atlas_shrugged wrote:Study linking more cycleways leading to less premature deaths:
http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/news/180116-10k ... brand.html
It seems to me that the claim "10% increase in designated cycling infrastructure was estimated to lead to significant increases cycling" is both vague and implausible.
Does a "10% increase in designated cycling infrastructure" mean the total length went up 10%? Or the budget? Would turning one 2-mile long stretch of little-used pavement alongside the bypass into shared use count as a substantial increase while creating numerous road closures with cycle gaps each count as being one metre long and therefore insignificant? Does that mean that officially designating a bridleway which had been there for centuries to now be part of the council's cycle network, thus adding 20% to that network's mileage, really mean more people will start cycling?