Comment 110356

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted March 21, 2015 at 08:27:57 in reply to Comment 110354

You also neglected to quote perhaps the most important comment in the study that shows that, even accounting for all other confounding factors, one way streets are still significantly more dangerous than two-way streets in Hamilton:

We conclude that the one-way street rates therefore exceeded the main sources of variation due to SES, age and sex. This suggests that one-way streets represent an independent effect separate for these other variables. ... The one-way street rate was 46.4 for all ages and both sexes suggesting that one-way street rates could account for a 12.1 excess rate of injury if we assume all other factors which might influence the rate are equal.

In other words, even if you combine all SES (social economic status; i.e. poor/wealthy), ages and sexes, the injury rate is still significantly higher on one-way streets. This deals with the poor v wealthy, and children v adults effects that are discussed in the passages you quoted.

You also neglected to mention that the "responsible factors" they cannot isolate are: the fact that traffic speeds are higher on one-way streets "associated with up to a 6-fold increased injury risk", "drivers are less attentive" and that "children are inexperienced at looking first to the right in situations where traffic flows from right to left". All these risks are eliminated or reduced by two-way conversion!

This is very strong evidence that, despite possible increased exposure to traffic for poorer children, one way streets are definitely more dangerous in Hamilton for everyone.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-03-21 08:58:20

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools