The Forester article, although pretending to be science, is actually policy argument, sophistry (in the proper sense, political persuasion), not science.  He makes this abundantly clear in his first few lines, as pasted below.

This is rather old, and I am not that impressed with the way the evidence is presented.

Real science presents operational definitions and empirical data addressing a hypothesis.  Forester adduces data to support a conclusion.  

The conflation of data and reasoning under the term EVIDENCE is a lawyer's trick, not a scientist's. I'm reminded of the old lawyer's rule:

If the law is against you, argue the facts.

If the facts are against you, argue the law.

If the law and the facts are against you, POUND THE TABLE.

Forester writes:

This is an account of how superstitious fear interferes with scientific judgement and corrupts the scientific process. The particular scientific discipline is cycling transportation engineering, which studies the facts of bicycle operation to make recommendations about how individual cyclists should act and what policy society should follow regarding cyclists. The data and reasoning support the vehicular-cycling policy: cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. (Rather than repeating the words "data and reasoning" throughout, I use the term "evidence" to include both data and reasoning.)