At least we would be removing a law which positively discourages cycling and gives an erronous impression that it is particularly unsafe.softy wrote:Good pickup, although the problem is even if tomorrow, they removed MHL, we don't know for sure if cycling per capita would increase. Even if it did, it could be due to natural trends, increased popularity or any other uncontrolled effect. I do believe it does inhibit casual riding, but it is just my belief. What we need is a pilot program in one area, to see if it is true. Problem is convincing governments to try. I suppose with all these high profile accidents we have buckleys chance.il padrone wrote:Interesting to see some data that I had missed (from 2012), confirming the impact of the MHL on cycling numbers.
The Australian population aged nine years and over grew by 58.4% between 1986 and 2006 and the daily average number of bicycle trips grew by only 20.9%, representing a net decline in cycling.
....The proportion of Australian workers riding a bicycle to work from 1986 to 2006 (measured every five years in the Census) has been largely unchanged at about 1% of journeys.
....There are three likely explanations for the per capita decline in cycling in Australia. These are the historical prioritization of the motor vehicle in urban planning, lack of investment in cycling infrastructure, and mandatory helmet legislation.
Worth a try I reckon, but I agree it ain't going to happen soon - but we can keep hassling to remove this silly law.
DS