Only if you think that helmets do nothing to protect us in bike crashes. Or if you think there is no correlation between choosing to wear a helmet and intelligence.
Either that or a correlation between cycling friendly countries and intelligence.
@Michael - Umm, you have claimed natural selection (wrt MHL) to somehow be a factor that influences cyclists. I would invite you to bolster you claim - I call it false.
Yep it's my opinion that equating MHLs with natural selection is a trite canard - what would you call it a well reasoned position?
It's not my opinion that in threads about MHLs someone usually mentions it - it is a fact. Case in point - this thread and your mention of it. Google can find you many examples, maybe you make a point of doing it? Straws and oatmeal, organ donors, are other favourite hysterical comments found in most MHL threads.
I'll stick by my opinion that it is a trite canard - thanks.
I stand corrected, natural selection is regularly mentioned which suggests to me it is has some validity.
As you would know natural selection refers to evolutionary advancement of a species based on the characteristics of superior members of that species. Superior in relation to the environment in which they are to live and survive. So if you look at cyclists as a species (a subset of the human species) and consider that those cyclists who choose to wear a helmet (in the absence of MHLs) as being superior (in terms of self-preservation and survival) then in the long run, as a result of natural selection, helmet wearers will prevail.
Clearly in the short term natural selection has no practical application in relation to MHLs but it is a valid philosophical position.
Unfortunately the term ‘natural selection’ has distracted from my real point which is simply that MHLs should be repealed and nature allowed to take its course in terms of individual safety and the outcomes. To do otherwise is just messing with nature.
Yes, a well reasoned position.
>I stand corrected, natural selection is regularly mentioned which suggests to me it is has some validity.
Argumentum ad populum? The old bandwagon fallacy. How did the popular idea of a flat earth work out? That the earth is the centre of the universe? An appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy - a very transparent one at that, and lends no weight to an argument.
I agree that MHLs should be repealed, but this has nothing to do with your churlish wish for some to be injured.
I would hope that instead of the popular perception in Australia of a bicycle being a kid's toy for use in the park, or that riding a bike is a way to get somewhere after being done DUI, or that it is the preserve of lycra clad and helmeted Cadel Evans wannabees or even simply an annoyance on the road as you rush to get to the cake shop for your daily dose of diabetes.
That maybe, just maybe riding a bike would be viewed as a normal activity as it is in many parts of the world, and instead of the current us and them attitude more people would have an us and us attitude as cycling would be encouraged rather than discouraged. Bike share schemes may be succesful and many more people may be encouraged to take short jaunts on their bicycles rather than drive their cars.
But then again one man's well reasoned argument is another man's hysterical ravings so I can't imagine what the majority of Europe feels is common sense and normal will have much impact on you and your wish for harm to befall others.
(BTW there is no real world evidence to support your basic premis, but don't let facts get in the way).
Or if we aren't sold on natural selection we could just convince the majority of our population that cars with airbags are safe.
For safety's sake, drive short distances.
Are MHLs a barrier to entry? If yes then removing them will get more people cycling. How many? Who knows. But this "expert" says that they are and as such they are an impediment to more widespread cycling. Not the only impediment, but certainly an impediment.
If MHLs are not a barrier to entry then how do you explain the terrible usage rates for the Melbourne and Brisbane bike share schemes? The sort of spur of the moment, ad hoc trips which bike share schemes promote are not possible with MHLs - they are exactly the sort of bicycle trips which MHLs impact the most. If the schemes were successful and you saw many other people riding around on bike share bikes do you think that may encourage others to ride a bicycle as well?
Why isn't Melbourne bike share working?
I think it is naive to suggest that it is only because of helmet laws.
Is it over priced?
Does $19.60 for up to 2 hours represent value?
Is $10 for every additional 30 minutes (or part there of I assume) represent value?
So if a tourist took a bike for 4 hours it would be $59.60
So they don't want tourists using it and locals possibly own a bike or have decided they don't want to use a bike
The bike share covers a very small area. so if you actually wanted to go someware it doesn't work or is very expensive.
Makes me think the Adelaide city bikes are a wonderful service
Bike rental and bike share are two very different things.
I'm guessing that you are suggesting that the relative cost of bike share in Australia is a more compelling reason as to why it is a failure here rather than being due to MHLs?
So how much does it cost to take a London bike share bike for 4 hours? The numbers are here (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/14811.aspx) - 4 hours will cost GBP36 which is $57 AUD. Basically exactly the same price as Melbourne. Sure the pricing schemes are very different and its only by a happy coincidence that the 4 hour costs are identical but if you bother to look you will find that Melbourne bike share charges are not substantially different from most other places. Based on the experience in the rest of the world where schemes with similar rates are a success this would indicate that the Melbourne costs are not the main reason for its failure.
The station map doesn't look too bad and for short trips in the CBD (the intended use of bike share) there seems to be ample coverage - http://www.melbournebikeshare.com.au/stationmap.
Like every other bike share scheme the incentive is to make short trips and return the bike. In Melbourne I can pay $2.60 and make multiple short trips all day and not incur any extra costs. Which is cheaper and more flexible than the other public transport alternatives. By design anything other than short trips is very costly so as to discourage monopolising of the bikes, same as in any of the other bike share schemes.
This from the London bike share page - "To hire for more than a couple of hours it might be cheaper for you to use a company that specialises in hiring for longer periods."
Bike share success is close to the only apples to apples comparison we have to cycling here and in places without MHLs. Isn't it naive to discount the failure of Australian bike share schemes as being the direct result of MHLs?
The wikipedia page on bike share (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_sharing_system) is an interesting read. Scheme after scheme is a shown to be a rip roaring success and then tucked away at the end is the abject failure of the ones in Australia. I would say it is disingenuous to try and argue that MHLs aren't the major factor behind their failure, even the owners seem to know this - JCDecaux Australia chief executive said there was "no doubt" the mandatory use of helmets constrained the use of the scheme.
My impression from seeing bikes in use, not the data, is that the bike hire systems work in Adelaide and Brisbane. Adelaide's scheme provides helmets, borrow during daylight hours, organise with person by showing ID, return to a few nodes and free, and seems more popular with tourists and non-bike owners for weekend rides along the Torrens. Brisbane's scheme does not provide helmets, borrow any time, organise a card system beforehand to unlock from bicycle parking, many nodes and charged via credit card, and seems more popular with locals.
In Melbourne you need a helmet.....after all you may get hit by a falling sheep .......