|
|
| Re: Read these three articles about cycling (324960) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > BusChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 14 22:22:58 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Aug 14 20:51:48 2017. Mr Rosen did not misread NYCDOT's chart. Mr. Rosen never stated the total number killed in a four year period, as Mr Bauman wrongly alleges, was 392. Mr. Rosen fully recognizes that DOT is referring to average cyclist KSI per year.Mr. Bauman is trying to discredit Mr. Rosen because he either has a reading comprehension problem or believes the only way to discredit Mr. Rosen is by lying. If you see nothing wrong with comparing three five year periods with a four four year period, I suggest you go back to school, Mr. engineer. You claim the extrapolation is incorrect. Do you believe none is needed and DOT's conclusions are therefore correct? The way I extrapolated for the fifth year, 2015 was to take the four year average of 392 and divide it by four. I arrived at 98. I added the 98 to 392 and arrived at 490 average killed per year for the five year period. Then I compared 365 to 490. 490 is 34 percent higher than 365. How is that methodology incorrect? Further DOT states they did not include 2015 because the statistics were not available. Yet there is a 2015 bicycle crash report on their website. But it shows all bike injuries and fatalities, not KSI, so you can't just plug in the missing number. Now why would they gave the number of all bike injuries for 2015 and not serious injuries. A more probable explanation is that including the fifth year would not have allowed them to come to the conclusion that cycling is safer than ever. Also notice how DOT conveniently omitted the statistic quoted in the NY Times article showing the huge increase in the numbers of cyclists injuring pedestrians between 2012 and 2015. So not only can't NYC DOT be trusted, neither can Mr. Bauman. |
|
|
|