Originally Posted by
spare_wheel
i did not say that it was significant or peer reviewed. nevertheless, the finding certainly does not support your safety nanny thesis. you would think this might give you pause or cause you to actually provide some evidence to support your opinion...
the idaho stop law also strongly suggests that cyclists can look and go without additional risk. although it has not yet been peer-reviewed yet, jason meggs has a manuscript arguing that the idaho stop, if anything, reduces risk of serious injury.
(a) if it's not peer-reviewed, it's not really relevant
(b) one can't really support a (hypo)thesis, one can only disprove one, if the science is being done correctly.
(c) an MS has not been peer-reviewed ... see (a)
just my €0.02
after Meggs
et al. has been published, i'd be more than happy to read it, so feel free to post/pass it to me.