniently.

It seems likely that there are a multitude of reasons for people not
commuting by bicycle ranging from "Oh! I just had my hair done", to
"OH! But 3 miles is too far to go by bicycle", to "Good Lord! It's
raining", to "Oh My God! My head hurts. No more booze on weekdays!",
to "I don't wanna wear a Helmet!".

When I was working in Jakarta I used to ride 100 km every Sunday
morning but wouldn't have dreamed of commuting to work by bike.
Partially because a chauffeur driven car was one of the perks of the
job, partially because a white shirt and tie was more or less the
standard uniform for managers in the business and one didn't want to
be calling on clients looking all hot and sweaty, and partially
because I spent the ride to work planning my day.

While a dedicated bicyclist might argue that these are all
surmountable problems the whole point is that they were sufficient,
for me to decide not to ride a bike to work.
--
cheers,

John B.