Originally Posted by
John Forester
I think that you are a bit confused.
Yes, I was. That was because you wrote
You can only make a reasonable statement of views after you have read the initial papers that were reviewed, the review paper, and my review of the review paper. Until you have reached the minimal reasonable level of expertise in this subject, your opinions of this type are no more than hot air. If you want to develop the level of expertise necessary for reasonable discussion, then put your mind into doing so.
- which ASSUMED that the person you were replying to hadn't read the letter. Obviously the only way this assumption could be made was if the letter was unavailable.
As for your letter/paper - it's hard to give a definite opinion without access to a lot more material. I'd certainly take issue with one of the arguments, i.e. that the higher accident rate for roundabouts with cyclelanes proves the lanes are dangerous. It could well be that the type of roundabouts where accidents are more likely have been selected for bike lanes. Or that lanes are more common in cities where there are more riders, hence there are more accidents. You don't define what you mean by "worst safety" performance in this passage (3.2) - absolute accident rate? rate adjusted for rider numbers? for traffic density? - and your online version doesn't provide the necessary references - your conclusions MAY be right, but you certainly haven't proved them.