{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02219233355749832, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0026899798251513113, 'mean_word_length': 5.584070796460177, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Determining If Walkability and Bikeability Indices Reflect Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

Walkability and bikeability indices are used to succinctly quantify how conducive an environment is to walking and cycling, often including factors related to comfort and perceived safety. The potential assumption that “walkable” and “bikeable” mean safe for walking and cycling (i.e., the association with objective safety or crash risk) has not yet been examined. This study investigates the association between two widely used measures (walk score and bike score) and pedestrian and cyclist crashes in Vancouver, Canada, to determine whether more walkable and bikeable areas of the city are also safer for walking and biking, after controlling for exposure. Multivariate Bayesian crash models with random and spatial effects are developed for pedestrian–motor-vehicle and cyclist–motor-vehicle crashes in 134 traffic analysis zones using 5 years of crash data with walking, cycling, and motor-vehicle traffic volume controls for exposure. Results indicate that areas of the city with higher walkability and bikeability can be potentially associated with greater pedestrian and cyclist crash risk, respectively, even after controlling for exposure. While the clear answer is that neighborhood walkability and bikeability does not indicate safety for pedestrians and cyclists, questions remain as to whether they should, and if so, how they could be modified to better incorporate objective risk.