Questions for Orlando Data

http://www.metroplanorlando.com/files/view/bicyclist-crash-study.pdf

I have been trying to compare cycling fatalities across cities and states in the US and other countries.

I find that your data presentation is peculiar in that it’s difficult to determine the safety of various activities.

For example, if you look at NYC data or NC data, you will find that the data is much easier to compare across state lines.

For example, I’d like to see, over 10 year period, how many people were doored.

Also, I see that you have broken out data for “cyclists violations” incsome categories, but you combine some illegal activities such ascsidewalk riding with legal activities such as riding in a bike lane.

Why did you do this? Perhaps you should break out bike lanes and sidewalk riding into separate categories.

Also, places like NYC separate out collisions with serious injuries.
In hazard analysis, serious injuries are much more important than those particular collisions which cause no injury. Can you please look  into this?

Anyway, I appreciate the good work you are doing in Orlando.

Thank-you for the data.

In my continued search to look at data, I have found some from Orlando, the most dangerous city in the US for cycling.

The data was very strange, but I did notice that 76%  of accidents were NOT on a sidewalk or bike lane. Despite this, the paper takes an anti-infrastructural approach.

Also, the door zone was my original goal, and I found that in this paper, ZERO, that’s right ZERO fatalities from dooring.

Yet none of the analysis seemed to indicate that riding in the door zone was safe. This is in line with the tone of the paper which was to pin the blame of cycling accidents on cyclists, only, and to absolve the city and motorists, for the most part.

This is probably due to the “just world fallacy” where people try to convince themselves that they are different from victims and the victims did something wrong. This serves to protect one’s ego from realizing how vulnerable they are.

Overall, the paper seemed to be written by someone who needed constant assurance that cycling was safe, and it spent most of the time assiging blame to cyclists instead of presenting the data in a way that was comparable to other cities.

I _am_ interested in what one can do to ride safer, but I found the notions that wearing neon made you safe to be laughable especially when there was ZERO data to back this belief up. Contrast this to other cities that sticks to data and analysis and leaves speculation to the uncycling thinkers. 🙂

Below is my letter.

I have been trying to compare cycling fatalities across cities and states in the US and other countries.

I find that your data presentation is peculiar in that it’s difficult to determine the safety of various activities.

For example, if you look at NYC data or NC data, you will find that the data is much easier to compare across state lines.

For example, I’d like to see, over 10 year period, how many people were doored.

Also, I see that you have broken out data for “cyclists violations” incsome categories, but you combine some illegal activities such ascsidewalk riding with legal activities such as riding in a bike lane.

Why did you do this? Perhaps you should break out bike lanes and sidewalk riding into separate categories.

Also, places like NYC separate out collisions with serious injuries.
In hazard analysis, serious injuries are much more important than those particular collisions which cause no injury. Can you please look  into this?

Anyway, I appreciate the good work you are doing in Orlando.

Thank-you for the data.

I have been trying to compare cycling fatalities across cities and states in the US and other countries.

I find that your data presentation is peculiar in that it’s difficult to determine the safety of various activities.

For example, if you look at NYC data or NC data, you will find that the data is much easier to compare across state lines.

For example, I’d like to see, over 10 year period, how many people were doored.

Also, I see that you have broken out data for “cyclists violations” incsome categories, but you combine some illegal activities such ascsidewalk riding with legal activities such as riding in a bike lane.

Why did you do this? Perhaps you should break out bike lanes and sidewalk riding into separate categories.

Also, places like NYC separate out collisions with serious injuries.
In hazard analysis, serious injuries are much more important than those particular collisions which cause no injury. Can you please look  into this?

Anyway, I appreciate the good work you are doing in Orlando.

Thank-you for the data.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: