Hey HH,

I do think that there are instances where Forester is not entirely clear about the meaning of his results. Personally, I see stuff like this all of the time. So I do not think that this is an intentional act.

I just look the time to look online--which appears to be the latest source of information--and found this

http://www.johnforester.com/Articles...ansQuart01.htm

Here it looks like he sets up his sidepath experiment in the right context with, "Therefore, I decided to ride that system using the same speeds and right-of-way that I had enjoyed on the roadway."

But when he reports the results in the following paragraph, he states, "Since I had had no such incipient collisions in several hundred days of use of those roadways, and had seven in the first attempt to use the sidepaths, I concluded that the risk rate was at least 1,000 times greater on the sidepath than on the roadway."

Anyway, whether this is misleading or not is a matter of opinion. He should have written, "... the risk rate of riding vehicularly was at least 1,000 ..." but he did not. He did state what the experiment was about the prior paragraph.

... hopefully there were few posts while I was typing!