Advocacy & Safety - Forester hired by pro-car activists to speak in Santa Barbara

I want to post this to make it perfectly clear. Whatever he may have been in 1974, John Forester is not a bicycle advocate.

He was recently hired in Santa Barbara to speak to members of the City Council and the Mayor at a workshop they titled "An Inconvenient Path: A workshop on growth, transportation, and the future of Santa Barbara." The group that hired him is against traffic calming and has ties to pro-growth, pro-car activist organizations.

John Forester spoke along with Randal O'Toole from Oregon. Both Randal O'Toole and John Forester are on the Speakers Bureau of the American Dream Coalition (http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/), a pro-car organization.

I believe that anybody on this forum who tries to influence opinions on road design and bicycle riding techiniques from a viewpoint informed by John Forester is actually trying to influence you to support a pro-growth, pro-car, urban sprawl agenda without you realizing it. These people should not be confused with carrying an actual bike advocacy message.

Just thought you should know. John Forester and his friends at the American Dream Coalition really do get hired by pro-car groups to come and influence local governments. Whatever he may have been a long time ago, John Forester is not a bicycling activist.

Forester has always been critical of groups that claim to be pro-cycling but are in fact really just anti-car. He's also always been critical of groups that lump cyclists together with pedestrians instead with other drivers of vehicles. New York's Transportation Alternatives is an example of both. In its recent anti-bike-lane-pro-barrier-lane video, TA had someone say that the idea cyling situation would be for cyclists to share the sidewalk with pedestrians. Great. Just great.

And Forester would agree, he is not a "bicycle advocate." He attacks that term as part of the bicycle industry's effort to sell more bikes regardless of how well or how often they are used. He speaks of advocating for cyclists. By that he means the people who care enough about cycling to learn how to do it well. In the essay on the American Dreams web site (http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.pdf), Forester attacks "bicycle advocates":


Bicycle advocates are a group that the public fails to distinguish from the lawful, competent cyclists who are most frequently found among the voluntary transportational cyclists. The public incorrectly refers to both groups as “professional cyclists”. Many hundreds of bicycle advocates are professionals; fewer than half a dozen American voluntary transportational cyclists support themselves through cycling activities.

The bicycle advocates, both professional and amateur, are largely motivated by the environmentalist anti-motoring agenda, and see bicycle transportation as competition against motoring. To compete effectively, bicycle transportation must be attractive to the general public with its prevalent cyclist inferiority superstition. Thus, bicycle advocates’ primary goal is physical protection from same-direction motor traffic, which means bikeways, with little care for anything else. There is obviously a close psychological link between the general fear that motoring will destroy our environment and the specific fear that cars from behind endanger you personally.

I also think that the joke is on the motorists' organization. When cyclists are restricted to bike lanes, side paths, and sidewalks (as New York's Transportation Alternatives proposes), it makes it easier for cars to whiz down streets at top speed.

Edit after the thread reached 8 pages: Thoughout this thread, shbikes repeatedly makes allegations that Forester took one position or another. When asked to back up her assertions with actual words from Forester, she repeatedly refuses. Then, she just says she's not going to back up what she says.

I wonder how well his anti bike lane agenda can work on streets with speed limits of 50 MPH and higher. In fact, I wonder if Forester himself ever rides on streets with 50+MPH speeds. Age should not be a factor according to Forester.

Yeah I know all about WOL... now would someone tell the motorists out there to keep left.

I've pointed out before the obvious COI present with Foresters relationship with his newfound friends at the ADC.

In that quote you've got there above, I'd like to point out another of his failings. I know of 12,000 professional, voluntary transportational cyclists that support themselves entirely through cycling, not the sale of bicycles or accessories or infrastructure. There were likely more when he made that ridiculous statement.

John Forester is a divisive troll & will likely always be so. Thankfully he is not long for this world.

By that he means the people who care enough about cycling to learn how to do it well.
And in Forester Speak, "cycling well" means cycling like John Forester and his associates: Club cycling, group cycling, competition cycling, fitness training, and /or cycling for "speed and efficiency", with the emphasis on the speed and the "efficienct" technique and equipment required to reach/maitain top speed.

IOW, Forester Brand "Cycling Well" requires club associations and/or proper training in Forester approved cycling technique.

Forester has no more of a COI than the consultants and city planners who make a living striping lanes.

I also don't see how the speaking has changed his positions. The article I linked to above reads like a summary of the work he did in the early 1990's.

Money affects people. Maybe it has affected Forester, but it doesn't look like it. Forester has an extensive written record. If you think that his recent speakers fees have caused him to shift positions, it should be easy for you to prove your assertion.

Edited to correct typo.

I wonder how well his anti bike lane agenda can work on streets with speed limits of 50 MPH and higher. In fact, I wonder if Forester himself ever rides on streets with 50+MPH speeds. Age should not be a factor according to Forester.

I wouldn't be surprised if he did. I ride on 50 and 55 mph roads regularly and I am grateful that they don't have bike lanes.

Nothing new here. Forester has always been an advocate of only 'serious cyclists' and expanding the status quo when it comes to transportation.

John Forester is a divisive troll & will likely always be so. Thankfully he is not long for this world.
I wouldn't bet on his imminent demise. His heart (and presumably arteries) is hard like a rock. And has been for 30+ years.
In his defense, HE doesn't troll on A & S; his acolytes do.

Nothing new here. Forester has always been an advocate of only 'serious cyclists' and expanding the status quo when it comes to transportation.
He just says that cyclists should take the time to learn how to ride in traffic. That's not so radical. I've read his book and watched his video (both checked out from the library), but I haven't taken a formal class. You don't have to. Just start in an empty parking lot, work your way to quiet streets, and then to progressively less quiet streets. It's not really that hard.

The LAB and he split on very angry terms, but the LAB still uses a Forester-based class to teach traffic cycling. Even his harshest critics couldn't come up with a a better one.

I wouldn't be surprised if he did. I ride on 50 and 55 mph roads regularly and I am grateful that they don't have bike lanes.

I note with extreme irony that the town he lives in now, did not have bike lanes until he moved there. I used to live there and still know folks in the area.

And in Forester Speak, "cycling well" means cycling like John Forester and his associates: Club cycling, group cycling, competition cycling, fitness training, and /or cycling for "speed and efficiency", with the emphasis on the speed and the "efficienct" technique and equipment required to reach/maitain top speed.

IOW, Forester Brand "Cycling Well" requires club associations and/or proper training in Forester approved cycling technique.

If there was not a desire for "speed and efficiency" why did someone invent the automobile? If cycling is not in some way efficient, most people would not cycle. I personally would have stopped riding after my desire to cycle recreationally started to interfere with other interests. There are some on this forum who cycle only because it's more efficient than driving.

So what? John Forester is not the be-all-end-all of effective cycling. He was just there for the kick-off.

Forester has no more of a COI than the consultants and city planners who make a living striping lanes.

I also don't see how the speaking has changed his positions. The article I linked to above reads like a summary of the work he did in the early 1990's.

Money affects people. Maybe it has affected Forester, but it doesn't look like it. Forester has an extensive written record. If you think that his recent speakers fees have caused him to shift positions, it should be easy for you to prove your assertion.

Edited to correct typo.

Forester, in your opinion, advocates for cyclists.

Could I write "Forester, in your opinion, advocates for cyclists by supporting the ADC."?

The ADC is clearly a group in support of motoring & doing so in an unsustainable way for the sake of..convenience? While they do give lip service to cycling concerns, that is all it is. Don't think for a second that I support separate facilities, striping, or any other "advocate" positions. My cycling is a bit more real world than your average commuter, though that doesn't suppose my concerns or commitment is any more or less valid. If your average commuter were told to stop cycling to work they would drive, walk or use transit. If I & my mates were told as much, we would have to disband a billion dollar industry, & find a new way to earn a living altogether.

The ADC


I've found that when you lend your name to an organization you've lent your support to them.

The American Dream Coalition believes that walking, cycling, transit & auto travel can coexist peacefully with properly designed facilities without necessarily leading to increased automobile congestion or reduced speeds.

That's very noble..

..however these facilities don't exist yet, & the ADC will brook no infringement on the rights of Americans to drive. The right to drive supersedes all other considerations, as it is more than half of the American Dream we're all entitled to. Until the other modes of transport can be integrated into the highway & road systems in a manner that ensures every individual may drive unobstructed at a reasonable speed for 100% of their transportation needs the other modes of transportation will have to wait.

In short, walking, cycling & mass transit must wait indefinitely. No development may impede automobility currently or in the ADCs intended expansion of auto use.

The ADC is a ruse. Forester either believes bicycling is not actually a viable means of personal transport or his ego has been stroked to the point of titillation by the ADC claims of basing development on only empirical data*.

*So long as the data shows an end result of every citizen in a single detached dwelling with a yard & a car for each adult with infrastructure that ensures a pleasant fast drive to all services and consumer goods necessary to ensure happiness.

I have a problem with the ADC; their entire premise equates happiness & well being to the acquisition of consumer goods & services, which sums up their American Dream. Any other people who've been lucky enough to have more than they need at one time care to comment? Anyone who has less consumer goods than they believe they'd like have an opinion? I've been in both camps and I find that happiness = stuff doesn't work for a lifestyle.

Daily Commute, that is critical of the ADC, but is it inaccurate? If you can't cycle without impeding motorists, even for one second, the ADC wants you off the road.

If there was not a desire for "speed and efficiency" why did someone invent the automobile?
There is nothing wrong with speed and efficiency as a goal. The problem is the assumption of the Forester Gang that because "Speed and Efficiency" is their be-all, end-all number one priority, it is (or should be) the be-all, end-all priority and goal for all cyclists who "cycle well." And those cyclists who don't "cycle well" in Forester Speak are not worthy of consideration. And the Foresterites don't consider anyone outside of their own narrowly defined exclusive club.

Forester is an anti-populist, anti- bicycling, anti incredible utility bicycles provide for riders of all abilities.

Predicate his notions on the rest of america, and less people will bicycle. The American Dream coalition is playing Forester like a fool for their automotive folly agenda.

Forester is directly advocating against popular increases in bicycling as transportation. what a piece of work, and that ain't flattering.

He just says that cyclists should take the time to learn how to ride in traffic. That's not so radical. I've read his book and watched his video (both checked out from the library), but I haven't taken a formal class. You don't have to. Just start in an empty parking lot, work your way to quiet streets, and then to progressively less quiet streets. It's not really that hard.

The LAB and he split on very angry terms, but the LAB still uses a Forester-based class to teach traffic cycling. Even his harshest critics couldn't come up with a a better one.

I've just always thought of Forester as using common sense.

I've read his book twice (or was it 3 times?) and taken instuction based on his book, but it's my own experience that validated it for me.

Based on my experience, I find most critisisms of him to be out of line. There are other valid points of view of course, and as much as Forester may be the way cyclists should behave, I found Hursts, The Art of Urban Cycling, more realistic and practicle as to the way cyclists do behave.

Could I write "Forester, in your opinion, advocates for cyclists by supporting the ADC."?. . .

Daily Commute, that is critical of the ADC, but is it inaccurate? If you can't cycle without impeding motorists, even for one second, the ADC wants you off the road.
From what I can tell, the ADC is what it looks like--a group that advocates for making driving in individual cars easier. Some of its positions are wrong headed, some are correct (probably more are wrong headed than correct). They are certainly not a cyclist or a bicycle advocacy group.

But motorists and transportational cyclists have more interests in common than cyclists and pedestrians, yet bicycle advocacy groups and anti-car groups keep trying to lump cyclists together with the pedestrians. Further, if my local "bicycle advocacy" group was pushing to stripe a bike lane where it didn't belong, I would happily work with a motorists group to stop it.

Instead of attacking Forester for merely speaking to this group, why don't you look at what he actually says to them (http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.pdf). I'm not saying Forester is perfect (I never have), but why are you focusing on his audience instead of his message?


I've just always thought of Forester as using common sense.

I've read his book twice (or was it 3 times?) and taken instuction based on his book, but it's my own experience that validated it for me.

Based on my experience, I find most critisisms of him to be out of line. There are other valid points of view of course, and as much as Forester may be the way cyclists should behave, I found Hursts, The Art of Urban Cycling, more realistic and practicle as to the way cyclists do behave.
I've only read his book once (I skipped the mechanical chapters), but I pretty much agree. But to your list of praise for Hurst's book, I'd add that it says basically the same thing that Forester says, just without the acid.

From what I can tell, the ADC is what it looks like--a group that advocates for making driving in individual cars easier. Some of its positions are wrong headed, some are correct (probably more are wrong headed than correct). They are certainly not a cyclist or a bicycle advocacy group.

But motorists and transportational cyclists have more interests in common than cyclists and pedestrians, yet bicycle advocacy groups and anti-car groups keep trying to lump cyclists together with the pedestrians. Further, if my local "bicycle advocacy" group was pushing to stripe a bike lane where it didn't belong, I would happily work with a motorists group to stop it.

Instead of attacking Forester for merely speaking to this group, why don't you look at what he actually says to them (http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.pdf)

Because he does not speak to them, he speaks for them.

Forester is directly advocating against popular increases in bicycling as transportation.

Because he does not speak to them, he speaks for them.
What words has Forester spoken "for them" that you think are wrong?


Forester is directly advocating against popular increases in bicycling as transportation.
What words has Forester spoken that "directly advocate against popular increases in bicycling as transportation"?

Dude, if you don't know that forester is against populist bicycling, you haven't read, heard, or listened to his spiel.

Shame on you, john forester. Colonel Pope would probably put a pump in your spokes.

Dude, if you don't know that forester is against populist bicycling, you haven't read, heard, or listened to his spiel.

Shame on you, john forester. Colonel Pope would probably put a pump in your spokes.
"I'm right, but I'm not gonna prove it."

Take your best shot Bek. This is probably my last post for at least a day.

What words has Forester spoken "for them" that you think are wrong?


What words has Forester spoken that "directly advocate against popular increases in bicycling as transportation"?
Remember when reading the Forester quote from 2003 on a different list below that "lawful and competent cyclists" are those who "cycle well" AKA fit the profile of the Forester acolytes - club cyclists and speed enthusiasts and those who agree with Forester Brand Cycling Priorities

"The issue isn't even about bicycling facilities. The entity that is being disputed is the government's program about bicycling, from goals to implementations.
The government's program can be described in very simple terms. It is a program of incompetent bicycle riding on bikeways. It has been that way for as long as I can remember, and hasn't changed much. That program is obviously defective and harmful to cyclists. Cyclists travel much better, at a much lower accident rate, when they are lawful and competent. No practical bikeway system can provide the range of travel provided by the road system and no practical bikeway system can make incompetent cycling safe. A far better program would be one based on lawful, competent cycling on good roads. For those who care about the welfare of cyclists, as do I and the other vehicular cyclists, there is no possible doubt as to which is the better system. There are many reasons, all of them based on erroneous facts and defective reasoning, and all thoroughly exposed, why American society has chosen the worst for cyclists. What ought to amaze any rational observer is the strength with which the advocates of the defective system argue their defective case. But, as we all know, much of the realm of politics is irrational.
It is the purpose of the rational vehicular cyclists to protect themselves against, to obstruct, to defeat, and to reform, the government's program that is so harmful to cyclists."

... But to your list of praise for Hurst's book, I'd add that it says basically the same thing that Forester says, just without the acid.

sort of, but Hursts book deals with realities in a way that Foresters doesn't. As examples (and there are more), "The Gap Effect", "Running Green Lights", "Fake Right Turns", and "The Helmet Controversy" are all topics dealt with that (I think) Forester never would, but are realistic daily things experienced by a cyclist.

I have no interest in wading thru foresters admittedly anti-populist bicycling spiel to prove he is anti-populist bicycling. he damnifies transportational bicyclists often.

forester is anti-populist bicycling. he is pro-auto, he speaks for the pro sprawl, pro-auto group the american dream coalition.

I imagine the american dream coalition heard about forester. "Oh, here's a cyclist that has written a book that doesn't believe transportational bicycling will increase? and his dogma meshes well with our pro-auto blather? PERFECT"

John forester should be ashamed of himself. He speaks often against the potential bikes have for transortation. He wrongly and damnifies, dismisses increases in the popularity of utility cycling.

Colonel Pope would likely put a pump thru his spokes if they met up on a ride.

John forester is anti-cyclist. his acolytes in A&S are 'good enough for me' chestbeaters that are also against encouraging increases in bicycling as utility and transportation in america.

What words has Forester spoken that "directly advocate against popular increases in bicycling as transportation"?
Bettter yet:

BLUF:
"Sure, we can advocate more cycling, but only as it gets done by lawful, competent cyclists."

chainguard-digest Tuesday, December 7 1999 Volume 01 : Number 751
------------------------------

Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 14:30:21 -0800
From: John Forester <forester@johnforester.com>
Subject: [CG] Bicycle advocacy goals

"L.S. wrote in labmembers: "Don't fall into the trap of trying to emulate thriving advocacy organizations by adopting their agendas, instead, adopt their methods. Focus on those issues that matter *ONLY* to bicyclists, and not to anyone else. Focus on those issues that ONLY the
League and no other advocacy organization is behind. Don't dilute the
message."

This is not a good recommendation. Consider bikeways. The interested
parties are motorists, environmentalists, and cyclists. Since bikeways
matter to all three groups, should cyclists ignore the bikeways issue? And
then have the motorists and the environmentalists force more bikeways down
our throats? The recommendation that a cyclist protection organization
should focus only on those issues that pertain only to cyclists is
therefore proved wrong.

The analysis must start with consideration of what kind of cyclist is to be supported by the organization. Beginning cyclists, incompetent cyclists, off-road cyclists, people who advocate bicycle riding because bicycle riding is a 'good' thing? Those are not my choices. My choice is the body of lawful, competent cyclists, those called vehicular cyclists. Sure, we can advocate beginning cyclists, but only insofar as we aid them in becoming lawful, competent cyclists. Sure, we can advocate more cycling,
but only as it gets done by lawful, competent cyclists. There are many reasons for making this choice, but I won't go into them here.

Having decided that the organization is to protect and encourage lawful, competent cyclists, the next step in the analysis is to determine which characteristics of these cyclists and of the world they operate in are most important to their continued operation. Is an increase in the number of bicycle riders to be advocated? Well, not per se, because most of those who would be attracted by the conventional enticements will be not merely incompetent cyclists but believers in incompetent cycling. Their increase
would be bad for the members of the organization. The only desirable grounds for attracting new cyclists is to have more lawful competent cyclists. Therefore, the method of attracting them should select those most likely to become lawful and competent cyclists, and the organization must have a plan for training these new cyclists. How about bikeways? These are not only bad for lawful, competent cyclists, but they give increased power to the prevalent superstition that well-designed roads are too dangerous to
cycle upon. Therefore, it is to the strong interest of the organization to oppose bikeways. How about equity in law? There are so many superstitions about the state of the traffic law about cycling, superstitions that are used to discriminate against lawful, competent cyclists, that attaining
equity in both the law and in the administration of the law should be a large part of the efforts. How about the various off-the-road facilities and programs, such as bicycle parking, bridge access, mass transit
cooperation, long-distance travel baggage arrangements, and the like?
Insofar as these are important to lawful, competent cyclists, they deserve attention.

This is the proper method for determining what a cyclist protective and advocacy organization should be doing.

John Forester"

Forester is directly advocating against popular increases in bicycling as transportation.
+1

The main point I get out of all of this is that Forester does not see widespread promotion of cycling to non-vehicular cyclists as an effective way to reduce automobile usage, which is why the American Dream Coalition likes him so much; he'd rather keep cycling an elite activity practiced by only the few cyclists that feel comfortable riding in the proscribed Forester method.

What words has Forester spoken "for them" that you think are wrong?


What words has Forester spoken that "directly advocate against popular increases in bicycling as transportation"?

Any of his messages can easily be used by such groups as "credible" demonstrations of "cyclist" supported theorem as evidence supporting the position that road use by cyclists interferes with motor transportation & that in turn can support legislative initiatives by groups or supported by such as the ADC to challenge your right to the road facility.

The ADC is in support of PropB! to ban cyclists from Main St. in order to relieve congestion on Main St.
John Forester is hailed far and wide as a prominent advocate for cyclists.
The ADC is proud to have John Forester as a member & speaker.
The position of the ADC is supported by "important", well known cyclists & is therefore inclusive of cyclists concerns.

That's the way the world works DC, you're not a fool, you know it is. In such instances of spin & PAC maneuvering it would not matter one bit if John himself spoke against such a proposal or proposition after the fact. To deny this because his work may be interpreted differently is to stick ones head into the sand.

he'd rather keep cycling an elite activity practiced by only the few cyclists that feel comfortable riding in the proscribed Forester method.
That is true and the essence of the Forester Gang's intent, regardless of any potential effect of cycling on overall automobile usage.

Forester- an elitist prig! and speaking for the pro-sprawl, pro-auto, anti bike group the american dream coalition...SHAME on john forester.

Colonel Pope would likely.........

You've probably seen plenty of grassroots land-use lobbying groups pop up, they're all over the place. Families with inherited farms and so forth. Follow the funding, and you'll find them founded and funded through commercial development groups. Plenty of homeowners and neighborhood associations fall for it, and wind up with high density developments and walmarts crowding them out. They had some good points, but they wound up supporting unexpected results.
You've probably seen junker car impounding laws pop up, lobbied for by environmental or neighborhood grassroots groups. Follow the funding, and you'll find new car dealers. Plenty of neighborhood associations fall for it, and the local car salesmen cruise the neighborhoods reporting any form of transportation that might look abandoned. They had some good points, but they wound up supporting unexpected results.
John Forester smells like astroturf. Why is anyone stupid enough to fall for this? He's got some good points, but don't fall for that without looking for what they support, and who supports it. Sure, his main points make sense in some situations, but add them up and you get absolutely no action on behalf of the represented group, and benefits for the opposing groups. Opposing groups being anyone who doesn't immediately benefit from cycling, a long and lucrative list. His only mistake was being ahead of his time, trying to market this approach long before the big astroturf movement.
We're going to see a lot more of this. More "advocates" popping up, representing all cyclists in support of pretty sounding stuff. And maybe even representatives paid to cruise online bulletin boards, rounding up support for silly things like this. It wouldn't be the first time.

Gee, I can see how to promote, lawful, competent cycling, is such a bad thing :rolleyes: Sheesh.

Gee, I can see how to promote, lawful, competent cycling, is such a bad thing :rolleyes: Sheesh.
Yep, just like who would be against promoting Cyclist Safety? Cyclist Safety is AKA Helmet Promotion by some self proclaimed cycling safety experts/nannies. Who would object? :rolleyes: Can you see the relationship, eh?

can't see the simple connections here, eh, closet biker? what are yas, a foresterite?

Colonel Pope would be ashamed to share the road with a guy like forester. likely put a pump thru his spokes, a la the Cinzano team in 1979....

I wonder, perhaps the rezident A&S vehikular foresterite, Helemt Head, actually receives compensation from the ADC to damnify and derail efforts at discussing populist efforts to increase cycling in communities.

Yep, just like who would be against promoting Cyclist Safety? Cyclist Safety is AKA Helmet Promotion by some self proclaimed cycling safety experts/nannies. Who would object? :rolleyes: Can you see the relationship, eh?

Prevention is better than mitigation, as I see it (however right or wrong that may be) and behavior has more to do with safety than dogma, so if we can all agree to get along by co-operating (usually meaning following the law), that would be a laudable goal.

As I see it, Forester is just advocating everybody to follow all the laws that allow cars, trucks, busses, farm equipment, horse and buggies and bicycles to get where they need to go with a minimum of fuss.

can't see the simple connections here, eh, closet biker? what are yas, a foresterite?

Spoken like a true troglodyte. I would think your stance on Forester shows he may be right.

Prevention is better than mitigation, as I see it (however right or wrong that may be) and behavior has more to do with safety than dogma, so if we can all agree to get along by co-operating (usually meaning following the law), that would be a laudable goal.

As I see it, Forester is just advocating everybody to follow all the laws that allow cars, trucks, busses, farm equipment, horse and buggies and bicycles to get where they need to go with a minimum of fuss.

but Forester's whole speil hinges in part on a world that does not exist, and hasn't for years... a world where motorists are attentive and considerate, slow and deliberate. etc etc. on many streets it's a hostile environment for cyclists. facilities may make those streets more inviting for cyclists. that would be a laudable goal, IMO. I consider myself a lawful competent cyclist, I've been commuting for almost a year now, but there are streets I will not ride. according to the F-man and many of his acolytes, I got a Phobia... I don't think so.

You've probably seen plenty of grassroots land-use lobbying groups pop up, they're all over the place. Families with inherited farms and so forth. Follow the funding, and you'll find them founded and funded through commercial development groups. Plenty of homeowners and neighborhood associations fall for it, and wind up with high density developments and walmarts crowding them out. They had some good points, but they wound up supporting unexpected results.
You've probably seen junker car impounding laws pop up, lobbied for by environmental or neighborhood grassroots groups. Follow the funding, and you'll find new car dealers. Plenty of neighborhood associations fall for it, and the local car salesmen cruise the neighborhoods reporting any form of transportation that might look abandoned. They had some good points, but they wound up supporting unexpected results.
John Forester smells like astroturf. Why is anyone stupid enough to fall for this? He's got some good points, but don't fall for that without looking for what they support, and who supports it. Sure, his main points make sense in some situations, but add them up and you get absolutely no action on behalf of the represented group, and benefits for the opposing groups. Opposing groups being anyone who doesn't immediately benefit from cycling, a long and lucrative list. His only mistake was being ahead of his time, trying to market this approach long before the big astroturf movement.
We're going to see a lot more of this. More "advocates" popping up, representing all cyclists in support of pretty sounding stuff. And maybe even representatives paid to cruise online bulletin boards, rounding up support for silly things like this. It wouldn't be the first time.
You're spot-on, my friend. I'm in agreement with the OP. If you support what Forester has been promoting in these lectures, then you are in effect supporting all the aims of the American Dream Coalition, whether you agree with them or not. Go visit Houston, because that's the kind of community you are hoping to have for yourself. Enjoy trying to cross the street with your kid in a stroller.


Gee, I can see how to promote, lawful, competent cycling, is such a bad thing :rolleyes: Sheesh.
That's fine, and you have every right to support or oppose what you think is best for your community. Keep in mind KnhoJ's point, though. Follow the money to determine other likely consequences of your support. If you're in favor of the organization's other goals or are willing to live with them, again, that's your choice. Just make sure that you'll be content with all the changes an interest group wishes to make. I don't care what someone believes - if they don't follow the money, IMO, they're among the biggest fools to be found in North America.

but Forester's whole speil hinges in part on a world that does not exist, and hasn't for years... a world where motorists are attentive and considerate, slow and deliberate. etc etc. on many streets it's a hostile environment for cyclists. I consider myself a lawful competent cyclist, I've been commuting for almost a year now, but there are streets I will not ride. according to the F-man and many of his acolytes, I got a Phobia... I don't think so.

A whole year. Wow.

No world is perfect, but if the problem is drivers not following the law, isn't that an enforcement issue and not a cycling issue?

That's fine, and you have every right to support or oppose what you think is best for your community. Keep in mind KnhoJ's point, though. Follow the money to determine other likely consequences of your support.

Isn't that basic politics? Isn't it incumbent on individuals to do the best for themselves and therefore, if everybody is taking part wouldn't the result be a consensus or compromise for everybody who shows up to take part in the process, end up in the best intrest of those who show up?

it is apparant car owners don't have a consensus to compromise for bicyclists on the roads. and yet we're all taking part. john forester would like to limit greater populist use of bikes for transportation , and the american dream coalition agrees.

a pro-sprawl, anti bicycling platform is what the american dream coalition propogates by using john forester as a willing pawn.

john forester is against populist bicycling and a tool for the american dream coalition.

Forester has always been critical of groups that claim to be pro-cycling but are in fact really just anti-car...... .


As I always will be. The automobile is one of mankinds greatest inventions, freeing large masses of people from the distance limits imposed by foot, the mobility limits imposed by trains and buses, and the filth limits imposed by horse-****. To me the bicycle has a growing, but nonetheless small role to play in our overall transportation matrix. If that viewpoint gets anti-car luddites livid, so much the better.

roughstuff

it is apparant car owners don't have a consensus to compromise for bicyclists on the roads...

car owners hardly have a co-operative attitude amongst themselves. Everybody wants to do what they want, whenever they want and they get away with it because those motorists elect politicians that won't allow those motorists to be held to enforcement of the law. the roads operate on an honor system 99% of the time, and not too many of us are honorable.

Developers have an intrest and money talks. Quick and easy money. Long term security is more involved and requires more co-operation. Lawful, competant cycling may be better in the long run, but bozo driving is easier to get away with (as is bozo cycling).

If you want things to get better for cycling, hold road users accountable to the law.

thank you, closet biker, but that doesn't excuse or cloud the fact john forester speaks for an anti-cyclist organization.

collusion with forces to ban riders from the roads, dude, despite your kool-aid tainted visions you must be having about john.

thank you, closet biker, but that doesn't excuse or cloud the fact john forester speaks for an anti-cyclist organization...

kinda like an anarchist speaking for cycling conditions?

what a tool, closetbiker. how's that koolaid? not recognizing the inherent organic nature of cyclists and their skill levels does a disservice to cycling. predicating all riders become comfortable riding highway speed narrow laned roads is DEFINETLY anti cyclist. john forester believes both.

john forester is an anti cycling tool of the american dream coalition.


"The main point I get out of all of this is that Forester does not see widespread promotion of cycling to non-vehicular cyclists as an effective way to reduce automobile usage, which is why the American Dream Coalition likes him so much; he'd rather keep cycling an elite activity practiced by only the few cyclists that feel comfortable riding in the proscribed Forester method.

what a tool, closetbiker. how's that koolaid? not recognizing the inherent organic nature of cyclists and their skill levels does a disservice to cycling. predicating all riders become comfortable riding highway speed narrow laned roads is DEFINETLY anti cyclist. john forester believes both.

john forester is an anti cycling tool of the american dream coalition.

Imagine. Promoting using the roads in a lawful manner. The insanity.

yada yada yada. you must be a foresterite plebe, closet. but who cares? cycling is so much more organic and far reaching.

i encourage use of roads in a lawful manner, but all the cars that roll stop signs, speed, and endanger pedestrians probably wouldn't like getting a lot of tickets....That's what the american dream coalition is all about, promoting the superiority of the american automobile as way of life, at the expense of sustainable urban developent and human scaled communities.

john forester is clearly a tool against populist bicycling in america. his demands on riders and his allegiance with the american dream coalition is proof positive.


".... Forester does not see widespread promotion of cycling to non-vehicular cyclists as an effective way to reduce automobile usage, which is why the American Dream Coalition likes him so much; he'd rather keep cycling an elite activity practiced by only the few cyclists that feel comfortable riding in the proscribed Forester method."

I wonder if helemt head is a paid internet correspondent for the American Dream coalition?

there's nothing wrong with promoting using the roads in a lawful manner, closetbiker. who DOESN'T ? It's his total exclusion of all but a selected few cyclists that I would take issue with. his anti-facilities stance is anti-cyclist to a great extent.

and I'm pretty proud of my year of commuting, thanks! :D