human909 wrote:Ross wrote:It has little to do with helmets
How do you know that? You don't.
You don't know that it IS to do with MHL.
Seriously, cyclists, or potential cyclists are generally going to be more put off from cycling because of having to ride up hills and therefore arriving at their destination all hot, sweaty and tired, lack of cycle paths and for those that do ride on the road they don't want to be killed or maimed by an ignorant or arrogant driver. Wearing a helmet is a minor inconvenience (if an inconvenience at all). Doesn't anyone know how to use a comb or a hairbrush? What happens to your hair when you aren't wearing a helmet, doesn't it get blown around as you ride?
human909 wrote: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.
Statistics can be skewed to prove or disprove any POV. For every 10 cites you find 'proving' MHL discourage cycling I'm sure I could find 10 'proving' the opposite.