Comment 115373

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted December 03, 2015 at 15:39:09 in reply to Comment 115372

If by "questions" they meant "concerns", then as Tybalt points out, staff have had two years to sit down with the authors of the study, look at the data, and decide whether or not these concerns are warranted. If so, they then need to explain publicly why they disagree. Implying there are problems, but not saying what the problems are, would be irresponsible.

Otherwise, they need to accept the conclusions of the study and not cast doubts on it. On face value these are very damning statistics.

I hope they are not taking the same approach as Hart Solomon to the Can J Public Health study that showed that Hamilton's one-way streets have rates of child injury 2.5 that of two-way streets.

https://www.raisethehammer.org/blog/1082...

Hart simply dismissed it out of hand, telling me that maybe one way streets had more traffic or more children walking on them.

This seems very unlikely given the under capacity of so many one-way streets and the fact that very few children walk down the busiest streets like Main and King (and it would take a big difference to make a 2.5 times difference go away). But what's worse is that he made no effort to check whether these other factors were actually significant. He just felt the conclusions were wrong and so rejected them. His concerns were just excuses for inaction.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-12-03 15:42:30

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds