I've always argued this wasn't the case and that motoring is a worse transport mode because of the associated externalities, not because of anything inherent to the users.

But you can't argue with the science^TM^!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

The lead authours stated personal goal is to increase proportion of bicycle use from 8% to 25%

Yes, scientists have opinions and agendas.

Only that you maybe shouldn't be so quick to shit on the guy who raised his eyebrow

They. Did. Not. Read. The. Study.

They, in essence, did a study that "confirmed" that they themselves are better people than 92% of the population.

Look, if you want to dismiss a study, do so, I couldn't care less. But so far you both haven't brought anything but ad hominem against the authors.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Look, if you want to dismiss a study, do so

    For someone constantly accusing others of not reading, you seem to have a lot of trouble reading. I'll leave it to the exercise to the reader (not you, obviously, lol) to find the sentence where I explicitly say that this doesn't necessarily invalidate the results.

    brought anything but ad hominem against the authors.

    Acknowledging the biases of the people doing research isn't an ad homienem attack. Would you be clamouring to defend studies about the dangers of smoking written by people with large interests in the tobacco industry? No?

    You are having an extreme an emotional reaction to the presentation of fact.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    I'm all for more cycling and getting rid of cars entirely, but this is reaserch methods 101. One of my college courses was entirely about finding flaws in research, and this is a great example of a study that has an intended purpose, and very selectively shows the data they want it to show. And with things like qualitative data that requires an opinion to show in the first place, you can throw this out as junk from the getgo. This is popular science made for click bait headlines.

  • source
  • parent