Comment 58411

By jonathan (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 17:16:30

I recently read through the report that Ryan mentions above, and was surprised by the data it showed. The information is quite detailed, and at first glance, seems to take into account many, many factors. However, there was one glaring factor that was NOT included in the study which caused me to cast it aside. And that is this:

The study compares accidents on a per-capita basis, according to the accident location. At first glance, that sounds great. However, and as pointed out in another post above, the correlation should NOT be to population, but to vehicle/pedestrian traffic. I don't recall the exact numbers, but I believe the study was something like 85 km of one-way vs 900 km of two-way. Unfortunately, the traffic density downtown isn't directly related to the population density. As has been pointed out, ad-nauseum, on this site, our one-way streets are used by a huge amount of non-local traffic. In addition, there is a significant amount of non-local pedestrian traffic in the downtown core (where the majority of our one-way streets are located).

As such, the study leaves much to be desired. Peer-review only ensures accuracy, and the data, indeed, is accurate. Relevant? I disagree.

Comment edited by jonathan on 2011-01-27 17:16:57

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds