40 ms·

This analysis doesn't lead to any relavent conclusion at all. It just shows more vehicle accidents of any type than cycle accidents. It needs to at least be sca

This analysis doesn't lead to any relavent conclusion at all. It just shows more vehicle accidents of any type than cycle accidents. It needs to at least be scaled by the ratio of bikes to other vehicles on that road. Without even any statistics, it could be meaningful if it also showed crashes elsewhere nearby too. Maybe severe bike accidents are actually more common just off that road than on it? We have no idea from this presentation. Good on him for having a go though. This is what journalists should be doing to help inform people better than a policeman's bluster.

ryan-allen 11y ago
There would probably be more motorcycle deaths on that road than regular cars as well, as it's a popular spot for enthusiast riders. They have an accident counter sign on that exact road, that if I recall, said there were 200+ motorcycle accidents in the past 10 years (that's off the top of my head). That doesn't correlate with the data in the article either so it makes me wonder if it's correct.
- cup 11y ago
  278 last I checked, but I don't think It's for that particular stretch of road.
elyobo 11y ago
You're right that he should have (and Strava could probably provide some baseline information on that) to make it conclusive, but I'm confident that the conclusions reached are valid - it's a very popular route and that's an obvious conclusion to a Melbournian cyclist. You can see it on this Strava heatmap, running from St Andrews to Kinglake - http://labs.strava.com/heatmap/#11/145.29434/-37.55368/blue/bike http://labs.strava.com/heatmap/#11/145.29434/-37.55368/blue/....