Originally Posted by nealhe

Hello John and All,

and thanks for a good reply as usual ….. though I am foggy as to what my argument was that is disproved by what happened in merry old England, (or UK, or British Isles, or Great Britain) … always a bit odd to this Yank which different terms can offend since the whole place is so small.

I suspect the problems you outline in the history of American cycling law are some of the reasons Dr. Pucher’s work to better American cycling is so popular.

With your kind permission and to help me catch up (I was tied up [not literally] for a few days) as I am tardy in replying to your posts and some others on this forum …… so this reply will be a threefer (that is a twofer … makes you think of Broadway tickets …plus one) and I’ll respond to your license posts and your Dr. Pucher post all in this one.

“Neal, you need to learn so much, but equally important is to learn to
reject so much that you think you know.”

John, that is the story of my life. And believe it or not …… you are not the first one to tell me. I think it is a character flaw that I am trying to convert to a virtue.

And for you John, it is important to remember, …….. ‘A wise man will heed his own advice.’

I am not so sure that what “most of what people are so sure that they know is erroneous”.


The many studies you find lacking are very persuasive on the subject of bicycle infrastructure improving cycling and increasing the number of people riding bicycles ….. in other words …… improving the popularity of cycling.

While the occasional study may be flawed I think most are carefully done.

I am surprised, flabbergasted actually that the following differences with your fellow members could occur: “the top committee in American bicycle transportation engineering, the Bicycling Committee of the Transportation Research Board, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, I saw papers accepted that I had rejected for
obvious defects ………”

I submit that your fellow members were flat out wrong and you were right and I for one applaud your efforts to restore some honesty and gravitas to the peer review system.

“Neal, choose to stick with the popular view, more accurately termed
the popular superstition and ignorance, you will have a hard time in
these discussions.”

John, so far, I am having a delightful time here in this forum and truly hope that you are too. I am learning a great deal from you and all the others in these posts and must confess that under your tutelage I have learned that there are many more layers to this bicycle infrastructure business than I realized at the outset.

I think it is to your credit that your attended Dr. Pucher’s appearance here in San Diego: “Walking and Cycling for Healthy Cities," public presentation for the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and the Active Living Research Program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and San Diego State University, San Diego, California, August 23. Click here for PDF of PPT. to learn about current research.

I am stunned at Dr. Pucher’s answer below to your question:

“When he had opened for questions, I asked him why he advocated bikeways for which he could not provide mechanisms of how they came to produce the wonderful
reductions in car-bike collisions he praised so much. His answer, clear
for all to hear, was that he paid no attention to engineering, he just
did what was popular.”

"Does that make you think twice, Neal?”

Indeed ……… twice and even thrice.

Noting that Dr. Pucher outranks you with his PHD and many publications ……

My first thought of the situation you describe is that Dr. Pucher did not know who you were and was just blowing you off.

My second thought of the situation you describe is that Dr. Pucher did know who you were and was just blowing you off.

My third thought of the situation was ….. Who is this guy Dr. Pucher?

John Pucher is a professor in the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University (New Brunswick, New Jersey). Since earning a Ph.D. at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1978, Pucher has conducted research on a wide range of topics in transport economics and finance, including numerous projects for the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Canadian government, and various European ministries of transport. For almost three decades, he has examined differences in travel behavior, transport systems, and transport policies in Europe, Canada, and the USA.

Over the past twelve years, Pucher's research has focused on walking and bicycling. His international comparative analysis has included Australia, Canada, the USA, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and several other European countries. The main objective is to determine what American, Canadian, and Australian cities could learn from each other and from European cities to improve the safety, convenience, and feasibility of these non-motorized modes. He has published 25 articles and book chapters on walking and cycling and given over 60 featured talks, keynote addresses, and conference talks on this subject. From 2008 to 2010, he is directing a major research project for the U.S. Department of Transportation examining bicycling trends and policies in large American cities.

Pucher has been increasingly interested in the public health implications of urban transport. In particular, he has emphasized the need for Americans to increase their walking and cycling for daily transportation as the best way to ensure adequate levels of physical exercise and enhance overall public health.

From 2005 to 2006, Pucher spent his sabbatical as a visiting professor at the University of Sydney's Institute of Transport Studies directing a research project that examined differences between Canada, Australia, and the USA in their travel behavior, transport systems and policies, and the impacts of transport on public health. Now that he is back at Rutgers, Pucher is working with Australian, Canadian, and European colleagues to pursue this increasingly important research on public health impacts of transport.

Complete Curriculum Vitae (C.V.)
Abbreviated Curriculum Vitae (C.V.)
Brief Bio

Who is Dr. Pucher ……. Obviously from your criticism some ‘Johnny Come Lately’ so the computer Googled him to learn more:

……. The lights dimmed in a partial power failure …. As when some convict is being executed …. Then the computer lit up like it was having a ‘denial of service’ attack by both the Russians and Chinese at the same time ….. and when I opened my eyes there were pages and pages of references and publications by John Pucher, PHD, referred to as brilliant, famous, etc. etc. etc.

John you sly devil, what a sneaky way to get me to read Dr. Pucher’s publications …. Well some of them anyway ….
You are a good teacher ….. 

As to the math errors I will take your word for that as the following work of yours appears to be genius:

Because teaching statistical decision theory from the texts of Robert O. Schlaifer was so difficult for the students to understand, Forester decided to prepare his own text, Statistical Selection of Business Strategies. In the course of preparing this book, Forester determined several characteristics of this aspect of statistics. All the problems, treated in rather different ways by mathematics that looked complicated, were capable of solution only if they had one common structure. This common structure could be solved by one purely arithmetical algorithm. While the mathematical solutions were mathematically accurate, the error in finding a formulation that best fit the empiric data was as great as the error introduced by treating the empiric data directly by arithmetical methods. Forester determined that Schlaifer, when describing his simplified method usable when all the data were normal, used the common normal table that gives areas of the two portions of the normal curve, when what was needed for Schlaifer's calculation method was a table showing the center of mass of each portion. Forester prepared such a table. The Forester method was so suited to digital calculation that once desk-top computers became available, problems that had required several hours of slide-rule and adding machine computation were solved almost as fast as the data could be entered.

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

On the larger question though I think Dr. Pucher prevails in making the case for bicycle infrastructure increasing cycling (making it more popular):

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

This research report for the U.S. Department of Transportation reviews trends in cycling levels, safety, and policies in large North American cities over the past two decades. We analyze aggregate national data as well as city-specific case study data for nine large cities (Chicago, Minneapolis, Montreal, New York, Portland, San Francisco, Toronto, and Vancouver). The number of bike commuters in the USA rose by 64% from 1990 to 2009, and the bike share of commuters rose from 0.4% to 0.6%.

Over the shorter period from 1996 to 2006, the number of bike commuters in Canada rose by 42%, and the bike share of commuters rose from 1.1% to 1.3%. From 1988 to 2008, cycling fatalities fell by 66% in Canada and by 21% in the USA; serious injuries fell by 40% in Canada and by 31% in the USA.

Cycling rates have risen much faster in the nine case study cities than in their countries as a whole, at least doubling in all the cities since 1990. The case study cities have implemented a wide range of infrastructure and programs to promote cycling and increase cycling safety: expanded and improved bike lanes and paths, traffic calming, parking, bike-transit integration, bike sharing, training programs, and promotional events. We describe the specific accomplishments of the nine case study cities, focusing on each city's innovations and lessons for other cities trying to increase cycling.

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

Cheers,

Neal