Nuxx:N2e5l.69786$ I1.631@newsfe13.ams2

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!195.114.241.69.MISMATCH!feeder2.news-service.com!69.16.177.246.MISMATCH!cyclone03.ams.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!npeersf01.ams.highwinds-media.com!newsfe13.ams2.POSTED!7564ea0f!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: _  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: "Research" (was Re: Wait like the rest of us) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 23:47:05 +0000 References: <3qv1l45b5tinu86rqnlsd0etrldm7hbk6j@4ax.com> 	  	<55a4l.25545$i_6.5797@newsfe11.ams2>  	  	        Lines: 66 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To:  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.21.204.127 X-Complaints-To: http://netreport.virginmedia.com X-Trace: newsfe13.ams2 1230335251 82.21.204.127 (Fri, 26 Dec 2008 23:47:31 UTC) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 23:47:31 UTC Organization: virginmedia.com Bytes: 4403 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:681997

MatSav wrote: > "_" <whos@prettyboy.com> wrote in message > news:rF65l.63435$Zz2.29086@newsfe30.ams2... >> MatSav wrote: >>> <taylosrandsmith@privacy.net> wrote in message >>> news:chk9l4p2dc5ovhmatlujj3adrj7g4khvl4@4ax.com... >>>> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 23:39:46 +0000, Phil W Lee >>>> <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Did you know that research has shown that the further a >>>> bicyclist >>>> rides away from the curb - then the less room overtaking >>>> motorists >>>> will allow - ride nearer the curb and motorists give you more >>>> room. >>>> >>> Please provide the citation for said research - author(s), >>> date and details of the peer-reviewed journal, if any, and >>> allow me to make my own evidence-based decision. >>> >>> To be technically sound research, it should be a statistically >>> significant sample, repeatable, and have at least one control >>> group against which the hypothesis [is tested]. I suspect the >>> middle of these three conditions can't be achieved. >>> >>> Additionally, the method of measurement of both the distance >>> from the kerb (not "curb" - go look it up on Google, or any >>> english dictionary, on-line or otherwise) and the clearance >>> distance, should be given. Otherwise, it's just anecdotes - >>> not research. >>> >> No problem. That data will be forthcoming just as soon as you >> apply the same rigour to the data which supports Lee's opposing >> theory. > > I have no idea what Lee's opposing theory is - please explain, or > cite. > Lee states that if a driver finds two cyclists side by side to be an obstruction, he must have been planning to pass them too close. Its up there, at the start of this sub-thread - I'm sure you're capable of reading it.

>> Oh no, hang on, that's not necessary, is it? > > Yes it is. I'm a scientist. "To measure is to know" - Von Siemen > said that, I'm minded to agree. > I's sure you're open minded, but curious that I can only see you seeking objectivity from a single side of the coin.

>> Data which *supports* cycling falls squarely into the >> 's'obvious, innit' school, where anything negative of cycling >> requires robust evidence which is inevitably dismissed anyway! > > Not in my book. If there is evidence to support either theory, > I'll read both sets, and then come to a reasoned judgement on > which theory I will 'support'. And, Judith, I understand that is > exactly what Guy has done as regards his decision on "To wear, or > Not to wear?". > Would you care to explain why you think I'm Judith? I'm not, as your esteemed Guy will happily confirm.