Originally Posted by invisiblehand
Well, from what I can tell, he repeats the analysis that others present as evidence. Or sometimes uses the same techniques that others use as evidence. Or simply works with the limitations of the data.
I recall reading the example you reference (vaguely) ... this is on his website, right? But I don't recall him over-stating the evidence nor obfuscating the problems with the data. Could you explain your point in more detail?
Read this:
http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Social/aaas94.htm
He uses the studies cited over and over to reach conclusions that none of the original researchers made. Note the lack of any definition or even recording of accident severity. The Cross Studies give no indication of the exposure rates. That is, if a large number of accidents occur on the far right of the roadway, what is the percentage of time cyclists ride in that exposure area. If few cyclists are cycling down the middle of busy high speed arterials, Forester would discover how safe that location is because of the relatively few accidents recorded. Better yet he ignores the difference in expected severities of bike-car collisions when comparing to the scrapped knees of 8 year olds riding on the playground.
For a belly whopper analysis of another color, read:
http://www.johnforester.com/Articles...l/natattit.htm
All about National Attitudes as determined by Forester the Scientist.
Another Forester funny is his description of his self described death defying ride on the bike path of Palo Alto. I know it is on his web site somewhere. If anyone knows the URL please post; I need a refresh of my laughing cells. It's hilarious because he is serious!