Originally Posted by sggoodri
I'm not interested in your debates with Forester about how he interprets his numbers.
...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,
Yada, yada, yada about road engineering and Cary, N.C. too. No one is discussing road building/road design as a vehicular cycling concept except you and Forester.
I am not surprised you want to avoid the subject of the credibility of the fundamental Vehicular Cycling premise/conclusion about "Vehicular Cyclists faring best." You know, the "faring best" premise/conclusion with no measured metrics or definitions of what constitutes "faring best". Only the various Forester Brand safety analyses and
tests and statistical mumbo jumbo that Forester and his associates claim
are the best evidence that prove their premise/mantra. But you choose to ignore the issue of lack of validity of Forester furnished "scientific evidence" and conclude that vehicular cycling is valid by sticking to discussing esoteric road design concepts. Works for you, eh?
