Friday, March 14, 2014

Ed and Rob on the UC study and the long overdue Collisions Report

Reiskin on Bike to Work Day

From: Rob Anderson
To: Ed Reiskin
Date: Thu, March 13, 2014
Subject: That UC Study


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.

Rob Anderson

From: Reiskin, Ed
To: Rob Anderson
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.


From: Rob Anderson
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?

Rob Anderson

Labels: , , , ,


At 4:18 PM, Anonymous Orax Johnson said...

Assuming the city is undercounting cycling accidents, then we definitely need more bike lanes. That's not acceptable!

At 10:39 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

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