Originally Posted by
I-Like-To-Bike
Exactly. Forester has compared accident data from 3rd graders with middle aged men, and similar bogus comparisons of dissimilar populations of cyclists, none of whom have ever taken an Effective Cycling class or shown to have ever been "vehicular cyclists," (by any definition) and concluded that Effective Cycling training is validated at reducing accidents for the students by 80%. Forester's only method of supporting his false "claims" of 80% reduction in accidents for Effective Cyclist students (or vehicular cyclists) is ad hominem and straw man attacks at the motives at anyone who states the obvious about the lack of credible evidence to support his bogus claim.
Effective or Vehicular Cycling training is not necessarily "effective" at reducing cycling risk just because John Forester and a few true believers wish it were so.
You, ILTB, should be more careful about your statements. The only defense that I offer for my analysis of likely crash reduction comes from the data themselves. I have used the best data that is available. My ad hominem criticism is not about defending my thesis, but it results from replying to ILTB's venomous and inaccurate attacks that he has made for decades.
And, if all would note, ILTB's thesis is that there is no evidence that obeying the rules of the road is safer than disobeying those rules.