That is a really nasty deliberate misquotation of my words. Here are the actual words: "There are dozens, probably hundreds of studies that advocate bikeways; God knows I have read enough of them. I reviewed Pucher and Dijkstra years ago, and demolished it. Indeed, it was my criticism of that paper, and Pucher's immoderate reply, that caused the editors of Transportation Quarterly to publish my paper, The Bicycle Transportation Controversy, in Spring 2001, Vol 55 Number 2, pgs 7-17."Originally Posted by Bekologist
My point is that none of these probably hundreds of studies has provided scientifically reasonable evidence to support the three basic claims of bikeway advocates, or specifically for bike lanes. The three basic claims for bike lanes are that the bike-lane stripe reduces car-bike collisions, reduces the level of skill that is required for safe cycling, and significantly reduces motoring. I have never seen such a paper; it was the purpose of the inquiry to see whether any of the bicycle advocates in this forum would advance such a paper and support its reasoning.
By the way, we on this forum have had a much better discussion of European facilities than is possible from reading the Pucher and Dijkstra paper. That's how bad that paper is.