American (?) daemon in Australia. Take him back!

On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 23:04:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2016 10:34 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/2/2016 4:34 PM, James wrote:

This is contrary to popular belief and evidence.

With statistics, it's critical to beware of people that pick and choose
their time-frames.

The AHZs are fond of statements like "cycling participation declined by
30-40% immediately the laws were enforced in different states." Yes, the
key word is "immediately." What they don't want to admit is the fact
that but the rate quickly recovered.

Sorry, the rate (i.e. number of cyclists per capita) did not recover.
It's still lower than it was before the helmet laws.

Even the AHZs no longer claim that cycling rates declined after an MHL,
other than a brief dip.

Scharfian bull****.


The new rationalization is that cycling rates
should increase at least as fast as population increases...

"Cycling rates" are generally understood to be _per capita_. Although
Scharf may find this difficult to understand, that means if bicycling
counts, miles ridden, trips taken by bike etc. do not increase as fast
as population, then the bicycling rate _has_ decreased.

This sort of thing is an acceptable topic for a math class filled with
13-year-olds. It's astonishing that an adult posting here fails to
understand the concept!

, and if that
doesn't happen then it's helmet laws that are to blame.

Since the sudden decreases occurred immediately after the helmet laws
were enforced, and since all other potentially causative changes were
gradual and not sudden, that certainly is a rational conclusion.

But if that's not enough, surveys at the time definitely confirmed the
reason for the drops in cycling. Surveys since have continued to
confirm it.

Never mind the
fact that cycling rates go up and down for a plethora of reasons. There
are no helmet laws in China, but cycling rates have greatly deccreased,
so if I wanted to behave like the AHZs I would insist that the decrease
was due to the lack of helmet laws!

"According to a 2008 report by the Earth Policy Institute, between 1995
and 2005, "China's bike fleet declined by 35 percent, from 670 million
to 435 million, while private car ownership more than doubled, from 4.2
million to 8.9 million. Blaming cyclists for increasing accidents and
congestion, some city governments have closed bike lanes. Shanghai even
banned bicycles from certain downtown roads in 2004." So the decline was
actually caused by greater vehicle ownership, and also was caused by
huge improvements in mass transit infrastructure.

And so, what's been seen in China is a drop in cycling concurrent with
an increase in prosperity, thus a great increase in the number of
Chinese owning a car. Given that the car purchases and cycling
reduction happened concurrently and are logically connected, the growth
in car ownership is an identifiable cause of the decrease in bicycling.

I've been a witness to this in four countries, Japan, Singapore,
Indonesia and Thailand, and that is exactly what happens. First the
bicycle, next comes the motorcycle and than the automobile. Singapore,
being an island is a bit unique and the government did take extreme
efforts to restrict the number of autos and while it did slow the
growth it didn't stop it.

I've never researched it but I would suspect that a comparison of
vehicles ownership to family income would show the same correlation in
all developing countries.

In Australia, there was no sudden increase in car ownership. There was
the sudden (territory by territory) imposition of helmet laws. Given
the the helmet laws and cycling reduction happened concurrently and are
logically connected, the helmet law is an identifiable cause of the
decrease in cycling.

The surveys merely confirmed what should have been obvious.

The relevant data is easy to find on the web.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 8/4/2016 7:00 PM, James wrote:
On 04/08/16 13:04, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/3/2016 10:34 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/2/2016 4:34 PM, James wrote:

This is contrary to popular belief and evidence.

With statistics, it's critical to beware of people that pick and choose
their time-frames.

The AHZs are fond of statements like "cycling participation declined by
30-40% immediately the laws were enforced in different states." Yes, the
key word is "immediately." What they don't want to admit is the fact
that but the rate quickly recovered.

Sorry, the rate (i.e. number of cyclists per capita) did not recover.
It's still lower than it was before the helmet laws.

And still falling, according to a nation wide survey.

Notice the weasel word in Frank's statement: "number of cyclists per
capita." This is a fairly recent change. The claim used to be that the
number of cyclists went down following the helmet law. Now it's changed
to the claim that the _per capita_ number of cyclists is lower, in other
words, the increase in the number of cyclists was proportionally less
than the increase in the population. But to attribute this to the
existence of the MHL is ludicrous and has no basis.

"While bicycle ownership has remained steady in comparison to the 2011
National Cycling Participation Survey, there has been a small but
statistically significant decrease in the level of cycling participation
in Australia between 2011 and 2015."

http://www.bicyclecouncil.com.au/pub...on-survey-2015

Ditto. Not a decrease in the number of cyclists, but a decrease in the
level of cyclist participation as a percentage of population. And as we
have seen, the level of cycling participation changes for a variety of
reasons--mass transit expansion, demographic changes, employment trends,
bicycle infrastructure, economic changes, tax policy, aging of the
population etc.. To attribute changes in participation levels to a
single factor is not accurate or possible. For example, in San
Francisco, part of the increase is due to big changes in the workforce
and type of industries, with younger workers and no need to wear nice
clothes to work.

On 8/5/2016 12:13 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/4/2016 7:00 PM, James wrote:
On 04/08/16 13:04, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/3/2016 10:34 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/2/2016 4:34 PM, James wrote:

This is contrary to popular belief and evidence.

With statistics, it's critical to beware of people that pick and choose
their time-frames.

The AHZs are fond of statements like "cycling participation declined by
30-40% immediately the laws were enforced in different states." Yes,
the
key word is "immediately." What they don't want to admit is the fact
that but the rate quickly recovered.

Sorry, the rate (i.e. number of cyclists per capita) did not recover.
It's still lower than it was before the helmet laws.

And still falling, according to a nation wide survey.

Notice the weasel word in Frank's statement: "number of cyclists per
capita." This is a fairly recent change. The claim used to be that the
number of cyclists went down following the helmet law. Now it's changed
to the claim that the _per capita_ number of cyclists is lower, in other
words, the increase in the number of cyclists was proportionally less
than the increase in the population.

More detail, not that Scharf will understand.

Immediately after the MHL was imposed, there were sudden and serious
drops in the amount of cycling, recorded in various ways, including by
automatic counters that had previously been installed at key bridges
that cyclists would have to cross.

Telephone surveys confirmed that the reason for the sudden drops were
the new helmet laws.

There was no immediate recovery, as Scharf claims. (There was one
survey which found no reduction in cycling, but they achieved that
result by including all the cyclists in an invitational ride that for
the first time, passed through a counting station.)

Eventually, the population increased. With it, the number of cyclists
increased from the depressed post-MHL counts.

Government officials, intent on hiding the effect of the law, were the
first to say "cycling is rising!" But others pointed out that it was
rising only because of strong population growth. It never reached the
per-MHL per-capita levels.

Surveys _still_ confirm that the helmet laws are discouraging cycling.

And BTW, the Australian cities that have tried bike share systems have
found their systems to be failing. The number of rides per bike per day
in those MHL cities is ludicrously low compared to cities with no MHLs.
That's despite efforts to provide vending machines for rented helmets.

And BTW, that's true not only of Australian cities. Seattle has
precisely the same policy, and a similarly failing bike share scheme.
It was intended to be funded privately, but the low use of the bikes
caused the city of Seattle to purchase the enterprise to prop it up with
tax dollars.

Not a decrease in the number of cyclists, but a decrease in the
level of cyclist participation as a percentage of population. And as we
have seen, the level of cycling participation changes for a variety of
reasons--mass transit expansion, demographic changes, employment trends,
bicycle infrastructure, economic changes, tax policy, aging of the
population etc.. To attribute changes in participation levels to a
single factor is not accurate or possible.

Except, of course, that all the changes listed there by Scharf were
gradual. Their effects would be expected to be gradual.

The imposition of the MHLs were sudden, and the drops in cycling
occurred suddenly, immediately after the MHLs. In fact, Oz territories
imposed the laws at slightly different times; and the drops in cycling
occurred in each territory after the laws were enforced.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 12:51:03 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/5/2016 12:13 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/4/2016 7:00 PM, James wrote:
On 04/08/16 13:04, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/3/2016 10:34 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/2/2016 4:34 PM, James wrote:

This is contrary to popular belief and evidence.

With statistics, it's critical to beware of people that pick and choose
their time-frames.

The AHZs are fond of statements like "cycling participation declined by
30-40% immediately the laws were enforced in different states." Yes,
the
key word is "immediately." What they don't want to admit is the fact
that but the rate quickly recovered.

Sorry, the rate (i.e. number of cyclists per capita) did not recover.
It's still lower than it was before the helmet laws.

And still falling, according to a nation wide survey.

Notice the weasel word in Frank's statement: "number of cyclists per
capita." This is a fairly recent change. The claim used to be that the
number of cyclists went down following the helmet law. Now it's changed
to the claim that the _per capita_ number of cyclists is lower, in other
words, the increase in the number of cyclists was proportionally less
than the increase in the population.

More detail, not that Scharf will understand.

Immediately after the MHL was imposed, there were sudden and serious
drops in the amount of cycling, recorded in various ways, including by
automatic counters that had previously been installed at key bridges
that cyclists would have to cross.

Telephone surveys confirmed that the reason for the sudden drops were
the new helmet laws.

There was no immediate recovery, as Scharf claims. (There was one
survey which found no reduction in cycling, but they achieved that
result by including all the cyclists in an invitational ride that for
the first time, passed through a counting station.)

Eventually, the population increased. With it, the number of cyclists
increased from the depressed post-MHL counts.

Government officials, intent on hiding the effect of the law, were the
first to say "cycling is rising!" But others pointed out that it was
rising only because of strong population growth. It never reached the
per-MHL per-capita levels.

Surveys _still_ confirm that the helmet laws are discouraging cycling.

And BTW, the Australian cities that have tried bike share systems have
found their systems to be failing. The number of rides per bike per day
in those MHL cities is ludicrously low compared to cities with no MHLs.
That's despite efforts to provide vending machines for rented helmets.

And BTW, that's true not only of Australian cities. Seattle has
precisely the same policy, and a similarly failing bike share scheme.
It was intended to be funded privately, but the low use of the bikes
caused the city of Seattle to purchase the enterprise to prop it up with
tax dollars.

That's the bike share program and not bicycling in general. https://jakevdp..github.io/blog/2014...ck-in-cycling/ http://bikeportland.org/2013/07/02/w...ing-boom-89491

I doubt there are a bunch of mopey people sitting around Seattle, refusing to ride their bikes because of the MHL. Maybe the MHL causes problems for the bike share people, but there is no demonstrated effect on the day-after-day commuters.

Not that I'm for MHLs -- I'm not. I don't think they are necessary. But if one were imposed tomorrow, very little would change in PDX. Just looking around on the way to work, you would think we already had a MHL. Probably about 80% use helmets. http://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/o...o-essay-182506

Assuming the other 20% were subject to a MHL, some wouldn't wear one. The police would do nothing. It would be business as usual. I'm sure the streets wouldn't empty of cyclists.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 8/5/2016 3:47 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

That's the bike share program and not bicycling in general. https://jakevdp.github.io/blog/2014/...ck-in-cycling/ http://bikeportland.org/2013/07/02/w...ing-boom-89491

I doubt there are a bunch of mopey people sitting around Seattle, refusing to ride their bikes because of the MHL. Maybe the MHL causes problems for the bike share people, but there is no demonstrated effect on the day-after-day commuters.

And as Frank said, when the numbers actually went up, they decided that
they had to exclude some of the cyclists they counted because they
didn't expect those cyclists to be riding on the road where the counting
was being done.

As all the experts agree, MHLs sometimes cause a brief, temporary, drop
in ridership as the cycling population adjusts to the new law. But in
EVERY case of an MHL, the ridership levels quickly recover. That's not
to say cycling levels don't have long-term trends up or down based on a
multitude of factors. But the AHZs attempt to attribute every cycling
reduction to helmet promotion, or helmet laws, has no basis in fact.

Not that I'm for MHLs -- I'm not. I don't think they are necessary. But if one were imposed tomorrow, very little would change in PDX. Just looking around on the way to work, you would think we already had a MHL. Probably about 80% use helmets. http://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/o...o-essay-182506

Well you may not have the number of day workers using bicycles and not
wearing helmets, or the elderly Asian grandparents. Of course all the
professional/technical workers are wearing helmets.

On 8/5/2016 6:47 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 12:51:03 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/5/2016 12:13 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/4/2016 7:00 PM, James wrote:
On 04/08/16 13:04, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/3/2016 10:34 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/2/2016 4:34 PM, James wrote:

This is contrary to popular belief and evidence.

With statistics, it's critical to beware of people that pick and choose
their time-frames.

The AHZs are fond of statements like "cycling participation declined by
30-40% immediately the laws were enforced in different states." Yes,
the
key word is "immediately." What they don't want to admit is the fact
that but the rate quickly recovered.

Sorry, the rate (i.e. number of cyclists per capita) did not recover.
It's still lower than it was before the helmet laws.

And still falling, according to a nation wide survey.

Notice the weasel word in Frank's statement: "number of cyclists per
capita." This is a fairly recent change. The claim used to be that the
number of cyclists went down following the helmet law. Now it's changed
to the claim that the _per capita_ number of cyclists is lower, in other
words, the increase in the number of cyclists was proportionally less
than the increase in the population.

More detail, not that Scharf will understand.

Immediately after the MHL was imposed, there were sudden and serious
drops in the amount of cycling, recorded in various ways, including by
automatic counters that had previously been installed at key bridges
that cyclists would have to cross.

Telephone surveys confirmed that the reason for the sudden drops were
the new helmet laws.

There was no immediate recovery, as Scharf claims. (There was one
survey which found no reduction in cycling, but they achieved that
result by including all the cyclists in an invitational ride that for
the first time, passed through a counting station.)

Eventually, the population increased. With it, the number of cyclists
increased from the depressed post-MHL counts.

Government officials, intent on hiding the effect of the law, were the
first to say "cycling is rising!" But others pointed out that it was
rising only because of strong population growth. It never reached the
per-MHL per-capita levels.

Surveys _still_ confirm that the helmet laws are discouraging cycling.

And BTW, the Australian cities that have tried bike share systems have
found their systems to be failing. The number of rides per bike per day
in those MHL cities is ludicrously low compared to cities with no MHLs.
That's despite efforts to provide vending machines for rented helmets.

And BTW, that's true not only of Australian cities. Seattle has
precisely the same policy, and a similarly failing bike share scheme.
It was intended to be funded privately, but the low use of the bikes
caused the city of Seattle to purchase the enterprise to prop it up with
tax dollars.

That's the bike share program and not bicycling in general. https://jakevdp.github.io/blog/2014/...ck-in-cycling/ http://bikeportland.org/2013/07/02/w...ing-boom-89491

I doubt there are a bunch of mopey people sitting around Seattle, refusing to ride their bikes because of the MHL. Maybe the MHL causes problems for the bike share people, but there is no demonstrated effect on the day-after-day commuters.

First, the statistical analysis link above says that, between October
2012 and June of 2014, when accounting for weather, daylight, etc. etc.,
there was roughly one new bike commuter in Seattle each work day.

That's an increase; but it's hardly dramatic. But more to the point,
that increase is measured for the time period I just listed. Seattle's
MHL was enacted in 2003, so the data doesn't capture the effect of the
MHL on commuting or on other riding. To see that effect, you'd want
data spanning the MHL's enactment and enforcement.

Now, are there "a bunch of mopey people sitting around Seattle, refusing
to ride their bikes because of the MHL"? I think it's fatuous to claim
that there is not "a bunch" of _some_ size. Anyone who's had a teenage
kid probably knows the effect of saying "You're not allowed to ride
unless you wear a helmet." Unless teenagers have changed very recently,
some of them will refuse. So will some adults, because despite the
claims of true believers, there certainly are detriments to helmet use.

Detriments? Many people feel that they cost money that could be better
spent; they are bulky to carry and store; they are fragile; they are
hot; they trap sweat and drip it in riders' eyes; they preclude certain
hair styles, and hair style is important to many people; they represent
government intrusion into a personal decision; and so on.

Really, if there were NO detriments to helmets, there would be no need
for a helmet law; everyone would always wear one out of personal choice.

And as I've said before, the detriments must mean some people choose to
not ride, out of fear of fines, etc. But there is no contingent that
says "I would never have ridden a bicycle, but now that they're making
me buy a helmet and always wear it, I'm going to start riding."

Not that I'm for MHLs -- I'm not. I don't think they are necessary. But if one were imposed tomorrow, very little would change in PDX. Just looking around on the way to work, you would think we already had a MHL. Probably about 80% use helmets. http://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/o...o-essay-182506

The last time I was in Portland, I was surprised by the percentage
wearing helmets, although it wasn't nearly as unanimous as those photos
pretend. I suspect that there are many photos that could be taken that
would show a different reality. (It reminds me of _Bicycling_
magazine's long time policy to never show a white person on a bike
without a helmet.) But keep in mind, bicycling is more than commuting
in traffic. I suspect that there are lots of short trips to stores,
kids riding to friend's house, recreation cruises around quiet
neighborhoods, etc. for which helmets are not worn. Yes, despite the
MHL for kids. That's certainly what I see in Pennsylvania, despite its
kids' MHL.

In my area, I counted (as well as I could) Ohio cyclists for two years.
I got roughly 1/3 in helmets. I think a MHL here would probably have a
bigger negative effect than in Portland, where even your bike advocacy
organizations have joined the fear mongering.

Assuming the other 20% were subject to a MHL, some wouldn't wear one. The police would do nothing.

And of course, if people knew the police would do nothing, the effect on
cycling would be much smaller. Not zero, but smaller. Australia did
dive heavily into enforcement. In fact, some areas in Oz recently
increased fines trememdously, to over $300.

However, given (again) the helmet enthusiasm of many bike advocates, I
wouldn't be shocked if some bike organizations calling for enforcement
of MHLs.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/5/2016 7:52 PM, sms wrote:


Well you may not have the number of day workers using bicycles and not
wearing helmets, or the elderly Asian grandparents. Of course all the
professional/technical workers are wearing helmets.

Absolutely every one!
http://tinyurl.com/h56z96m


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 22:14:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/5/2016 6:47 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 12:51:03 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/5/2016 12:13 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/4/2016 7:00 PM, James wrote:
On 04/08/16 13:04, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/3/2016 10:34 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/2/2016 4:34 PM, James wrote:

This is contrary to popular belief and evidence.

With statistics, it's critical to beware of people that pick and choose
their time-frames.

The AHZs are fond of statements like "cycling participation declined by
30-40% immediately the laws were enforced in different states." Yes,
the
key word is "immediately." What they don't want to admit is the fact
that but the rate quickly recovered.

Sorry, the rate (i.e. number of cyclists per capita) did not recover.
It's still lower than it was before the helmet laws.

And still falling, according to a nation wide survey.

Notice the weasel word in Frank's statement: "number of cyclists per
capita." This is a fairly recent change. The claim used to be that the
number of cyclists went down following the helmet law. Now it's changed
to the claim that the _per capita_ number of cyclists is lower, in other
words, the increase in the number of cyclists was proportionally less
than the increase in the population.

More detail, not that Scharf will understand.

Immediately after the MHL was imposed, there were sudden and serious
drops in the amount of cycling, recorded in various ways, including by
automatic counters that had previously been installed at key bridges
that cyclists would have to cross.

Telephone surveys confirmed that the reason for the sudden drops were
the new helmet laws.

There was no immediate recovery, as Scharf claims. (There was one
survey which found no reduction in cycling, but they achieved that
result by including all the cyclists in an invitational ride that for
the first time, passed through a counting station.)

Eventually, the population increased. With it, the number of cyclists
increased from the depressed post-MHL counts.

Government officials, intent on hiding the effect of the law, were the
first to say "cycling is rising!" But others pointed out that it was
rising only because of strong population growth. It never reached the
per-MHL per-capita levels.

Surveys _still_ confirm that the helmet laws are discouraging cycling.

And BTW, the Australian cities that have tried bike share systems have
found their systems to be failing. The number of rides per bike per day
in those MHL cities is ludicrously low compared to cities with no MHLs.
That's despite efforts to provide vending machines for rented helmets.

And BTW, that's true not only of Australian cities. Seattle has
precisely the same policy, and a similarly failing bike share scheme.
It was intended to be funded privately, but the low use of the bikes
caused the city of Seattle to purchase the enterprise to prop it up with
tax dollars.

That's the bike share program and not bicycling in general. https://jakevdp.github.io/blog/2014/...ck-in-cycling/ http://bikeportland.org/2013/07/02/w...ing-boom-89491

I doubt there are a bunch of mopey people sitting around Seattle, refusing to ride their bikes because of the MHL. Maybe the MHL causes problems for the bike share people, but there is no demonstrated effect on the day-after-day commuters.

First, the statistical analysis link above says that, between October
2012 and June of 2014, when accounting for weather, daylight, etc. etc.,
there was roughly one new bike commuter in Seattle each work day.

That's an increase; but it's hardly dramatic. But more to the point,
that increase is measured for the time period I just listed. Seattle's
MHL was enacted in 2003, so the data doesn't capture the effect of the
MHL on commuting or on other riding. To see that effect, you'd want
data spanning the MHL's enactment and enforcement.

Now, are there "a bunch of mopey people sitting around Seattle, refusing
to ride their bikes because of the MHL"? I think it's fatuous to claim
that there is not "a bunch" of _some_ size. Anyone who's had a teenage
kid probably knows the effect of saying "You're not allowed to ride
unless you wear a helmet." Unless teenagers have changed very recently,
some of them will refuse. So will some adults, because despite the
claims of true believers, there certainly are detriments to helmet use.

Detriments? Many people feel that they cost money that could be better
spent; they are bulky to carry and store; they are fragile; they are
hot; they trap sweat and drip it in riders' eyes; they preclude certain
hair styles, and hair style is important to many people; they represent
government intrusion into a personal decision; and so on.

Really, if there were NO detriments to helmets, there would be no need
for a helmet law; everyone would always wear one out of personal choice.

And as I've said before, the detriments must mean some people choose to
not ride, out of fear of fines, etc. But there is no contingent that
says "I would never have ridden a bicycle, but now that they're making
me buy a helmet and always wear it, I'm going to start riding."

Not that I'm for MHLs -- I'm not. I don't think they are necessary. But if one were imposed tomorrow, very little would change in PDX. Just looking around on the way to work, you would think we already had a MHL. Probably about 80% use helmets. http://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/o...o-essay-182506

The last time I was in Portland, I was surprised by the percentage
wearing helmets, although it wasn't nearly as unanimous as those photos
pretend. I suspect that there are many photos that could be taken that
would show a different reality. (It reminds me of _Bicycling_
magazine's long time policy to never show a white person on a bike
without a helmet.) But keep in mind, bicycling is more than commuting
in traffic. I suspect that there are lots of short trips to stores,
kids riding to friend's house, recreation cruises around quiet
neighborhoods, etc. for which helmets are not worn. Yes, despite the
MHL for kids. That's certainly what I see in Pennsylvania, despite its
kids' MHL.

In my area, I counted (as well as I could) Ohio cyclists for two years.
I got roughly 1/3 in helmets. I think a MHL here would probably have a
bigger negative effect than in Portland, where even your bike advocacy
organizations have joined the fear mongering.

Assuming the other 20% were subject to a MHL, some wouldn't wear one. The police would do nothing.

And of course, if people knew the police would do nothing, the effect on
cycling would be much smaller. Not zero, but smaller. Australia did
dive heavily into enforcement. In fact, some areas in Oz recently
increased fines trememdously, to over $300.

However, given (again) the helmet enthusiasm of many bike advocates, I
wouldn't be shocked if some bike organizations calling for enforcement
of MHLs.

The anti-pro helmet argument seems to view the subject as an all or
nothing situation.

I wonder whether, to some extent, it may be simply an additional, or
minor additional reason. It is raining cats and dogs; I just had my
hair done; I'd have to squeeze into those silly tight pants; my bike
shoes are too tight; and that helmet is the wrong color to match my
blouse.

Wearing a helmet may well be a reason but perhaps not the whole
reason.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 7:14:19 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
snip

The last time I was in Portland, I was surprised by the percentage
wearing helmets, although it wasn't nearly as unanimous as those photos
pretend. I suspect that there are many photos that could be taken that
would show a different reality. (It reminds me of _Bicycling_
magazine's long time policy to never show a white person on a bike
without a helmet.) But keep in mind, bicycling is more than commuting
in traffic. I suspect that there are lots of short trips to stores,
kids riding to friend's house, recreation cruises around quiet
neighborhoods, etc. for which helmets are not worn. Yes, despite the
MHL for kids. That's certainly what I see in Pennsylvania, despite its
kids' MHL.

In my area, I counted (as well as I could) Ohio cyclists for two years.
I got roughly 1/3 in helmets. I think a MHL here would probably have a
bigger negative effect than in Portland, where even your bike advocacy
organizations have joined the fear mongering.

I was one of the original board members of our fear-mongering BTA, and we opposed an MHL, and I still don't think one is necessary. So go make your case, but if you lose, its not armageddon.

As for what the photos "pretend" to show, those are typical photos, and actually the percentage wearing helmets is higher on the west side. You get a lower rate on the east side, and downtown I see plenty of the bag dress and Birkenstock set wandering around, helmetless, on their old Varsities, the cycling cap fixie set and the DUII crowd -- and those who just don't want to wear a helmet. We all live together in harmony -- ebony and ivory.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 22:19:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/5/2016 7:52 PM, sms wrote:


Well you may not have the number of day workers using bicycles and not
wearing helmets, or the elderly Asian grandparents. Of course all the
professional/technical workers are wearing helmets.

Absolutely every one!
http://tinyurl.com/h56z96m

It might be noted that the elderly Asian grandparents may well have
been riding their bicycle, on a nearly daily basis, for fifty or
sixty, or even seventy, years with no problems while the bloke with
the plastic hat bought his bike last week.

From the arguments I see here the bloke with the new bike reckons he
might be safer with the helmet while the old grand folks never felt
endangered at all.
--
cheers,

John B.