rather than the 1-2 you’d expect from the 1% number.
The expect really hinges on how much damage you expect people to take in an accident- giving the prevailing wisdom that the short term risk is balanced by the long term health benefits it starts to devolve into arguments about what a reasonable rate is.
Broadly speaking I would say everyone is safer in their own custom transport space, and pretty much all the risk is at shared spaces (i.e. intersections where all three groups intermix unavoidably).
Starting to get a few numbers in (some hospital data and road use data). In terms of fear of cycling and risks, cyclists have about as much risk of hospitalisation/death from stationary objects as cars (but the stationary objects are not in the hands of other people which is where the fear comes from).
For pedestrians if we take km traveled as an indicator of how much they are on the road, cyclists is almost exactly 1% of cars, however among pedestrian hospitalisations collisions with cyclists are at a rate of 2.83% of cars (95% confidence interval 1.84 to 4.2) suggesting that for hospitalisation injuries the risk to pedestrians is higher per cycle than per car.
so I’m not sure shared pedestrian/cycleways are without drawbacks for bike-commutes.
The pedestrian cyclist issues in a shared carriageway do seem to mirror the cyclist car issues when they share space. As I understand it, in Japan the less vulnerable party in an accident is normally held responsible, so in general cars are held responsible for accidents with cycles, and cycles are held responsible for accidents with pedestrians. A couple of articles:
In the NZ case, historically, the answer would have to be “not much”, because cyclists and pedestrians weren’t supposed to be sharing paths.
For pedestrians, I think hospital stats show it a pretty major thing at intersections or road crossing- pedestrian risk is very low on the footpath then skyrockets to massive when they have to leave them (basically once a block) and share space with anyone else.
Shared cycle/pedestrian pathways may increase cyclist-pedestrian collisions, but overall are a positive development because they help isolate cyclists – and pedestrians – from motorists
It is not an even impact- older pedestrians (and there is a very big difference in the age profiles between cyclists and pedestrians) are fragile with respect to being struck by cycles in a way that younger people are less so.
I am in the early stages of sounding out getting some data in this area.
Does the decrease in the number of cyclists also decrease the incidence of pedestrian vs cyclist injuries - These wouldn't get tracked if you were basing measures of injury on NZTA figures via police reports, as I understand it the NZTA figures are essentially "car vs. ..." (for example if you look at hospitalisations I understand the leading injury for cyclists is themselves- falling over when no other party is involved).
Speculatively, if there was contact between the Trump campaign and people they shouldn't be talking to, and the people they shouldn't have been talking to see there being more value in creating chaos for the administration than supporting it, then they can leak contact information to the degree that suits them.
I am particularly musing about this in relation to today's Roger Stone says he was in contact with the DNC hackers but it was innocuous.
For the Twitterbots, I would hypothesise that if your primary intent is to cause chaos in the U.S. then you have no particular loyalty to any faction in the US and will boost or attack on the basis of what seems to cause the most friction.
The rate of positive tests for beneficiaries is relevant only to the beneficiary population. What about the positives for non-beneficiary applicants and also those beneficiaries and non beneficiaries who avoid jobs where they know they will be tested?
This imaginary pool of independently wealthy (because they are not on benefits) drug taking people applying for pretty menial jobs- I could see how if hordes of them existed they could distort the figures. Not to mention the magical ability of these hypothetical drug taking beneficiaries to be able to avoid applying for jobs and stay on a benefit.
According to the NYT, where Uber said their self-driving car was under control of a human when it ran a red light in San Fransisco, it was actually self-driving at the time.
Oh, so Uber's self driving car project seemed to be built on plans stolen from Google. That's going to end well.