On 5/14/2019 9:14 AM, Duane wrote:
On 13/05/2019 6:27 p.m., Sir Ridesalot wrote:


The problem with statistics seems to be that one can pick and choose
which ones to use to support their position.


Like touting that the accident rate went up drastically (whatever
drastically means) but not mentioning that cycling participation
(whatever participation means) went up 75%?

Assuming the statistics were well formed, it would be interesting to
compare the rate of increased cycling to the rate of increased
accidents.Â* Most white papers that I've read regarding participation
indicate increased participation reduces percentage of accidents.

It would be _really_ interesting if Duane would read just a little bit
about what's being discussed.

The "cycling participation ... went up by 75%" seems to refer to the
Moorehead report on the mile of "protected" bike lane in Columbus, Ohio.
On page 8 of that report, Moorehead brags in bold type that "Level of
Bicycling" had a "~75% increase."

But on page 12, he doesn't spotlight the change in crash counts nearly
as boldly. In fact, he never lists it as a percent change. Instead, he
notes that in 2011 to 2014 there were a total of six crashes.

After the "protection" was installed, in less than two years (2016 to
September 2017) there were 24 crashes.

So apparently, this facility increased the average annual crash count
from 1.5 to over 12.

Duane, do you want to calculate the percent increase in crashes? Or
shall I do the simple math for you?

Hint: The percent increase in crashes is WAY bigger than the increase in
riding. The riders are at FAR more danger now.

The paper _should_ be available at

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf


That URL works for me every time I use it on every machine. It's worked
for other people who have discussed the report online. I apologize if it
somehow isn't working for some others. I see no reason it should be
restricted by geography.

- Frank Krygowski