Cyclists

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Im certainly no pal of yours. I have read every post on the thread and countless other threads here. There is no evidence to back up you up in your assertions that cyclists here are anti-lights. You have not proved one shred of evidence either.

There is also not one shred of evidence that unlit cyclists are a significant safety issue on the roads, especially when compared to something like speeding motorists.

First Up wrote: »

The Mods warnings limit my scope to answer. I should have more accurately said it is not quantitative research as the sample is inherently skewed, being limited to only one cyclist. Plus, we don't know if the cyclists behaviour also varied from one trial to the other. Nor is it the study independently verified. It also assumes correlation equals causation. It is interesting and a valid discussion point but compares poorly with to the solid statistics that support the alternative conclusion.

Again, I'm left wondering where you are getting your definitions from when you claim that it is not quantitative research. It fits any definition I've ever seen for quantitative research.

Yes, there are limitations with the study, including the participation of only one cyclist - but you can say that about pretty much any quantitative study, that a bigger sample would give better results.

It doesn't assume anything about correlation or causation. It just presents the results of the research. It has been independently verified by the standard peer review process involved in publication.

And where specifically are these 'solid statistics' you mention?

First Up wrote: »

The other glaring omission is anything about how the motorists saw any difference and if/how it influenced them. The whole point of the exercise was to measure change in motorists' behaviour so the failure to explore that makes it pretty meaningless as a scientific study.

So how exactly would you do that research? Ahead of the cyclist, you're going to have to stop each driver and ask them their views on something they did instinctively, without thinking too much? That's going to be both illegal and impractical. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that this is nitpicking to try to undermine peer-reviewed research.

Eamonnator wrote: »

You've a lot to answer for!

I see that the OP has two posts on boards, the first one being this seagull load that he dropped before flying away. Maybe the cycling forum should have a standardised response to this kind of one-off unloading that really adds nothing to the debate?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

....Again, I'm left wondering where you are getting your definitions from when you claim that it is not quantitative research. It fits any definition I've ever seen for quantitative research.

.......Yes, there are limitations with the study, including the participation of only one cyclist - but you can say that about pretty much any quantitative study, that a bigger sample would give better results.

.......It doesn't assume anything about correlation or causation. It just presents the results of the research. It has been independently verified by the standard peer review process involved in publication.

......And where specifically are these 'solid statistics' you mention?


......So how exactly would you do that research? Ahead of the cyclist, you're going to have to stop each driver and ask them their views on something they did instinctively, without thinking too much? That's going to be both illegal and impractical. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that this is nitpicking to try to undermine peer-reviewed research......

Not the done thing to continue to debate with someone after they have been banned.