Comments on: Today’s Headlines http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/10/22/todays-headlines-758/ Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:07:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: jass http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/10/22/todays-headlines-758/comment-page-1/#comment-139011 jass Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:17:42 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=74851#comment-139011 David Filipov is the same person who wrote about dangerous cycling 2 weeks ago. Presumably, his article focused on cars will be forthcoming. David Filipov is the same person who wrote about dangerous cycling 2 weeks ago. Presumably, his article focused on cars will be forthcoming.

]]> By: Shemp http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/10/22/todays-headlines-758/comment-page-1/#comment-138941 Shemp Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:00:04 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=74851#comment-138941 Ugh - If Brian Lehrer and Andrea B. at WNYC are sympathizers, it's hard to tell from the way they describe the issues. Ugh – If Brian Lehrer and Andrea B. at WNYC are sympathizers, it’s hard to tell from the way they describe the issues.

]]> By: Clarence Eckerson Jr. http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/10/22/todays-headlines-758/comment-page-1/#comment-138571 Clarence Eckerson Jr. Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:34:48 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=74851#comment-138571 One thing that is totally stupid about the Boston editorial is trotting out statistics to analyze NYC, Boston, Denver, and Seattle pedestrian injuries is like comparing apples to oranges. It is completely wrong (in multiple ways that I am sure Charlie Komanoff can tell us) but for one: comparing injuries per 100,000 people doesn't work because you are not factoring in the amount of walking that actually occurs per person in each city. It's an incorrect argument. Boston and NYC are much higher when it comes to walking so they will actually have a higher chance of having more injuries - no matter. It also doesn't take into account speed limits, road design, etc. But one thing I will note: if you do take these stats at face value and NYC has a much lower injury rate, maybe it is because are better jaywalkers? :) One thing that is totally stupid about the Boston editorial is trotting out statistics to analyze NYC, Boston, Denver, and Seattle pedestrian injuries is like comparing apples to oranges. It is completely wrong (in multiple ways that I am sure Charlie Komanoff can tell us) but for one: comparing injuries per 100,000 people doesn’t work because you are not factoring in the amount of walking that actually occurs per person in each city. It’s an incorrect argument.

Boston and NYC are much higher when it comes to walking so they will actually have a higher chance of having more injuries – no matter. It also doesn’t take into account speed limits, road design, etc.

But one thing I will note: if you do take these stats at face value and NYC has a much lower injury rate, maybe it is because are better jaywalkers? :)

]]> By: Nathan H. http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/10/22/todays-headlines-758/comment-page-1/#comment-138541 Nathan H. Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:06:40 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=74851#comment-138541 It's amazing that newspapers can find space to demonize pedestrians between their jeremiads against cyclists. They should work in a few stories about choosing the most car friendly retirement community in Florida, to complete their graceless dive into the generational dustbin of history. It’s amazing that newspapers can find space to demonize pedestrians between their jeremiads against cyclists. They should work in a few stories about choosing the most car friendly retirement community in Florida, to complete their graceless dive into the generational dustbin of history.

]]>