Comment 38402

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted February 23, 2010 at 16:30:52

A Smith,

The main conclusion of the article is that one-way streets are more dangerous, the only question is why. The authors themselves suggest speed, traffic volume and driver inattention as likely factors.

The authors themselves consider your socio-economic (SES) "exposure" argument, and reject is as explaining the higher injury rates on one way street:

"We conclude that the one-way street rates therefore exceeded the main sources of variation due to SES, age and sex."

This is very clear, and since you insist on twisting the analysis and conclusions of this article, I will quote the relevant passage in its entirety. I am beginning to suspect you are not arguing in good faith as you neglected to mention that the paper specifically addresses and rejects (on statistical grounds) the argument you have just advanced (claiming support from the paper to do it). This is not the way to foster honest, open discussion!

"We must qualify the results of the present study because the relationship between street type and injuries was not adjusted using SES data for each individual child. However, in observing Tables II and III together, it is noteworthy that the pattern of rates by age and sex for the different levels of SES were identical to the pattern of rates by age and sex on one-way and two-way streets. We conclude that the one-way street rates therefore exceeded the main sources of variation due to SES, age and sex. This suggests that one-way streets represent an independent effect separate for these other variables. For example, the low SES group rate for all ages and both sexes was 33.3. The one-way street rate was 46.4 for all ages and both sexes suggesting that one-way street rates could account for a 12.1 excess rate of injury if we assume all other factors which might influence the rate are equal."

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds