Originally posted by zumbrunndbla Two questions about this:
Statistics: in order to have a meaningful statistics you need to know
how many hours or miles of total bicycle use occurr per year. I have
not the foggiest notion where statisticians can get an even remotely
accurate estimate of this figure. Given this, I mistrust all statistics
about bicycle accident risk: garbage in, garbage out. Any enlightenment
by experts is welcome on this point.
I'm not an expert but it seems to be normal to quote accident figures
for airline passenger miles etc. I think a competent social scientist
would be able to question a sample of cyclists to find out typical
patterns of behaviour which would underpin the statistics. That's the
only way that a lot of the data we rely on can be discovered. It's a
question of size of sample and quality of questioning.
Germany: are you sure you got your facts correct here?
The report I saw was of local restrictions introduced where an
alternative cycle path had been provided and the problem was mainly
because the alternative was not really comparable, eg shared use of
sidewalk which is hardly suitable for a training run, commuter or a
tourist with miles to cover. I don't have any more details but perhaps
others will be able to clarify this.
I would also submit that more often than not boneheaded political
decisions are a result of (innocent) ignorance and not of spite,
particularly on the local level. Polite (but concise) language is the
tool to address this - at least in the first few rounds.
I used to think that too. Then I found that a cornered politician
(cornered by the evidence, not by me) would resort to any specious
argument to bludgeon his way out of a tight spot, and be happy to shout
you down in the process. Of course our national leaders wouldn't behave
that way
but the local talent can be of variable quality.
best wishes from Sheffield (not the home of the politician referred to
above) Chris
--
--------------------------
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com