Originally Posted by InvisibleHand
P.S. I agree that the self-test of bike paths is poor evidence
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
The self-test is poor evidence of what? That OJ did it? Yes, it's poor evidence of that.
Remember, all Forester was trying to show was that cycling at road speeds on an urban sidepath (nothing like the long intersection-free sections of your 20 mph bike highway, Gene) is significantly dangerous. He asserts that it is so dangerous that nobody is even willing to put it to a test. He tried, and nearly killed himself. Now, here we are, years later, his assertion stands. Seems like pretty good evidence of that.
Well ... I seem to recall that Forester claims that this is scientific evidence--and defends it as such--of how dangerous bikepaths are with respect to roads. I also recall that he uses the experiment to come up with a "back of the envelope" estimate of the increase in danger. From the standpoint of the scientific method and a laboratory test with strong controls, his test is poor evidence. But as an anecdotal example to describe an idea, I think that it is fine.
Mind you, just like I think that Forester's test is poor evidence, I think Genec and Diane's statements are poor evidence that bikepaths are safe at high velocity. It is difficult to tell through a webpage how skilled they are, their physical abilities, the qualities of their respective bike paths, and so on. It just is
not scientific evidence.
This does
not imply that these statements have no value nor information. It just leads me to believe that the qualities of the bikepaths and roads are an important factor in their relative risk. (I will assume that neither Forester, Diane, or Genec are superbeings and that they are relatively skilled riders)