Cyclists and car drivers sharing the same road cause some problems. What are the problems? What are the solutions?
The coexistence of cyclists and car drivers on the same road is a topic that stirs controversy and varying opinions. This essay aims to dissect the reasons behind this contentious issue and propose practical solutions to mitigate the associated challenges.
Undoubtedly, sharing the same road poses considerable challenges for both motorists and cyclists, leading to a heightened risk of accidents. The disparity in speeds between these modes of transport compounds the problem. Cars inherently have greater velocity compared to bicycles, creating a potential collision risk. This difference in speeds not only increases the likelihood of accidents but also magnifies the severity of resulting injuries. For instance, in Vietnam, the surge in severe cycling accidents can be attributed to the shared road infrastructure. Consequently, the coexistence of these vehicles accentuates the vulnerability of both parties and jeopardizes their safety.
In order to rectify this situation, a range of viable solutions can be implemented. Primarily, governments should prioritize the creation of dedicated lanes for cyclists and vehicles. By segregating their pathways, the conflicting speeds and risks associated with shared lanes can be significantly minimized. Additionally, stringent enforcement of traffic regulations is imperative. Stringent penalties for those who flout the rules or venture into the wrong lanes can act as a deterrent, curbing the frequency of traffic accidents involving cyclists and motorists.
In conclusion, the debate surrounding cyclists and car drivers sharing the same road is fueled by the safety concerns it raises. However, through the establishment of separate lanes and rigorous enforcement of traffic laws, these issues can be effectively addressed. The ultimate goal is to create a safer and more harmonious travel environment for all road users.
- The chart below shows the average cost of monthly contract for four different mobile cell phones in a European country from January to September 2002 measured in euro 73
- The chart below shows information about fuel used in the transport sector in different countries in Europe compared to the EU average in 2009 and 2010 56
- The bar chart illustrates the percentage of adults who were overweight or obese between 1965 to 2015 while the pie chart demonstrates the part of adults who were overweight obese severely obese and healthy or underweight in 2015 67
- More and more students are choosing to study at colleges and universities in a foreign country Do the benefits of studying abroad outweigh the drawbacks 56
- Demand for food is increasing worldwide What are the causes of this What measures can the international community take to make sure the supply of food is enough 78
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, however, if, so, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 13.1623246493 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 10.4138276553 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 7.30460921844 27% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 24.0651302605 50% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 41.998997996 81% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1611.0 1615.20841683 100% => OK
No of words: 276.0 315.596192385 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.83695652174 5.12529762239 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07593519647 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.22199655722 2.80592935109 115% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 176.041082164 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.605072463768 0.561755894193 108% => OK
syllable_count: 496.8 506.74238477 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 8.0 2.52805611222 316% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 26.9680800902 49.4020404114 55% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 100.6875 106.682146367 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.25 20.7667163134 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.3125 7.06120827912 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.201939996298 0.244688304435 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0627826537969 0.084324248473 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0743517914954 0.0667982634062 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124298591411 0.151304729494 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0412127445067 0.056905535591 72% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.0946893788 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.3 50.2224549098 74% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.3 12.4159519038 131% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.77 8.58950901804 125% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 78.4519038076 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 9.78957915832 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.