Google sponsored links
John Forester has announced he is running for LAB director from the Western States in the March 2006 election.
Statement of qualifications:
http://www.johnforester.com/LAW/Candidate%20qual.htm
Campaign statement:
http://www.johnforester.com/League%20Reform.htm
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
...and the peasants rejoice... ...yayyyyyyyy...
-Monty Python, Search for the Holy Grail
Who is supporting his nomination? Who is he running against?
Who is he running against?
The answer is known by those who bother to read:
http://www.johnforester.com/League%20Reform.htm
(don't know who is supporting the nomination)
Good stuff from Forester:
"One side of bikeway promotion argues that cyclists' right to travel on the roadways ought to be limited because some motorists endanger cyclists by behaving unlawfully. On the contrary, cyclists' right to use the public highways should not, and must not, be discriminated against because some motorists endanger cyclists by behaving unlawfully. Enforcement against violators is just; discrimination against victims is both unjust and counterproductive. But now consider the other side of the argument.
"Consider the opposite argument, that all cyclists must be discriminated against because some cyclists behave unlawfully. This is, I remind you all, the official argument for the nation's program regarding bicycle transportation, as specified in the policy papers produced by the Federal Highway Administration, papers written by Andy Clarke, who is now, deplorably, employed by the management of the League of American Bicyclists as their Executive Director."
I been getting email all day about this;
Same old sheot! Forrester says " The League was given such a program in 1976" this is in regard to his program and book " effective cycling" The training program wasn't free, everyone paid to attend. Given? BS He got royalties for every book sold then and since.
I love this one "Since vehicular cycling is required for safe cycling, arguing against it requires mendacious lawyers' trickery."
"mendacious lawyers' trickery" ? Sounds like something you would hear from Jerry Falwell :roflmao:
Never mind that he and a few of his buds pick up spare change as expert witnesses for those "mendacious lawyers"
The one thing he is certainly right about is the LAB discontinuing GEAR .Membership has declined steadly since.
The answer is known by those who bother to read:
http://www.johnforester.com/League%20Reform.htm
(don't know who is supporting the nomination)
I was kind of hoping for some background by a neutral observer.
I been getting email all day about this;
Same old sheot! Forrester says " The League was given such a program in 1976" this is in regard to his program and book " effective cycling" The training program wasn't free, everyone paid to attend. Given? BS He got royalties for every book sold then and since.
It's Forester, with 2 r's, not 3.
Getting royalties for the book is not getting compensated for designing the training program and materials.
I love this one "Since vehicular cycling is required for safe cycling, arguing against it requires mendacious lawyers' trickery."
"mendacious lawyers' trickery" ? Sounds like something you would hear from Jerry Falwell :roflmao:
Oh, that's meaningful and relevant.
Never mind that he and a few of his buds pick up spare change as expert witnesses for those "mendacious lawyers"
Nothing in his statement implied that all lawers are mendacious. Do you have anything of subtance to say?
The one thing he is certainly right about is the LAB discontinuing GEAR .Membership has declined steadly since.
What's GEAR?
Time to organize the opposition, we got enough idiots with inflated egos and wacky theories passing themselves off as cycling advocates.
spelling, Always the first retort when someone can't mount an effective defense..................
The first four quotes were excerpts from emails I received today, I do however agree with them.
The quip about GEAR is mine,
FWIW I have been an LAB member since 1982
GEAR ( Great Eastern Rally) was LAB's big event every year that a member club would host. There would be two -three days of tours along with entertainment and workshops. I was involved with two of the GEAR rallies. They brought in thousands of cyclists every year, The hosting club made money, LAB made money and gained membership. The last year was 2002. John did a great a job with GEAR. (BTW if you had actually read John's webpage that you linked to you would know that~)
But LAB is more than GEAR. It is more than promoting John's single agenda. John wasn't voted out by skullduggery malfeance or "mendacious lawyers" he was voted out by the membership because he had this narrow focus of the world being "VC" and nothing else The world moved on and so did most of the LAB membership. It was time to do things different it was time to stop wasting resources fighting facility advocates. It was time to work with Washington not always against it. Unfortunately John doesn't get it.
John's time running LAB has passed if he really cared about the LAB he would work to make it better not tear it down which has been his current effort.
I am not all that happy with the current LAB board but they have managed to strike a balance with other advocacy groups and develop relationships with people in Government. The cost of that balance is they have alienated some of the *competent* cyclists. the gain is they are putting asses in bicycle seats. The more people on bikes the better our lot becomes. It is a lot easier to argue for your rights when you have a public that can relate to your issue.
The whole facilities thing, and "bike friendly" cities... I realize that generates a lot of publicity, and good will, for now.
But sooner or later, people are going to realize that the emperor has no clothes. That on street facilities cause more problems than they solve. That facilities-lite cities are safer, and bike friendlier, than facilities-heavy cities. It's only a matter of time. Then what?
I am concerned that the flip-side of the facilities coin, the promotion and reinforcement of the notion that cyclists have a need and/or obligation to stay out of the way of cars, will have entrenched that dangerous notion too deeply into the psyches of everyone, if it hasn't already.
I agree with a lot of what you say. I don't have a problem with VC advocacy it needs to be part of the overall picture of what cycling should become.
However many LAB members want to see some compromise. I think that until John and the rest of the VC bunch are ready to sit down and work on some common goals with facilties advocates instead of always fighting them, they are going to stay on the outside looking in. I have not yet heard of any facilities advocates saying they want bicycles off the roads.
You can quote safety statistics all day But the fact remains that facilties like MUP's get people out of thier houses and cars, Politicians love MUPs, because for a paltry $200,000 or so a mile they make a lot of people happy. In many areas of the country you now pay a premium for a home that adjoins a MUP. some MUP's have become vacation destinations. When my wife and I recently bought our retirement property in NC we chose it because there is a MUP right in front of it and we are 4 blocks from a road with bike lanes that lead 12 miles to the beach.. Most every large city in Canada and Europe I have been to have bike lanes and paths that are an intregal part of their transportation system. Go to Montreal sometime. Montreal has paths and lanes all over the city. they even have a bicycle rush hour with thousands of people commuting on the paths at the same time. It appears to work well for them.
Time to organize the opposition, we got enough idiots with inflated egos and wacky theories passing themselves off as cycling advocates.
So far, the LAB voters' track record has been pretty good on not voting in the ******'s from LAB-Reform. The two previous two LAB-Reform candidates (who were ****** with inflated egos and wacky theories passing themselves off as cycling advocates) have been rejected by the membership in elections.
I have not yet heard of any facilities advocates saying they want bicycles off the roads.
That's a fact. The only such scare-talk comes from the mouths and keyboards of Forester and his acolytes who "interpret" the intentions and motivations of everyone else; all through the power of their patented VC Motivation/Superstition Detector (Ouija Board.)
The whole facilities thing, and "bike friendly" cities... I realize that generates a lot of publicity, and good will, for now...... facilities-lite cities are safer, and bike friendlier, than facilities-heavy cities.
Utter and complete fallacy.
The short of it lies in the question, "Is there a powerful, concerted effort to remove cyclists from the roadways for the convenience of motorists?" If not, no big deal.
Yet if big money is organizing away our rightful place on the road, it wouldn't be the first time. Automakers did it to opposing methods of transportation to gain a lock on the American transportation market in the past, with overwhelming success.
Yet if big money is organizing away our rightful place on the road, it wouldn't be the first time. Automakers did it to opposing methods of transportation to gain a lock on the American transportation market in the past, with overwhelming success.
Puhleeze! Take the urban legends to the Foo page or Car-Free forums where those horror stories will be accepted as unerring truth and as an explanation for all transportation scenarios around the country.
The whole facilities thing, and "bike friendly" cities... I realize that generates a lot of publicity, and good will, for now.
But sooner or later, people are going to realize that the emperor has no clothes. That on street facilities cause more problems than they solve. That facilities-lite cities are safer, and bike friendlier, than facilities-heavy cities. It's only a matter of time. Then what?
I am concerned that the flip-side of the facilities coin, the promotion and reinforcement of the notion that cyclists have a need and/or obligation to stay out of the way of cars, will have entrenched that dangerous notion too deeply into the psyches of everyone, if it hasn't already.
So at how many thousand commuting miles do I see the Emperor has no clothes? 20000? 30000? at 16000 I like the facilities we have and I ride roughly 20 miles of them every morning (and 5 miles or so of WOLs or wider lanes).
Puhleeze! Take the urban legends to the Foo page or Car-Free forums where those horror stories will be accepted as unerring truth and as an explanation for all transportation scenarios around the country.
Boo! :)
The short of it lies in the question, "Is there a powerful, concerted effort to remove cyclists from the roadways for the convenience of motorists?" If not, no big deal.
Yet if big money is organizing away our rightful place on the road, it wouldn't be the first time. Automakers did it to opposing methods of transportation to gain a lock on the American transportation market in the past, with overwhelming success.
+1 In car or truck congested cities there is pressure to remove cyclists from streets. That's the real driving force behind separate bike facilities in some areas. The delusion, shared by some cyclists, is that bikes hold up traffic. That's asinine, of course. Cars--too many of them--make traffic jams. Bikes, ridden freely on the streets, are part of the solution to traffic congestion. Bikes confined to bike lanes, on the other hand, sometimes make congestion worse.
Puhleeze! Take the urban legends to the Foo page or Car-Free forums where those horror stories will be accepted as unerring truth and as an explanation for all transportation scenarios around the country.
You decide...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_335.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Did+General+Motors+destroy+the+LA+mass+transit+system&btnG=Google+Search
Interesting tale none the less.
The whole facilities thing, and "bike friendly" cities... I realize that generates a lot of publicity, and good will, for now.
But sooner or later, people are going to realize that the emperor has no clothes. That on street facilities cause more problems than they solve. That facilities-lite cities are safer, and bike friendlier, than facilities-heavy cities. It's only a matter of time. Then what?
I am concerned that the flip-side of the facilities coin, the promotion and reinforcement of the notion that cyclists have a need and/or obligation to stay out of the way of cars, will have entrenched that dangerous notion too deeply into the psyches of everyone, if it hasn't already.
Serge,
You keep repeating your last paragraph over, and over that you must now believe it to be a truth etched in stone. Yet it will take more than just VC to turn everything around and a combination of education of motorists and cyclists is the only way to achieve this goal.
I don't know how you feel you can make the assertion in your second paragraph. It would be different if you stated this as your opinion, which is where you feel this logic comes from, but we both know that there is no validity or research to back up such an assertion. I would certainly argue that on the extreme of facilities heavy cities such as Amsterdam cyclists are much safer. Or in Seattle, the epitome of facilities heavy motorists are much more aware of cyclists and I felt immensely safer there than I do in facilities lite Los Angeles. And in a more local example I believe I have way fewer run-ins on the bike path areas of Venice Blvd. than I do after the path runs out. You have never even cycled regularly in a facilities heavy environment and experienced the change in motorist knowledge and education. I suggest a full winter of cycling in Seatle with Bekologist to before you pontificate further.
You decide...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_335.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Did+General+Motors+destroy+the+LA+mass+transit+system&btnG=Google+Search
Interesting tale none the less.
And Roger Rabbit was an entertaining movie, too. That doesn't make the legends become true.
And Roger Rabbit was an entertaining movie, too. That doesn't make the legends become true.
There is no way to confirm it either way... but it was a strong enough "legend" that it went to court.
There is no way to confirm it either way... but it was a strong enough "legend" that it went to court.
Yep, even got people extrapolating from such accusations of suspected isolated double dealing into grand extravaganzas of duplicity, conspiracy and intrigue that single handedly destroyed an otherwise perfectly healthy and functioning American transportation system. A system consisting of horses, trolleys, heavy rail and shoe leather that would still be in place and successful today if it weren't for those automaking evildoers: "Automakers did it to opposing methods of transportation to gain a lock on the American transportation market in the past, with overwhelming success."
Shouldn't he be biking for LAB director?
Or pedalling?
"Automakers did it to opposing methods of transportation to gain a lock on the American transportation market in the past, with overwhelming success."
I believe that to be true. Feel free to form your own opinion.
Yep, even got people extrapolating from such accusations of suspected isolated double dealing into grand extravaganzas of duplicity, conspiracy and intrigue that single handedly destroyed an otherwise perfectly healthy and functioning American transportation system. A system consisting of horses, trolleys, heavy rail and shoe leather that would still be in place and successful today if it weren't for those automaking evildoers: "Automakers did it to opposing methods of transportation to gain a lock on the American transportation market in the past, with overwhelming success."
Oddly enough, that very system is being put back into place in both LA and San Diego... So obviously there is a perceived need beyond that of autos.
Oddly enough, that very system is being put back into place in both LA and San Diego... So obviously there is a perceived need beyond that of autos.
Are you saying that they are re-building the Red Car system, or something like it? I would salute such a plan.
I believe that to be true. Feel free to form your own opinion.
The quoted statement which you believe to be true was originally posted by LittleBigMan. I commented on it.
You are free to belive in Forester's myths too if it makes you feel good. Others on this forum have shown they are willing to believe anything if it fits their agenda.
Others on this forum have shown they are willing to believe anything if it fits their agenda.
As are you, with your agenda. :eek:
Has there ever even been a rail transit system anywhere in Iowa, now or in the past? :rolleyes:
This all sounds like a troubled marriage... a bunch of *******s and *****es... no need for "$$"'s and "!..$"'s. Kiss, make up, go to therapy... enough's enough. Being profficient on roadways is important. Being willing to use a bike lane or trail is also important. These ideas are not mutually exclusive. I use both everyday to great effect.. John Forester's ideas do not necessarily negate the use of a trail when available. However, if no trail is available, or if the "trail" is not direct enough or is poorly maintained, John Forester's writings have purpose. If you have to be told where to ride, don't bother. At the same time, if you can't ride responsibly, don't bother.
Are you saying that they are re-building the Red Car system, or something like it? I would salute such a plan.
Yes, but they changed the colors... The Blue Line is the name of the new LA light rail system...
Here's light hearted view at the increasing trend to build back mass transit systems:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-08-transit-cover_x.htm
In San Diego we do have red cars... of our trolley system, which may or may not be the best way to get around the area. I know at one time I was within walking distance of a couple stations and the system served me well as a back-up commuter system and for evening trips into downtown. I have also used the trolley after walking over the international border... beat the heck out of parking a car down there or biking home late after an evening of restaurant hopping.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1a/SD_Trolley%40America_Plaza.jpg
As are you, with your agenda. :eek:
Has there ever even been a rail transit system anywhere in Iowa, now or in the past? :rolleyes:
Really? What agenda would that be? Perhaps smoking out the sophists and babbling BSer's who claim to be the expert voices of bicycling and clean living.
And OK, Mr. Smart Donkey RailRoad xpert, haven't you heard of the Zephyrs that ran on the Burlington Route of the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad? The last of that breed is the centerpiece railroad/art deco exhibit at the entrance to the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry where I took several pictures. The train has a Philadelphia connection since it was built at the Budd Plant in Philadelphia.
In fact I visited the Chicago MSI earlier this year to see the renovated U -505 exhibit. Took the train from Galesburg, IL; 50 miles from Burlington. Could have taken the daily SF to Chicago train that stops two miles from my house but the schedule from Galesburg worked better for a day roundtrip to Chicago.
BTW, Where the heck is Pottsylvania? Is it near Transylvania? How far can you get on public transportation from there?
http://img453.imageshack.us/img453/25/burlingtonzephyer0xr.th.jpg (http://img453.imageshack.us/my.php?image=burlingtonzephyer0xr.jpg)
http://img453.imageshack.us/img453/5181/burlingtonzephyerrear1gj.th.jpg (http://img453.imageshack.us/my.php?image=burlingtonzephyerrear1gj.jpg)
I love it. People who complain about VC'ers taking over threads have taken over a John Forester thread to talk about whether the auto industry conspired to destroy trolleys. The only thing remaining is for the anti-VC'ers to find a way to blame HH for their own ability to stay on topic. :p
I love it. People who complain about VC'ers taking over threads have taken over a John Forester thread to talk about whether the auto industry conspired to destroy trolleys. The only thing remaining is for the anti-VC'ers to find a way to blame HH for their own ability to stay on topic. :p
Hey! who's stopping you from posting some worshipful praise of your cycling god? You are proud of being an ignoring monkey, so ignore!
For the record, I have no objection to any diversion in any thread, including this one in this thread, unless such a diversion violates requests made in the OP (which is not the case here).
Now back to your discussion.
Now back to your discussion.
To continue answering Randya's question , before being interupted by the police monkey trying to enforce his version of law and order, I have included some more info to satisfy all inquiring minds about rail service in Iowa.
http://www.iowarail.com/passenger/index.asp
http://www.iowarail.com/industry/history.asp
I searched for info on rail in Pottsylvania but all I could find was a reference to was:
Rocky was flying high over Pottsylvania, and Bullwinkle, tied to a railroad track, was pleading with Boris and Natasha, who hate "moose unt squirrel."
Maybe you really live in Transylvania? Do the horse and carriages still make night trips to the Count's Castle? Bet those automaker evil doers have met their match with a Power even greater than that of the nefarious General M.
As far as the candidacy of John Forester: If the West Coast LAB members vote for him, knowing his record of dogmatic arrogance, organizational ineptitude, and ludicrous interpretations of others concerns, they will get what they deserve. A useless organization tied in knots by arrogant ideological rhetoric that will take the organization and its members to advocacy oblivion.
Oh wow, you have amtrak.
Yep, and two cars, two close enough airports, and I lost count of how many bikes. And I answered the other poster's question. So what's your point, Mr. Smart Donkey?
+1 In car or truck congested cities there is pressure to remove cyclists from streets. That's the real driving force behind separate bike facilities in some areas. The delusion, shared by some cyclists, is that bikes hold up traffic. That's asinine, of course. Cars--too many of them--make traffic jams. Bikes, ridden freely on the streets, are part of the solution to traffic congestion. Bikes confined to bike lanes, on the other hand, sometimes make congestion worse.
Where? Who is applying the pressure? Who are they applying it to? What kind of pressure are they applying? At least in these parts, any effort towards getting cyclists off the road is nonexistent except in the minds of the paranoid who see conspiracy in every word or action of the population in general.
Where? Who is applying the pressure? Who are they applying it to? What kind of pressure are they applying? At least in these parts, any effort towards getting cyclists off the road is nonexistent except in the minds of the paranoid who see conspiracy in every word or action of the population in general.
This delusion is the driving force of the Forester camp. Based on his ranting about how he saved CA in the 70's and subsequently the entire US, from the machinations of various conspiracies to remove the "competent cyclists" from all roads and inflict the "horrors" of the Dutch cycling culture on the cycling bliss of the US.
And now he comes riding in again on his proverbial white horse to save the real cyclists once again from these dastardly schemers. And once again the foolish and gullible repeat the delusions.
This delusion is the driving force of the Forester camp. Based on his ranting about how he saved CA in the 70's and subsequently the entire US,
I thought Forester saved the whole world from an alien invasion or something? Wasn't that him in Independence Day?
I thought Forester saved the whole world from an alien invasion or something? Wasn't that him in Independence Day?
Nope he was in Terminater 2 and he said he'd be back. This monster refuses to stay dead. Take your pick as to the real deal and his effect on the advocacy efforts of LAB for typical cyclists.
I love it. People who complain about VC'ers taking over threads have taken over a John Forester thread to talk about whether the auto industry conspired to destroy trolleys. The only thing remaining is for the anti-VC'ers to find a way to blame HH for their own ability to stay on topic. :p
Ok, heres a good conspiracy theory to derail the thread, Helmet Head/Serge, is John Forester. Ha ha ha ha ha ha , there I said it. Now you all may think I am crazy but how many of you have seen John and Helmet post in the same thread? It's just like Janet Jackson and Michael. There you go Absolute Proof!!!!!! :):):)
Hmm, I thought the title of the thread Randya started today seemed familiar...
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.