The journal Injury Prevention published two responses (eLetters) by M. Kary, Montreal mathematician and cyclist, to the Harris et al. study of Vancouver and Toronto bicycle facilities. These letters promised an eventual third letter. Instead, following discussion with the Editor, the third was transformed into a longer Commentary now under consideration at the journal, while the original two letters were consolidated into a single shorter one, intended to replace them. These steps are still underway, but were done under the understanding that once removed, the original first two letters would be published in full elsewhere. They are here:
M.Kary’s first letter to Injury Prevention, unedited
M. Kary’s second letter to Injury Prevention, unedited
The edited version of these replies is available online.
Kary is also the author of a comprehensive review of the Lusk et al. study of Montreal cycle tracks — or as he says, what the authors describe as cycle tracks, because some are, in fact, paths through parks.
A related post on this blog examines a PDF presentation about the Vancouver/Toronto research.
Good reading. I’ve often wondered about the applicability of this case control technique. So much of what makes for a crash-likely roadway situation is dependent on highly specific design and use. For example, St. Francis Drive and Cerrillos Road, Santa Fe. Its not likely one could find another intersection in Santa Fe that is as blood drenched as that one.
Thanks, John.
Thank you for highlighting this conversation. Not being knowledgeable of statistics, my basic takeaway is “the study is flawed, and so are many others, according to this person who knows what he’s talking about”. I wish we could make all staff members at LAB and People for Bikes read this and at least make an effort to understand it.
Pingback: Anne Harris revealed | John S. Allen's Bicycle Blog