Comedian wrote:Yes, and academia these days is all about getting sponsors to fund research. Given that the states who have their transport policies run by car centric organisations - having research done like this isn't going to happen. On the other hand, there is lots of money for research that supports MHL. I'm pretty sure this is one of the primary reasons why our research doesn't match research from anywhere else..
It also has a part to do with incentives for study. Academic study is HEAVILY biased just like most things in life. Three most prominent factors:
-Most 'academic' research is motivated more about completing a comprehensive and rigorous paper. The secondary and tertiary effects of MHLs are pretty hard to measure and the data is slim. So smart research would try to avoid starting a research paper that has inherent difficulty of quantification. (Because almost everything needs quantification these days. Rather than logical thought. *I'm a maths major*)
-The simple quantity of academic researchers in various fields. In the medical field there are plenty of people wanting to complete papers, and plenty of available hospital data. Since a question cyclists often get asked is were they wearing a helmet the paper hands itself to researchers on a platter.
-Internal bias of the researcher. You wish this wasn't the case but looking a the number of papers in Australia compare to The Netherlands. Yet The Netherlands have orders of magnitude higher number of cycling.