That's harsh, unfair criticism. The research methods were rigorous and broke new ground, genuinely eliciting attitudes to cycling and walking.
I have read Dave Horton's blog of his research activity and found the insights from his interviews and go-alongs in Leeds and Lancaster genuinely helpful in appreciating the issues and challenges. It was pretty clear that some of the assumptions underlying current practice (e.g. 'if we train cyclists according to "Cyclecraft" then they will be more confident on the roads') are somewhat invalid.
I was slightly disappointed when I read the report because much of the compelling information that had been collected had been left out, which meant the conclusions and recommendations were not as clear cut as they should have been.
I thought the visual presentation of the conclusions/recommendations was unimaginative and lacked impact.
Ralph
On 11 Sep 2011, at 23:16, Richard Burton wrote:
> There would appear to be no limits to the stupidity of blinkered researchers
> or their limited, unimaginative research. Can whoever funded this ask for
> their money back, especially if it was tax payers i.e. me. £936,000 and
> three years to produce this rubbish?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard Mann
> Sent: 08 September 2011 12:57
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Please ignore cyclists, especially when they are telling you to
> ignore cyclists...
>
> http://www.bikehub.co.uk/news/sustainability/when-designing-for-new-cyclists
> -ignore-the-existing-ones-says-study/
>
> The latest from the Understanding Walking & Cycling project.
>
> I think it could have been expressed a bit more carefully!
>
> Richard
|