There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?
- Justice for Indigenous Peoples is Long Overdueby Ryan McGreal, published June 30, 2021 in Commentary
- Third-Party Election Advertising Ban About Silencing Workersby Chantal Mancini, published June 29, 2021 in Politics
- Did Doug Ford Test the 'Great Barrington Declaration' on Ontarians?by Ryan McGreal, published June 29, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
- An Update on Raise the Hammerby Ryan McGreal, published June 28, 2021 in Site Notes
- Nestlé Selling North American Water Bottling to an Private Equity Firmby Doreen Nicoll, published February 23, 2021 in Healing Gaia
- Jolley Old Sam Lawrenceby Sean Burak, published February 19, 2021 in Special Report: Cycling
- Right-Wing Extremism is a Driving Force in Modern Conservatismby Ryan McGreal, published February 18, 2021 in Special Report: Extremism
- Municipalities Need to Unite against Ford's Firehose of Land Use Changesby Michelle Silverton, published February 16, 2021 in Special Report
- Challenging Doug Ford's Pandemic Narrativeby Ryan McGreal, published January 25, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
- The Year 2020 Has Been a Wakeup Callby Michael Nabert, published December 31, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
- The COVID-19 Marshmallow Experimentby Ryan McGreal, published December 22, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
- All I Want for Christmas, 2020by Kevin Somers, published December 21, 2020 in Entertainment and Sports
- Hamilton Shelters Remarkably COVID-19 Free Thanks to Innovative Testing Programby Jason Allen, published December 21, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
- Province Rams Through Glass Factory in Stratfordby Doreen Nicoll, published December 21, 2020 in Healing Gaia
- We Can Prevent Traffic Deaths if We Make Safety a Real Priorityby Ryan McGreal, published December 08, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
- These Aren't 'Accidents', These Are Resultsby Tom Flood, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
- Conservation Conundrumby Paul Weinberg, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report
- Defund Police Protest Threatens Fragile Ruling Classby Cameron Kroetsch, published December 03, 2020 in Special Report: Anti-Racism
- Measuring the Potential of Biogas to Reduce GHG Emissionsby John Loukidelis and Thomas Cassidy, published November 23, 2020 in Special Report: Climate Change
- Ontario Squanders Early Pandemic Sacrificeby Ryan McGreal, published November 18, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
By Are bike lanes a good idea? (anonymous) | Posted March 03, 2010 at 17:53:26
bike lanes, let's take a look at your first link...
Where is the link to the study?
Regardless, this story still does not indicate anything about the effectiveness of bike infrastructure on reducing the TOTAL number of accidents or injuries. That is what's most important, whether bike infrastructure reduces TOTAL accident and injury rates? All this article points out is that where there are more cyclists, injuries and deaths PER cyclist is reduced.
Why does it matter how many people are injured PER cyclist on the road? Using that logic, you could have double the TOTAL number of cycling injuries and deaths in Hamilton than another community, yet because Hamilton has 4x as many cyclists, you would celebrate that our "injuries per cyclist" was only half that of the other community.
I ask you this, what is more important, reducing the TOTAL number of injuries per resident, or just the injuries per cyclist on the road? As for this article, it says nothing about how bike infrastructure affects the TOTAL number of injuries related to cycling in a community.
The next link, the CBC one is useless. It throws out some numbers, but has no links to sources. Why would you include articles that make claims based on nothing?
Let's look at the last link...
Once again, this study says NOTHING about the TOTAL number of injuries per resident for the different jurisdictions, just relative to the number of people who are cycling. I will ask you again, why is that relevant? Why does it matter how many injuries there are relative to the number of people undertaking a certain type of activity?
If an activity such as cycling on the road is inherently dangerous and it leads to higher numbers of TOTAL injuries, perhaps people shouldn't be doing it at all. Just because the injury rates per dangerous activity are lower when more people are undertaking the dangerous activity, does not mean that more people should embrace the dangerous activity.
None of the information you have presented shows that bike infrastructure reduces the TOTAL number of injuries related to cycling. Yes, your one study shows that countries that cycle more have reduced rates of injuries per cyclist, but that is not the same as saying that those communities enjoy less overall injuries related to cycling.
Like I said at the beginning of this thread, if the goal of is to increase the number of cyclists on the road, building bike infrastructure seems like a great way to do this. However, if the goal is to reduce TOTAL injury rates per resident, the study that I linked to appears to suggest that creating bike infrastructure does NOT do this, in fact, it has increased the rate of accidents and injuries.
Once again, I agree with you that putting more cyclists on the road leads to less accidents and injuries per cyclist, but that is not the metric that we should be focusing on. The most important measure is the TOTAL number of accidents and injuries per resident. If we do this, then it would appear from the Denmark study that building bike infrastructure will work against this goal.
Do you disagree?
highwater, "and cherry picked a stat from a study that refutes his own argument."
If by cherry picked, you mean I placed more emphasis on the actual results from the study, rather than the author's unsubstantiated opinion about the possible health benefits of cycling, then yes, that's what I did.
Was this wrong? And if so, in what way. I look forward to your response.
Permalink | Context