There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?
Recent Articles
- Justice for Indigenous Peoples is Long Overdueby Ryan McGreal, published June 30, 2021 in Commentary
(0 comments)
- Third-Party Election Advertising Ban About Silencing Workersby Chantal Mancini, published June 29, 2021 in Politics
(0 comments)
- Did Doug Ford Test the 'Great Barrington Declaration' on Ontarians?by Ryan McGreal, published June 29, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
(1 comment)
- An Update on Raise the Hammerby Ryan McGreal, published June 28, 2021 in Site Notes
(0 comments)
- Nestlé Selling North American Water Bottling to an Private Equity Firmby Doreen Nicoll, published February 23, 2021 in Healing Gaia
(0 comments)
- Jolley Old Sam Lawrenceby Sean Burak, published February 19, 2021 in Special Report: Cycling
(0 comments)
- Right-Wing Extremism is a Driving Force in Modern Conservatismby Ryan McGreal, published February 18, 2021 in Special Report: Extremism
(0 comments)
- Municipalities Need to Unite against Ford's Firehose of Land Use Changesby Michelle Silverton, published February 16, 2021 in Special Report
(0 comments)
- Challenging Doug Ford's Pandemic Narrativeby Ryan McGreal, published January 25, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
(1 comment)
- The Year 2020 Has Been a Wakeup Callby Michael Nabert, published December 31, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- The COVID-19 Marshmallow Experimentby Ryan McGreal, published December 22, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- All I Want for Christmas, 2020by Kevin Somers, published December 21, 2020 in Entertainment and Sports
(1 comment)
- Hamilton Shelters Remarkably COVID-19 Free Thanks to Innovative Testing Programby Jason Allen, published December 21, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- Province Rams Through Glass Factory in Stratfordby Doreen Nicoll, published December 21, 2020 in Healing Gaia
(0 comments)
- We Can Prevent Traffic Deaths if We Make Safety a Real Priorityby Ryan McGreal, published December 08, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
(5 comments)
- These Aren't 'Accidents', These Are Resultsby Tom Flood, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
(1 comment)
- Conservation Conundrumby Paul Weinberg, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report
(0 comments)
- Defund Police Protest Threatens Fragile Ruling Classby Cameron Kroetsch, published December 03, 2020 in Special Report: Anti-Racism
(2 comments)
- Measuring the Potential of Biogas to Reduce GHG Emissionsby John Loukidelis and Thomas Cassidy, published November 23, 2020 in Special Report: Climate Change
(0 comments)
- Ontario Squanders Early Pandemic Sacrificeby Ryan McGreal, published November 18, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
Article Archives
Blog Archives
Site Tools
Feeds
By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted February 23, 2010 at 21:32:24
kevlahan, look at how the authors come to the conclusion that one way streets are more dangerous than two way streets...
For example, the low SES group rate for all ages and both
sexes was 33.3. 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
... The authors are suggesting that because the low income group collision number of 33.3 is LOWER than the one way street collision number of 46.4, it must be that one way streets are inherently dangerous, regardless of neighbourhood income status and all the things that follow, like more walking, more playing around traffic, etc.
However, because the authors used three income groups, the total number of collisions that are labeled under "low income" are not as high as they would have been if they had only used two groups, as is the case in table II. In effect, the authors are diluting the number of collisions by adding an extra "intermediate" category, which if it didn't exist, would have increased the number in the low SES group.
>> much more than half the rate would be assigned to the lower SES bin
Okay, but this just strengthens the idea that there is something beyond street configuration that is leading to higher collision rates. If there are more collisions in low SES neighbourhoods, a higher rate than is found on one-way streets, then how can anyone conclude that it is one way streets that are responsible for higher collision rates.
If anything, it is suggestive of something about low income neighbourhoods that is leading to higher rates of accidents.
>> note that the overall rate for all three bins taken together is still 2.5 higher for one-way streets.
That is true. But like I said before, if we don't know the traffic volume per km on one-way streets, then how can we conclude that one way streets are more dangerous. It may simply be that because one- way streets are in more densely populated areas, there is simply more traffic and kids using those streets.
Permalink | Context