Comment 54377

By Brandon (registered) | Posted January 03, 2011 at 22:33:11

And yet this, directly from the study:

"From 1978 to 1994, there were 2,091 children aged 0 to 14 years in Hamilton injured in pedestrian-vehicle collisions; 344 were injured on one-way streets and 1,747 on two-way streets. The rate of injury for children ages 0 to 14 years was 2.5 times higher on one-way streets than on two-way streets (46.4 vs 19.6 per 100,000 children, per 100 km, per year)"

So while the numbers tell us that more children were injured on two-way streets...in fact, by a factor of about five times...the incident rate was lower on them than on one-way streets.

Then maybe this statement is the most accurate? "In the end, it might be, as Zeeger describes, that it is necessary that one-way streets are safer in some situations and two-ways streets in others."

The only accurate measure is that which accounts for frequency of use.

If road #1 has 5 deaths on it, but road #2 has 100 deaths on it, the obvious inference is that road #2 is 20x more dangerous. But if we factor in the fact that road #1 has 100 kms/yr of use and road #2 has 10,000 kms/yr, then the numbers take on a whole new meaning.

Don't get confused by numbers taken out of context.

Looking at these numbers, children tend to live and play in areas where there are two way streets so it's natural that overall, there would be more accidents in these areas. That doesn't make two way streets more dangerous.

I am disappointment in you're grammar.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds