Originally Posted by invisiblehand

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)