|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Cheap bright tail light
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/22/2014 3:39 PM, Joerg wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: [...] Seriously - you brought up the paper at http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/copenhagen2.pdf Let's discuss it! Crashes - all - observed before 389 --- observed after 311. Fatalities went from 3 to zero. So, there. How can it be more clear? Perhaps it can be made more clear if you actually read the paper? As they attempted to explain, the "Observed before" included situations where several things about the road had changed. One major point of the paper was their method for separating out the effects of non-cycletrack changes, to more accurately gauge the change due to the cycletrack alone. As they explain, the proper comparison is the one between "Expected AFTER" and "Observed AFTER." That change is: 295 vs. 311. In other words, they'd expect 295 total crashes among all user types if there were no cycletracks, but they found 311 instead. The increase was due to the cycletracks. It's true, that's not a terrible increase, only 5%. But that's because you're talking mostly about non-injury crashes (very mild ones) and you're including mostly crashes between two motor vehicles. Much more interesting to us should be bicyclist injuries, no? That's who cycletracks are _claimed_ to help, after all. Yet bicyclist (and moped) injuries are absolutely higher, no matter which data columns you compare. It seems your argument is to ignore the bad injury data for cyclists, the people you're claiming cycletracks must benefit, and look only at the one bit of data dominated by motorists, very few of whom were injured anyway. It's a strange argument. The one thing I found confusing about the paper was their use of "Safety Effect" as a table heading instead of "Hazard Effect", since positive numbers in that column appear to indicate lower safety. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Cheap bright tail light
On 9/23/2014 12:57 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/22/2014 3:39 PM, Joerg wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: [...] Seriously - you brought up the paper at http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/copenhagen2.pdf Let's discuss it! Crashes - all - observed before 389 --- observed after 311. Fatalities went from 3 to zero. So, there. How can it be more clear? Perhaps it can be made more clear if you actually read the paper? As they attempted to explain, the "Observed before" included situations where several things about the road had changed. One major point of the paper was their method for separating out the effects of non-cycletrack changes, to more accurately gauge the change due to the cycletrack alone. As they explain, the proper comparison is the one between "Expected AFTER" and "Observed AFTER." That change is: 295 vs. 311. In other words, they'd expect 295 total crashes among all user types if there were no cycletracks, but they found 311 instead. The increase was due to the cycletracks. It's true, that's not a terrible increase, only 5%. But that's because you're talking mostly about non-injury crashes (very mild ones) and you're including mostly crashes between two motor vehicles. Much more interesting to us should be bicyclist injuries, no? That's who cycletracks are _claimed_ to help, after all. Yet bicyclist (and moped) injuries are absolutely higher, no matter which data columns you compare. It seems your argument is to ignore the bad injury data for cyclists, the people you're claiming cycletracks must benefit, and look only at the one bit of data dominated by motorists, very few of whom were injured anyway. It's a strange argument. The one thing I found confusing about the paper was their use of "Safety Effect" as a table heading instead of "Hazard Effect", since positive numbers in that column appear to indicate lower safety. I agree. Yes, the increases shown are actually hazard increases. The crash counts and injury counts make that clear. When I first read that paper, I had to stop, get a pencil, and begin taking notes in the margins. I assume the difficulty is due to the fact that the authors' first language is Danish, not English. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Cheap bright tail light
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/23/2014 12:57 AM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/22/2014 3:39 PM, Joerg wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: [...] Seriously - you brought up the paper at http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/copenhagen2.pdf Let's discuss it! Crashes - all - observed before 389 --- observed after 311. Fatalities went from 3 to zero. So, there. How can it be more clear? Perhaps it can be made more clear if you actually read the paper? As they attempted to explain, the "Observed before" included situations where several things about the road had changed. One major point of the paper was their method for separating out the effects of non-cycletrack changes, to more accurately gauge the change due to the cycletrack alone. As they explain, the proper comparison is the one between "Expected AFTER" and "Observed AFTER." That change is: 295 vs. 311. In other words, they'd expect 295 total crashes among all user types if there were no cycletracks, but they found 311 instead. The increase was due to the cycletracks. It's true, that's not a terrible increase, only 5%. But that's because you're talking mostly about non-injury crashes (very mild ones) and you're including mostly crashes between two motor vehicles. Much more interesting to us should be bicyclist injuries, no? That's who cycletracks are _claimed_ to help, after all. Yet bicyclist (and moped) injuries are absolutely higher, no matter which data columns you compare. It seems your argument is to ignore the bad injury data for cyclists, the people you're claiming cycletracks must benefit, and look only at the one bit of data dominated by motorists, very few of whom were injured anyway. It's a strange argument. The one thing I found confusing about the paper was their use of "Safety Effect" as a table heading instead of "Hazard Effect", since positive numbers in that column appear to indicate lower safety. I agree. Yes, the increases shown are actually hazard increases. The crash counts and injury counts make that clear. When I first read that paper, I had to stop, get a pencil, and begin taking notes in the margins. I assume the difficulty is due to the fact that the authors' first language is Danish, not English. I certainly would have done a worse job of writing a paper in Danish. There's nothing like having at least one author on a paper who grew up speaking the language the paper is to be written in. I was considering starting a technical proof reading service for IEEE papers with a retired co-worker, but he unfortunately died before we got anywhere with that. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cheap bright tail light | somebody[_2_] | Techniques | 369 | October 1st 14 12:10 PM |
Bright tail light | somebody[_2_] | Techniques | 0 | July 20th 09 12:51 AM |
Bright up your advertising with a slim light box !----11 mm LED light box in China! | Gabe Vanrenen | UK | 0 | June 29th 07 05:08 AM |
Brief note: modification to create super-bright tail light | [email protected] | Techniques | 11 | January 25th 05 03:06 AM |
Daylight Bright Bicycle Tail Light | Laurence Dodd | Australia | 0 | September 17th 03 04:36 AM |