Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
I must have missed the part where "we vehicular cycling supporters" ever addressed the fatal flaws in the risk analysis methods and statistical techniques supporting the quantitative claims of risk reduction effectiveness for vehicular cycling training and materials. I must have doubly missed the open debate and disagreement among "we vehicular cycling supporters" on this issue.
I'm not interested in your debates with Forester about how he interprets his numbers.
We have our own numbers for our local municipalities and our state, including crash statistics, crash descriptions, police reports, transportation planning research, cyclist surveys, etc.
I've tried my best to find local evidence that conflicts with the predictions of the vehicular cycling principle, with no success. I consider it my responsibility to do so, as a skeptical thinker, before engaging on any public advocacy on the matter, or making decisions on a planning board about the future shape or our city. I've often debated Forester about concerns with high-speed roadways, the effects of right-turn-only lanes and free-flowing merges/diverges, and the merits of planning road topology and land use to encourage cycling. The general conclusion has been that vehicular cycling is a valid concept, but that some environments are more hospitable to vehicular cyclists than others, and that it is possible (and preferable) to design the environment better to improve conditions for drivers of slower, open, narrow vehicles in a manner compatible with the vehicular cycling principle.