Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

Hum de hum de hum...

...Effect on cycle use...

...immediate reduction of 36% for secondary schoolchildren...

...In particular, more women now cycle...

Hang on just one bloody minute!!!!

By 2004,...

Am I to understand that MHLs in the NT have been a little relaxed for EIGHT+ years now and the safetycrats do not have an MCG full of shattered corpses as a position strengthening campaign prop to fuel their demands for moto lids and flouro body armour for all cyclists, skaters, scooter riders and joggers nationwide? No doubt they were strident enough when the relaxation was first proposed.

I know that MHL did cause an initial drop in cyclist when they were first introduced. People just didn't want to ride with a helmet when they could ride with one before. But...
In reality how many people do you think will suddenly take up cycling because they don't have to wear a helmet?

I think the main issue is that the cycling culture in Australia has changed. This may (or may not) have been caused by the MHL which discouraged a lot of people at the time and made them stop cycling. These days cycling to others isn't really a way of transport. This is helped by the fact that there are so many other options now to get from a to b (like public transport, cars) and I don't think people realize that you can average at 25-30km on a bike and get to your destination faster that by the car or public transport. I know that most (if not all) commuter cyclists actually started cycling as a recreational activity before they actually thought about commuting by bike. I'm not sure that the abolishment of MHL will suddenly change this view and that there will be a flooding of new utility cyclists. Until this view/culture changes I am thinking that to get more utility cyclists we need more people to start cycling for fun/fitness

So how does MHL affect the recreational cyclists and in particular those just starting out or thinking about cycling? Do they think about the helmet before the bike or the bike before the helmet. In my circumstances (this my circumstances it may or may not be applicable to other people, I'm happy to hear about yours) it was more of a "hey I want to start cycling, I'll go buy a bike and the buying a helmet was more of an afterthought much like pumps, spare tube, multitool etc.

What I am trying to say is that MHL did cause the initial drop of cycling (as shown in your graphs). Also there is a big difference between the effects of the start and end of MHL. At the introduction many people felt it was a major inconvenience and then quit cycling. At the (possible) end of MHL you have still got to encourage people to cycle, it's not like the repealing of MHL will make random people to start cycling. I believe that repealing MHL will not get cycling numbers to suddenly increase the same amount it had dropped. It won't be able to reverse all these things that have happened after the drop in cycling numbers that was because of MHL

Philipthelam wrote:I know that MHL did cause an initial drop in cyclist when they were first introduced.

Great we can agree on that!

Philipthelam wrote:People just didn't want to ride with a helmet when they could ride with one before.

We can also agreed on that too!

Philipthelam wrote: But...
In reality how many people do you think will suddenly take up cycling because they don't have to wear a helmet?

I think the main issue is that the cycling culture in Australia has changed.

Amazing! We also can agree on this!

Philipthelam wrote:I know that most (if not all) commuter cyclists actually started cycling as a recreational activity before they actually thought about commuting by bike.

WOW! Unless this it a mistype, that is an incredibly naive statement! Most commuter cyclists I know are NOT recreational cyclists! While my peer group is certainly not representative of the "Average" Australian cyclist, it certainly isn't unique!

Philipthelam wrote: I'm not sure that the abolishment of MHL will suddenly change this view and that there will be a flooding of new utility cyclists. Until this view/culture changes I am thinking that to get more utility cyclists we need more people to start cycling for fun/fitness.

WOW! You have the entire thing topsy turvy. I don't know where I should start. That is like suggesting that in order to encourage more people to drive cars for transport we need more people to start driving race cars for recreation!


Those last two statements epitomises how cycling is seen now in Australia including by some cycling enthusiasts. It is sad how far cycling has fallen.

Philipthelam wrote:I know that most (if not all) commuter cyclists actually started cycling as a recreational activity before they actually thought about commuting by bike.

that is certainly not the case at my work.
The majority of riders there did not ride recreationally, only to and from work. Eventually they start seeing cycling as more than transport. A work mate brought Strava into the mix and in the last month or two some of the commuters have started riding further and faster. So now the bike has moved from transport to fitness and fun (competition).

... and to keep it on topic, I quote Simonn, "Helmets good, MHL bad."

I think there are so many other factors outside of mhl that affect cycling rates that a narrow focus/debate will never provide all of the answers.

Supportive infrastructure etc which is different in all cities etc all affects the ease and attractiveness of cycling. I have friends who don't ride to work because they don't want to ride in major roads without cycle paths. A the same time, Perth just revamped the major city road, st George's terrace, with no cycle lane. This says something about the cities willingness to embrace cycling as a legitimate inner city transport option.

I think that when you look at overall health within Australia as well, the increase in lethargy within society is another major factor totally unrelated to mhl. Kids play video games these days instead of playing outside until its dark.

Perhaps mhl play a small part but a sociological study would need to examine as many major factors as possible to obtain useful data.

Philipthelam wrote: I think the main issue is that the cycling culture in Australia has changed. This may (or may not) have been caused by the MHL which discouraged a lot of people at the time and made them stop cycling. These days cycling to others isn't really a way of transport.

Yes, and that is precisely the problem. Cycling as a means of transport has been actively discouraged by MHLs and now cycling is not seen as transport, only as a sport. The irony of cycling no longer being seen as a transport option as the roads get more and more clogged seems to be lost on you.

Cycling should be booming as a transport option now that it is bloody hard to get around by car.

Philipthelam wrote:This is helped by the fact that there are so many other options now to get from a to b (like public transport, cars) and I don't think people realize that you can average at 25-30km on a bike and get to your destination faster that by the car or public transport.

Yeah, I know what you mean, 50 years ago there were, ooh let me see, um, more railway lines in Melbourne as there are today (StKilda and Port Melbourne are now trams), a few of the tram lines have been extended but no new lines from memory (in fact a few less than 100 years ago). Sorry, this argument flies in the face of reality. At the very least public transport has not improved in Melbourne (look up the number of train movements per day in the 1960s, more than today, also tram frequency changed a few years ago from every 12 minutes during the day to every 15 minutes) and while we may have better roads now the average speed is lower because of congestion.

Cycling should be booming as a transport option now that it is so packed on our deteriorated public transport infrastructure and that it is bloody hard to get around by car.

Philipthelam wrote:I know that most (if not all) commuter cyclists actually started cycling as a recreational activity before they actually thought about commuting by bike. I'm not sure that the abolishment of MHL will suddenly change this view and that there will be a flooding of new utility cyclists. Until this view/culture changes I am thinking that to get more utility cyclists we need more people to start cycling for fun/fitness

Crap, got any proof of this or are you just making it up? I don't cycle recreationally, I commute, it is a piece of transport for me. MHLs discourage utility cycling and your argument makes this point very well.

DS

Evo6point5 wrote:I think there are so many other factors outside of mhl that affect cycling rates that a narrow focus/debate will never provide all of the answers.

I completely agree.

Evo6point5 wrote:Perhaps mhl play a small part but a sociological study would need to examine as many major factors as possible to obtain useful data.

I and many others believe that it isn't a small part but a significant part. We don't need studies we need to get rid of MHLs.

evopoint, are you going to provide the 50K required to fund such a study?

There is no study of these things outside Australia because they just don't see the point. It would be like studying the effectiveness of raising children by lions in the wild... the MHL is a waste of time for most of the world, they won't study it. The writing is already on the wall... cycling is an effective replacement for walking. It is no more dangerous than walking... the hysteria about helmets won't go away because it just doesn't make sense to any sensible person.

To the less sensible, well it's fine because they don't have the ability to see the loss of freedom as a bad thing.

DavidS wrote: MHLs discourage utility cycling

I have a single speed Repco cruiser i got from the tip and use to get shopping from the nearby supermarket (which i would say fits the term "utility cycling") and i keep an $18 Big W helmet in the basket so i just throw it on when i head out. If there is any kind of cycling where a helmet is NOT going to be a problem i would say it is "utility cycling" where you are going little more than jogging pace and wouldn't work up a sweat in a month of sundays. Just saying.

high_tea wrote:I just don't see a lot of data that's convincing on either side of the debate. For what it's worth, I think that reflects poorly on the implementors; either they haven't bothered collecting it or it doesn't back their point of view. Either way, it's a poor show. What's done is done, though.

The entire 'research' methodology associated with the introduction of MHL gave very little consideration to issues of the impact on bicycle use and the reduction in cyclist numbers. This all cuts back to those who were the real movers behind this law - they had no real interest in cycling conditions, just bleeding heart surgeons lamenting a few cyclists on their operating tables. Why were they not lamenting the hundreds of motorists and drunk pedestrians on those same operating tables?

Evo6point5 wrote:I think there are so many other factors outside of mhl that affect cycling rates that a narrow focus/debate will never provide all of the answers.

Supportive infrastructure etc which is different in all cities etc all affects the ease and attractiveness of cycling. I have friends who don't ride to work because they don't want to ride in major roads without cycle paths. A the same time, Perth just revamped the major city road, st George's terrace, with no cycle lane. This says something about the cities willingness to embrace cycling as a legitimate inner city transport option.

I think that when you look at overall health within Australia as well, the increase in lethargy within society is another major factor totally unrelated to mhl. Kids play video games these days instead of playing outside until its dark.

I don't think any of those speaking against MHLs on here would disagree with you about these points. They are all part of an overall campaign required to boost cycle use. It's simply that getting rid of the helmet law will make increased cycle use through these other things significantly easier to achieve.

ldrcycles wrote:

DavidS wrote: MHLs discourage utility cycling

I have a single speed Repco cruiser i got from the tip and use to get shopping from the nearby supermarket (which i would say fits the term "utility cycling") and i keep an $18 Big W helmet in the basket so i just throw it on when i head out. If there is any kind of cycling where a helmet is NOT going to be a problem i would say it is "utility cycling" where you are going little more than jogging pace and wouldn't work up a sweat in a month of sundays. Just saying.

When people ride for recreation they ride fast speeds and are likely to already choose to wear a helmet .
So for this type of riding a helmet does not discourage riding as much.

However for utilty where speeds are lower and the inconvenience of the helmet is higher
The impact is larger.

You can see this is cycling numbers.
Most cyclists are recreational riders.

damhooligan wrote:You can see this is cycling numbers.
Most cyclists are recreational riders.

Additionally in Europe helmet wearing is much more common among recreational riders than utility riders.

simonn wrote:

il padrone wrote:What happened in 1991??


From Charting Transport

Relaxation of tariffs on imported cars? There was much bigger rise in car journeys than could have been accounted for by just cyclists moving to cars.

Isn't that interesting, people using public transport fell between 1991 and 1996. What caused that?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20068083" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cycling in Berlin - reporter misses the point why it is so popular.

mikesbytes wrote:Isn't that interesting, people using public transport fell between 1991 and 1996. What caused that?

You weren't aware of the long-term decline in PT patronage through the 1960s-1990s? It pretty much mirrors the long-term rise in private motor vehicle use.

Long term. Nothing to do with the rapid decline in bicycle use between 1991 and 1996. Cycling to work was rising before 1991, and took a considerable time to recover after 1996. In several cities it still has not recovered to what it was in 1991.

With the government neglecting PT and spending oodles on roads for the last 50 years is it any wonder the public transport use has declined so much?

Ross wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20068083

Cycling in Berlin - reporter misses the point why it is so popular.

I think I'm missing your point. There are a host of reasons in that article on why cycling is popular in Berlin.

mikesbytes wrote:Isn't that interesting, people using public transport fell between 1991 and 1996. What caused that?

I'd hazard a guess, the times were favourable to car usage. Steady - and declining in real terms, petrol prices for most of the decade < .70cpl. Reducing tariffs on imported cars started under Button. Reasonable USD v AUD exchange to the mid 90s....before the aussie went into a steady decline later.

Philipthelam wrote:I know that most (if not all) commuter cyclists actually started cycling as a recreational activity before they actually thought about commuting by bike.

I'd agree, if I'm following! Maybe your choice of words has set people off, but in my small circle, it's was from riding suburb to suburb/beach/school as kids in the 60s/70s.....with the independence from mum/dad that entails, guess that could be taken as recreational. When I think of that word now, the polar opposite springs to mind - kids chauffeured to the park/path in the 4wd, with rack on the back, for a ride.

Despite the unfortunate image of helmeted Germans, they don't make an appearance for cycling.

hunch wrote:it's was from riding suburb to suburb/beach/school as kids in the 60s/70s.....with the independence from mum/dad that entails, guess that could be taken as recreational.

Sounds like utility cycling to me Riding to go places, rather than cycle-sport or touring

human909 wrote:With the government neglecting PT and spending oodles on roads for the last 50 years is it any wonder the public transport use has declined so much?

Ross wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20068083

Cycling in Berlin - reporter misses the point why it is so popular.

I think I'm missing your point. There are a host of reasons in that article on why cycling is popular in Berlin.

BBC wrote:I have cycled in London but gave it up after too-many rants at a white van. But in Berlin, it is a joy. Firstly, the city is pretty flat, and secondly, there are endless cycle tracks. Thirdly, everybody has a bike - so car-drivers are probably also cyclists in their other lives and so keep their eyes wide open.

It has little to do with helmets, it's about the mainly flat terrain, lots of cycle paths and the good behaviour of motorists.

Ross wrote:It has little to do with helmets

How do you know that? You don't.

What we do know is:
-That in places where utility cycling is commonplace helmets aren't seen often. When surveyed the population of utility cyclists are generally against helmets.
-That in places where MHLs have been introduced the immediate impact on cycling rates is quite evident. Furthermore it is MUCH more difficult to encourage utility cycling.

Ross wrote:lots of cycle paths and the good behaviour of motorists.

This is no doubt very important. But when the roads are largely empty of cyclists where is the impetus for building cycle paths and promoting positive motorist behaviour?

As has been repeated thousands of times. Getting rid of MHLs are definitely not the only thing that needs to be done. However while they remain in place encouraging utility cycling is going to be MUCH more difficult. The evidence is clear.

il padrone wrote:

hunch wrote:it's was from riding suburb to suburb/beach/school as kids in the 60s/70s.....with the independence from mum/dad that entails, guess that could be taken as recreational.

Sounds like utility cycling to me Riding to go places, rather than cycle-sport or touring

Beaten

Sooo, does anybody actually know if the NT situation is actually having any negative consequences?

Mulger bill wrote:

il padrone wrote:

hunch wrote:it's was from riding suburb to suburb/beach/school as kids in the 60s/70s.....with the independence from mum/dad that entails, guess that could be taken as recreational.

Sounds like utility cycling to me Riding to go places, rather than cycle-sport or touring

Beaten

Sooo, does anybody actually know if the NT situation is actually having any negative consequences?

Revenue from bicycle helmet sales have dropped.

Notice too the preference people in Berlin seem to have for lycra.................................





Not!