-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments on report 3 #60
Comments
Please change the colour scheme on figure 1.1 I can't distinguish all those blues. |
Line 151: what does 'and where selected for special study' mean? |
Good question, clearly a typo. Well spotted! |
Figure 2.2 - it would be useful to have a close up of London, since that is our study area and it is not visible. Also, it looks like some areas on this map have high casualty rates because of a high tourist/day tripper population i.e. people who are neither residents nor workers. This could include Cumbria, the Scottish Highlands, North Wales and the South coast. |
Heads-up, I've proposed a fix to that, see here: Does that look good to you @mem48 (who originally wrote that ; ) and @joeytalbot who spotted the issue. |
Good point but I think this section is more about the big picture. Would it be easy to add an inset map of London @mem48 ? Maybe worth doing if so. |
Agreed, that is commented on in the text. Any further changes to highlight that are welcome though. |
Meeting is tomorrow. Comments and changes to the report welcome whenever. Many thanks! |
Sorry @Robinlovelace just deleted that. Great, I will add something to the report, please discard if not ready/immature. |
Line 239: how could high crash rates per km be an artefact of low cycling levels. High variability in crash rates could be artefact, but high crash rates suggests a real problem. The more likely artefact is in differing proportions of commuter/leisure/personal cycling activity. i.e. models of cycling activity based on travel to work don't capture so much of the cycling in areas where non-commuter cycling dominates. |
Figure 2.7: it would be really nice to have the London Borough visible so we can see what's going on better. |
Good point. I meant that if you have one crash in an area with very low 'exposure' (cycling in this case) that area could be seen as risky when in fact it was just a chance event. I agree with your point that not all crashes during peak hours are commuting though. How would you rephrase it? |
It is clear from the results that outer London is a more dangerous place to cycle than inner London.
A second potential source of error is that, even in peak hours, many cycle journeys will be for non-commute purposes. |
Is the text in your last comment a suggested change @joeytalbot ? Please put in a PR by editing here if you get a chance: https://github.com/saferactive/trafficalmr/edit/master/vignettes/report3.Rmd Otherwise I'm happy to make the change. Many thanks 👍 |
No description provided.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: