Chris Phillipo wrote:



Are you listening? I said ridership is UP not DOWN. His study is
flawed in it's collection methods.

IIRC, ridership is finally "up" in some other jurisdictions that
instituted helmet laws. But wait! It's "up" compared to what it was 10
years ago, when the laws were introduced. Does that mean the effect of
MHLs is to increase riding?

Hardly! The immediate effect of MHLs has been to reduce riding
significantly. Enforced MHLs have been shown to reduce riding by about
30%, and even more among certain age groups. Given enough time, other
changes _may_ lead to a recovery. For example, population growth may
eventually allow one to say "there are now more riders than before" -
but that doesn't mean there are more riders than there _would_ have been!

I'm curious how someone can believe a MHL increases ridership. In fact,
I'm curious how someone can believe it's neutral. Certainly, there will
be _some_ people who will say "If I'm forced to wear a helmet, I'm not
riding." Certainly there will be those who say "Damn, if it's so
dangerous they require a helmet, I don't want to do it at all!"

Where do you find people who say "Oh, I'm not allowed to ride without a
helmet, eh? Great! That makes me want to take up cycling!"



--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]