Report: Separate Infrastructure "Crucial" for Safety

[lordofthemark]

@baiskeli 160225 wrote:

Interesting new report that says separate infrastructure for bikes improves safety.

DC is shown as an example in the data, which says that in 15 years, DC’s separated bike network has doubled in size, trips have grown by 384 percent (CaBi probably played a role too) and bike crashes and fatalities have dropped dramatically.

https://cyclingindustry.news/physical-separation-of-cyclists-from-traffic-crucial-to-dropping-injury-rates-shows-u-s-study/

Using the common methodology called “Eyeballing the data” and noting in particular Seattle and Cambridge, it appears to me that the issue is less the direct effects of infra, than the effect of infra on encouraging more cycling, which in turn (via “critical mass”/”safety in numbers” – or maybe more slower and more cautious riders?) leads to lower injury rates.

Would love to see this tested using more solid statistical methods (or maybe I should read the whole paper?) But meamwhile to be borne in mind as we discuss local choices.

[baiskeli]

@lordofthemark 160230 wrote:

Using the common methodology called “Eyeballing the data” and noting in particular Seattle and Cambridge, it appears to me that the issue is less the direct effects of infra, than the effect of infra on encouraging more cycling, which in turn (via “critical mass”/”safety in numbers” – or maybe more slower and more cautious riders?) leads to lower injury rates.

Would love to see this tested using more solid statistical methods (or maybe I should read the whole paper?) But meamwhile to be borne in mind as we discuss local choices.

Yes, the infra probably is encouraging the cycling (though it would have grown some regardless) but its harder to say there’s safety in numbers. There’s an opposite effect too – the more bikes on the road, the more potential crashes. So it’s hard to say. I didn’t read the report yet but I hope there’s more to it than this data.

[Author]

Posts