Xplora wrote:I reckon it's unarguable that if the process to develop the law is flawed, then it certainly is grounds for abolition particularly when background data isn't available to show this is a really big improvement to our nation. The huge numbers of cyclists in other cities and countries around the world show that it is a good idea to have as many riders as possible, if only for green reasons. I don't care about the green angle much (born to a family of 3rd generation mechanics) but it is a good reason, internationally, to maximise bike use. There is enough steel in an engine block to make 6 bikes, but no petrol is required to move those bikes once created LOL
As I think I've said before, geting a government to accept that cycling, or active transport generally, is a policy objective worth pushing is the hard part. I don't know if, once I got them to swallow that particular camel, I'd lose too much sleep over whether they strain at the gnat of MHL repeal, myself. So to speak.
Xplora wrote:
I think a dirty little secret on the MHL Is that it shows how the slippery slope occurs in public policy. An ill considered lie is presented and accepted, and once the law is changed the landscape changes so much that the possibility of return is impossible without a very long hard slog. This is definitely beyond the cyclist lobby right now.
Yes, changing the status quo is hard. Nothing new there. What lie are you talking about anyway? Would Hanlon's Razor perhaps do the job?
Xplora wrote:
The rules around nuclear waste and open cut mining are similar - once you start a major open cut mine, you can't go back. That mine is there forever in human terms. The nuclear waste is likely to outlast human evolution (let alone civilisation itself). You have to be very conservative when considering the impacts of these decisions. We have to look at 20 years of MHL and realise that nothing has improved for riders, cycling, congestion and general wellbeing as a result of the law. We aren't as cyclist friendly as any European nation despite being flatter, better climate, more outdoorsy culture, etc.
MHLs are not the only reason for this, not even the main reason if you ask me. And the analogy with nuclear waste is perhaps the wierdest non sequitur of this whole thread. I can't be bothered reading through the whole thing to make sure, but it's right up there.
Xplora wrote:
If the evidence doesn't heavily weigh in favour of the law, then it stands that abolition is easier than enforcement.
That's not how it's done, like it or not. Is there evidence, actual empirical evidence, supporting Mandatory Bell Laws? I doubt anyone's bothered looking, but there it is, to name but one example. There's a good reason for that too: that sort of evidence is difficult to obtain. Now, if you want to argue that MHLs by their nature demand this sort of proof where other laws don't, by all means give it a red-hot go, but you'll have to actually make that case. As a general proposition, it doesn't hold water.