Originally Posted by
Bekologist
Oh, I seeeee, john, so when you said
"I have read two (or three ?) of Pucher's papers on his favorite subject, and I have never found any information regarding cycling"you
actually meant
'Pucher writes about bicycling but my prejudices prevent me from endorsing any of it.'
I will give you one thread to grasp: Pucher is not thought of as a bicycle instructor and doesn't write specifically to bicycling technique instruction....
Rutgers University Professor John Pucher, AKA 'car free john', from rutgers' Blousetein School of Planning and Public Policy definetly, MOST DEFINETLY, writes about bicycling!!!
Bekologist, my challenge to you was: "I have written that Pucher's only writings about the technical aspects of bicycle operation display no more than the extreme of popular superstition instead of real knowledge. You, Bekologist, dispute that claim. Then please provide quotations from Pucher's works that demonstrate your claim."
I see that you, Bekologist, have been unable to answer the challenge about the works of the author whom you so much admire. If you want to call Pucher's field the field of bicycling, go right ahead, but whatever you name Pucher's field, he still knows nothing but the extreme of superstition about the field of bicycle traffic operation, and without that knowledge he cannot be capable of making the causal links between the governmental statistics that he presents and doing good for cyclists. Indeed, while Pucher has tried to do so, his answers are also no more than the extreme of superstition, as in his claim that bike-lane stripes improve the failing vision of elderly cyclists so they are more able to see the motor vehicles that threaten them.