(→In road traffic safety: NPOV and Tidy) |
(→In road traffic safety: Split into sub-section) |
||
| Zeile 11: | Zeile 11: | ||
| format =html | work =Review of Safety in Numbers | accessyear =2006 }}</ref> |
| format =html | work =Review of Safety in Numbers | accessyear =2006 }}</ref> |
||
| + | ===Case studies=== |
||
After cycling was promoted in Finland, the number of trips increased by 72% and there was a 75% drop in cyclists deaths.<ref>{{cite web |
After cycling was promoted in Finland, the number of trips increased by 72% and there was a 75% drop in cyclists deaths.<ref>{{cite web |
||
| url =http://www.norden.org/pub/sk/showpub.asp?pubnr=2005:556 |
| url =http://www.norden.org/pub/sk/showpub.asp?pubnr=2005:556 |
||
| Zeile 19: | Zeile 20: | ||
In London, motor vehicle traffic decreased by 16%, bicycle use increased by 28% and cyclist injuries decreased by 20% after the [[London Congestion Charge]] began.<ref>{{cite web | url =http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/ThirdAnnualReportFinal.pdf | author =Transport for London | title =Congestion Charging: Third Annual Monitoring Report. |accessyear=2007 | year =April 2005}}</ref> |
In London, motor vehicle traffic decreased by 16%, bicycle use increased by 28% and cyclist injuries decreased by 20% after the [[London Congestion Charge]] began.<ref>{{cite web | url =http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/ThirdAnnualReportFinal.pdf | author =Transport for London | title =Congestion Charging: Third Annual Monitoring Report. |accessyear=2007 | year =April 2005}}</ref> |
||
| − | While such data shows a degree of [[Correlation#Correlation and causality|correlation]], conclusions of [[causality]] may very well be based on a statistically [[spurious relationship]]. |
+ | While such data shows a degree of [[Correlation#Correlation and causality|correlation]], conclusions of [[causality]] may very well be based on a statistically [[spurious relationship]].{{or}} |
==References== |
==References== |
||
Version vom 30. Januar 2008, 20:55 Uhr
Safety in numbers is the hypothesis that, by being part of a large physical group or mass, an individual is proportionally less likely to be the victim of a mishap, accident, or other bad event.
Description
Evidence often advanced for this position includes the flocking of birds and shoaling of fish. In both of these instances, by being part of a large group, individuals face less risk of falling victim to predators than they would if traveling alone.
In road traffic safety
Safety in numbers is also used to describe the theory that a particular road user, especially a pedestrian or cyclist, becomes less likely to be involved in a crash, as the population of similar road users increases. A Public Health Consultant has concluded that the theory is correct, based on statistical analysis of collision data.[1] A Cycling Transportation Engineer has disputed that conclusion, writing that the data used is insufficient to demonstrate that there is a cause-and-effect relationship.[2]
Case studies
After cycling was promoted in Finland, the number of trips increased by 72% and there was a 75% drop in cyclists deaths.[3]
In London, motor vehicle traffic decreased by 16%, bicycle use increased by 28% and cyclist injuries decreased by 20% after the London Congestion Charge began.[4]
While such data shows a degree of correlation, conclusions of causality may very well be based on a statistically spurious relationship.Vorlage:Or
References
Vorlage:Ecology-stub Vorlage:Psych-stub Vorlage:Statistics-stub Vorlage:Cycling-stub