simonn wrote:I think the whole anti-MHL thing is a waste of time which could be spent trying to get better infrastructure in place which would actually make a difference to the number and safety of cyclists.
In fairness though, given that democracy works by way of critical mass (there is a tipping point where suddenly public opinion refuses to be silenced) then wouldn't increasing bike numbers be the best way forward? Safety comes in numbers, MHL lowers this number. The numbers would surely be padded out by the young and the vulnerable - I don't recall older people riding when I was 11, but I do recall a lot of kids - and these people would be the impetus for the changes you describe.
Better connections of cycleways, more sensible speed limits, new paths - Clover's greenways in Sydney have pretty much proven that infrastructure is extraordinarily difficult to create and maintain. Lots of people can't use them without serious inconvenience and personal risk either because the greenways aren't respected.
Speed limits are meaningless if there is no enforcement. More enforcement costs money. And willpower, which is in short supply as well.
Infrastructure is meaningless if there is no one to use it. Building it costs money. When it comes to urban sprawl, it costs an enormous amount of money to build it.
MHL is meaningless if few are prepared to ride a bike because of it. Removing it costs nothing. That's the big draw card for me. Cost is nothing. It actually reduces enforcement costs as well.
You can't create a feeling of safety while telling people they couldn't possibly consider riding their bike at 20kmh on the segregated bikeway without a helmet.
I think your proposals and efforts are great, but I think we'll struggle to get that traction if we need utility cyclists to wear helmets. If you want to be a boy racer chasing KOMs on the local descents in your team kit and suck wheels at 50kmh on the M7, a helmet is a wise choice. I AM that guy. But we have to recognise the law is an ass, and it is hurting our efforts for better passing laws, infrastructure, and legal protections like speed limits when we accept that the MHL is valid.
Would you close shave an unhelmeted 10 year old on a BMX bike at 60kmh in your local neighbourhood? That's the basic question we need to ask. If you would, sure, a helmet for that impact is needed. If you rightly think that's a crime against humanity, then perhaps we need to tell drivers that they are responsible for their cars and the humans near those cars (as we do in every other scenario), rather than telling them a helmet is more important than their humanity as a driver?