Sara Phillips calls for bike advocates to use more hard data when advocating for change on the ABC Environment blog.


I agree that this is needed when advocating for infrastructure expenditure. 

I'm less convinced that this is an effective way of encouraging behaviour change in individuals.

What do others think?  

Views: 25

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

+1

There is no way in hell most roads will get alternative infrastructure for cyclists. Hence we need objective quality evidence to get the outcomes we need, regarding safe cycling on roads. We need to connect the required casualty rate reductions with what we want the pollies and bureaucrats to do, to achieve those reductions. OQE and analysis.

That doesn't mean I am advocating ignoring the cycling infrastructure necessary where roads are rendered unsafe or unavailable for cycling.

We may need to dissect each serious accident, and establish what the reason(s) for the accident was (were) in each case. Then we might say, reliably and convincingly, what the options are to reliably prevent recurrence. Both at that location and in similar ones.
Is OQE = Objective Quality Evidence ?
I would also like to comment that my life is 100% better on a bike - but I don't have any hard data to back up that assertion! ;-)

RSS

Community Ads

Sponsors






© 2014   Created by DamianM.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service