Ed and Rob on the UC study and the long overdue Collisions Report
 |
| Reiskin on Bike to Work Day |
From: Rob Anderson rmajora@gmail.com
To: Ed Reiskin Ed.Reiskin@sfmta.com
Date: Thu, March 13, 2014
Subject: That UC Study
Ed:
Okay, but an important implication of that study is not just about "bicycling safety." If the city has been under-counting cycling accidents, the concern is that it is also under-counting pedestrian and motor vehicle accidents.
Regards,
Rob Anderson
From: Reiskin, Ed Ed.Reiskin@sfmta.com
To: Rob Anderson rmajora@gmail.com
Date: Wed, Mar 12 2014
Subject: That UC Study
Hi Rob:
Thanks for your message. We are in discussions with the Department of Public Health about these data, and I believe they are hiring a position to look into the data further. Our collision report for 2012-13 will continue to be based on the collisions that get reported, but we will work with DPH and others to get more accurate data. The purpose of our reports are to analyze what is happening to inform efforts to make the city safer. We share your interest in having good data upon which to do so.
Thanks for your interest in bicycling safety.
Ed
From: Rob Anderson rmajora@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014
To: Reiskin, Ed
Subject: That UC Study
Mr. Reiskin:
When is the MTA going to comment on that UC study that found that the city was radically under-counting cycling accidents in San Francisco?
Can the citizens of San Francisco be confident that, in light of the findings of that study, the agency you lead has reformed the way it counts accidents on the streets of the city?
Can we also assume that the long-overdue Collisions Report will reflect the reality revealed by the UC study?
Regards,
Rob Anderson
Ed:
Okay, but an important implication of that study is not just about "bicycling safety." If the city has been under-counting cycling accidents, the concern is that it is also under-counting pedestrian and motor vehicle accidents.
Regards,
Rob Anderson
From: Reiskin, Ed Ed.Reiskin@sfmta.com
To: Rob Anderson rmajora@gmail.com
Date: Wed, Mar 12 2014
Subject: That UC Study
Hi Rob:
Thanks for your message. We are in discussions with the Department of Public Health about these data, and I believe they are hiring a position to look into the data further. Our collision report for 2012-13 will continue to be based on the collisions that get reported, but we will work with DPH and others to get more accurate data. The purpose of our reports are to analyze what is happening to inform efforts to make the city safer. We share your interest in having good data upon which to do so.
Thanks for your interest in bicycling safety.
Ed
From: Rob Anderson rmajora@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014
To: Reiskin, Ed
Subject: That UC Study
Mr. Reiskin:
When is the MTA going to comment on that UC study that found that the city was radically under-counting cycling accidents in San Francisco?
Can the citizens of San Francisco be confident that, in light of the findings of that study, the agency you lead has reformed the way it counts accidents on the streets of the city?
Can we also assume that the long-overdue Collisions Report will reflect the reality revealed by the UC study?
Regards,
Rob Anderson
Labels: Cycling and Safety, Ed Reiskin, Masonic Avenue, Muni, UC Study
posted by Rob Anderson @ 11:30 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Assuming the city is undercounting cycling accidents, then we definitely need more bike lanes. That's not acceptable!
Read the whole UC study and you learn that the "more bike lanes" conclusion is irrelevant, since it found that "cyclist-only" accidents---those that didn't involve another vehicle---were both under-counted and just as serious as those involving motor vehicles.
Another important implication of the study: If the city has been under-counting cycling accidents---by ignoring those treated at SF General(1,377 by my count)---it's probably also under-counting pedestrian and vehicle accidents. Reiskin suggests that the city is in the process of correcting the way it has been counting accidents.
Post a Comment
<< Home