Raise the Hammer

In the comment I claimed the study said the injury rate for children was 2.5 times as high on one way streets, which is exactly what the study reports in its results. You said 'that's not necessarily true and the study you're taking it from didn't make that conclusion.' To put it bluntly, what you said there is false (even if you meant to say that the claim that one way is safer is not justified, that's not what you actually did say).

The rate is 3 times as likely for poor children on one way streets. I did not quote that result. The 'other factors' that may increase the exposure of poor children to traffic might explain part of the difference (although the study does not claim it explains it entirely ... we don't know), but it does not apply to the general 2.5 figure, which is not just for poor children.

There are many factors involved, but with the injury rate 2.5 times higher on one way than two way (and even higher for children in poor neighbourhoods) it is irresponsible to claim that it does not suggest one way streets are more dangerous than two way, possibly for a combination of reasons. There are other factors but no one has done any analysis to see how important they are, or whether the difference between one-way and two-way disappears when they are accounted for.

All we know for certain is that the Hamilton data says that one-way streets in Hamilton have child injury rates up to 3 times higher than two-way streets, which is epidemiologically speaking a massive difference. It is difficult to imagine this disappearing entirely if exposure is accounted for (children live and walk on sidewalks all over the city).

As I and others have emphasized many times, no one is claiming that every two-way street is better than every one-way street. The most dangerous streets, as emphasized in this and many other reports, the sort of multi-lane one way streets that are a common feature of Hamilton's grid system. A narrow one lane one-way street with wide sidewalks and buffers is fine for pedestrians (but not good for local businesses or motorists trying to reach destinations downtown).

You cannot just brush aside the actual evidence from Hamilton (2.5 times higher in general and 3 times higher in poorer neighbourhoods) by suggesting that other factors might be involved. You need to actually do the analysis to show those other factors are determinant given the huge statistically significant discrepancy.

Again, if you want to quote studies, please provide links or citations. Otherwise no one can check the sources (as you were able to do with the Canadian J Public Health article).

For example, did the accidents increase in the first year after the conversion (this is fairly common as motorists take time to adjust)? Was the conversion executed properly? Were these accidents resulting in injuries or minor fender benders? The evidence I've seen shows that, overall, minor accidents sometimes increase but serious accidents and injuries (especially to pedestrians) decrease.

And, as I quoted in the Louisville example, there are many cases where accidents and injuries clearly decrease after the conversions.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-03-21 07:57:37