Hello John and All,

Thank you for your kind and prompt response to my “false” post.

With only 10 or so posts I am noting that you have 2,782 posts on this forum (amazing but pales to insignificance to genec at 19,270 posts) one expects you to be an authority and advocate for the scientific method and to have some knowledge of bicycle transportation.

I confess I have not read all 2,782 posts – a daunting task …. But have read several and admire the tenacity and single mindedness of your arguments in those that I have read. You have the amazing ability (look at all these posts) to bring out responses in the various forums that you frequent.

Imperious statements like the following regarding my citation are indicative of this ability.

“This is typical of the incompetence that surrounds bikeways.”

As I mentioned before (in a different forum) I watched you lecture at Google (posted on your website - about one hour to view) and enjoyed it noting that while watching ….. the lecturer was both more personable and less arrogant than statements like the above would indicate.

I chalk up the difference to the communication limitations of the forum post compared to the communications of personal contact.

While the thought is on my mind - Please take note that the first reference in the citation of my post (http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/47 ) is regarding obesity and how cycling can help the obese to lose weight.

1. Lindström M: Means of transportation to work and overweight and obesity: a population-based study in southern Sweden.
Prev Med 2008, 46:22-28. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text


From other sources:

The latest Health Survey for England (HSE) data shows that in 2009, 61.3% of adults (aged 16 or over), and 28.3% of children (aged 2-10) in England were overweight or obese, of these, 23.0% of adults and 14.4% of children were obese.

During the past 20 years, there has been a dramatic increase in obesity in the United States and rates remain high. In 2010, no state had a prevalence of obesity less than 20%. Thirty-six states had a prevalence of 25% or more; 12 of these states (Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia) had a prevalence of 30% or more.

================================

The point here being that obesity, as you know, both in England and the US is prevalent. Obesity is a recognized risk factor for diabetes.

These numerous obese people are candidates for recumbent bicycles as the citation above shows that regular bicycle riding lowers weight in the test group and a recumbent bicycle is easier for an obese person to use than a standard UCI or triangular frame cycle.

Because of the lower observable profile of the recumbent bicycle – I wish to posit that fat people will be more in danger by being less observed by motorist traffic (even though they may be physically larger than average) if they aggressively use VC ‘take the lane’ actions and will be safer in their own marked and separated lanes where being observed by the motorist is not a critical factor. This is also relates to wheelchair athletes and their very low profile racing chairs.

As to the bona fides of the study I offer that the authors were qualified and had the confidence of the funding agencies.

The study was peer reviewed.

I think this evidence creates a strong possibility that you are in error in calling it a “false posting”.

See the citations below:
=====================================================
The authors thank Diana Kao who conducted an initial literature search that provided a base of material and search strategy for this review. We gratefully acknowledge the reviews by Jennifer Dill, Luc Int Panis, Russell Lopez and Anne Lusk, which helped improve the final paper. The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the University of British Columbia Bridge Program, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. In addition, CR acknowledges funding from the Transportation Association of Canada, and AH and MW acknowledge funding from the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research.

Submitted manuscripts are usually reviewed by two or more experts. Peer reviewers will be asked to recommend whether a manuscript should be accepted, revised or rejected. They should also alert the editors of any issues relating to author misconduct such as plagiarism and unethical behavior.

Environmental Health operates using an open peer review system. Reviewers are asked to declare any competing interests and have to agree to open peer review, which works on two levels: the authors receive the signed report and, if the manuscript is published, the same report is available to the readers. The pre-publication history (initial submission, reviews and revisions - see, for example, pre-publication history) is posted on the web with the published article.
======================================

All of which………is neither here nor there. The accuracy of your posts is not an issue with me. Your posts are interesting.

What is important is that you have the marked ability to drive the website responses.

You are in the parlance – “a rainmaker” par excellence.

The forums with advertising should pay you for posting and driving traffic.

I hope to clone your ability to irritate (rouse to impatience) other forum participants to the point of answering - for a ‘Turing Bot’ software project.

I am hoping your technique is an artifice that can be programmed and is not too difficult to replicate.

……. and that it does not have a copyright ……

Keep up the good work.

Cheers,

Neal