Somewhere...who knows where...I read or heard at a conference and my
pea-brain actually retained...an interesting stat:
***For every 1% increment in mode share that bicycling attains, there
is a 30% reduction in bicyclist death rates.***
Ok, looking at that statement, I realize that there are several
things that need to be clarified. I'm not a statistician by any
means, but here's how I interpreted the data:
-that 1% means, for example, going from 1% mode share to 2% mode
share; i.e., in this example, a 100% increase (as opposed to going
from 1% to 1.01% mode share). So we are talking potentially big
numbers relatively speaking.
-The 30% reduction might not be a big number, and indeed, there might
actually be *more* crashes, and more deaths in absolute numbers if
the mode share goes up enough--even though the overall death *rate*
has fallen.
So more frequent bad news, in a way, can sometimes mean good news in
the aggregate if it means there are more people are getting on bikes.
The data Dar posted a couple of weeks ago was telling. My back of the
envelope calculation was that bicycling had gone up almost 16% (3.16
-> 3.64 in 6 years if I recall). I'd say that is pretty good given
that most development--both residential and commercial-- seems to be
occurring in pretty anti-bike areas of the city. In a way, we are
successfully swimming/pedalling against the tide of pavement....
I think the gurus (help me out here, Arturo) explain the reduction in
death rates as owing to the sheer numbers of cyclists impressing upon
drivers a greater awareness of the potential existence of a cyclist
around every corner.
One other stat that stands out, as people ponder the danger of biking
v. car driving:
On a trip for trip basis, bicycling is safer than driving. Not on a
mile per mile basis; the car wins out there. But people who get
around by bike tend to travel a whole lot less than those who own
cars (I think the average non-car owner travels only 1/10 that of a
car owner). Bicyclists tend to plan their lives around shorter trips.
So yes, while cars are big, and a bike will always lose out to a car
in an actual crash, given the fact that bicyclists don't travel as
far, the overall chances of dying are less if you live a
human-powered lifestyle.
Ok all you techie types, smash my data analysis, but I think I'm
kinda sorta on the right track here....
-Mike
At 9:18 AM -0500 9/28/07, Robert F. Nagel wrote:
A quick Google search yields an answer:
<http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bc/perspective.cfm>http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bc/perspective.cfm
According to this source, the answer is no. Bicyclist fatalities
are down 28 percent from 1990 to 2003.
On 9/28/07, Mary Ebeling
<<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I really do not want to be the one posting this, but yesterday
afternoon there was a fatal hit and run involving three bicyclists
in Washington County. One bicyclist, age 13, was dead at the scene
and the other two, both 12, were hospitalized. The driver was
arrested later that night.
The link to a short write up is
<http://www.jsonline.com/watch/?watch=1&date=9/28/2007&id=29767>http://www.jsonline.com/watch/?watch=1&date=9/28/2007&id=29767
Is it me or do these types of crashes seem to be happening more frequently?
GRRRRR
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
<http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies>
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
--
Robert F. Nagel
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<http://www.nagel-law.com> www.nagel-law.com
634 W. Main St., #201
Madison, WI 53703
608-255-1501
608-255-1504 fax
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
