Debunking Forester

[sbhikes]

So, thanks to someone on this list, I got a link to John Forester's web site. I would like to debunk what he says but I find it difficult to do without launching into the kind of dry dull lecturing he tends to do. My apologies up front.

I'd like to debunk his cyclist inferiority phobia page, especially since he touts the power of science over emotion wherever he can. That's this page: http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Social/cycinf.htm

JF wants people to believe he doesn't engage in the kind of fake science based on emotion that other people do but this article is all about that. What else could it be but an appeal to emotion to equate participation in bicycle advocacy organizations with an anxiety response, a clear misunderstanding and misuse of the term.

His first fault is to believe that all people who wish to see better conditions for cyclists have a fear of being hit from behind. Then he decides to call these people with a fear of being hit behind "victims", setting up his whole silly exercise.

He claims these so-called "victims" suffer from all the criteria to qualify for a psychological diagnosis of a phobia except for one, but he clearly doesn't understand the psychologicial definitions he uses. By twisting definitions to suit his argument he engages in the very kind of fake science he likes to disparage. Because he doesn't use the words' true meaning he really has no basis to claim that cyclists meet any of the criteria.

But more than twisting the diagnositc criteria to suit his claims, and clearly misunderstanding what anxiety is (which must be disproportionate and interfere with normal daily functioning), the meta problem is that using a loaded and perjorative term like "phobia" and misusing the DSM to suggest people who disagree with your position are sick is a perfect example of resorting to an emotional appeal and emotional tactics to make your claim.

That one can break that emotional appeal into neat little blocks of "logical" reasoning is immaterial when he doesn't adhere to the true meaning of the words. That he can boil down the entire cycling population into victims of a phobia of being hit from behind (as if people weaving and waving their arms in the center of the lane wouldn't qualify just as well) is as phony as any classic infomercial spiel.

I hope that my post doesn't get deleted. I think that it is important to discuss John Forester because his words carry a lot of weight in the cycling community. If we don't take an honest look at his words and actions, we as bicycle advocates do ourselves a disservice. At the same time, his words clearly bear the all the marks of a crackpot so I'm not even sure it's worth our tiime.

[Bekologist]

I wonder how much vehicular cycling mr forester does anymore, versus scowling while driving past transportational bicyclists on wal mart bikes in blue jeans?

[chipcom]

Here's the thing, Diane - Mr. Forester does not carry a lot of weight with decision & policy makers - because he doesn't carry as much weight in the cycling community as you think or as his supporters in A&S would have you believe. Indeed, much of his site rails on about how all these poor, misguided policy makers have ignored his recommendations and how he has only prevented them from being stupider than they could have been. While his supporters take his word as gospel, there are also people who don't and pretty effectively counter his claims...as evidenced by decisions made in the public policy arena that are not lock-step with Forester's theories and claims. JF has an overinflated sense of his own importance to cycling-related policy decisions and pretty much writes off anyone who does not take his word as gospel, including all those poor misguided policy makers, as ignorant or paid off.

[Bekologist]

I don't think so, chip, there are serious anti-facilities forces at work to remove bike specific infrastructure all over the country, and foresters' allegiance with the american dream coalition is backed by much bigger "Guns" than transportational cyclist advocacy groups.

[joejack951]

That he can boil down the entire cycling population into victims of a phobia of being hit from behind (as if people weaving and waving their arms in the center of the lane wouldn't qualify just as well) is as phony as any classic infomercial spiel.

I know we've been through this before but hits from behind are far from the number 1 reason for using a dynamic lane position, as opposed to static bike lane guided position. Just wanted to clear that up.

[DogBoy]

Forrester is a zealot, but there is a ring of truth to what he says. He advocates for one type of cycling...transportational. To that end, he desires no cycling specific infrastructure, and it makes sense. If I ride along at 15-20 mph, I better not be doing it on a bike path, but a road is just fine. But, if I want to go out for a nice recreational ride with my 3 year old daughter, a bike path(or even a ... gasp ... sidewalk) is a heck of a lot nicer place to do it.

Rather than trying to debunk him (I think this is a waste of time), I think your efforts would be better served to point out the need for cycling facilities for different type of cyclists and cycling activities. Essentially you are falling into the trap of trying to discredit the man rather than to promote your own ideas. Continue on that path and you will be seen as someone who just dislikes the man, and your arguments will be lost.

[genec]

The reason for the whole phobia is due to our under training as youth. As we first encounter the bicycle as young children, we have poor motor skills and poor balance... our instructors (parents) see this and suggest that we should ride on sidewalks and "watch out for cars." This instills in us a sense that we should be paranoid of cars when we are out playing with our "toys."

Most adults do not progress beyond that "watch out for cars" training and the basic training on their bicycle "toys."

Wiser youth later understand the need for exercise and see the efficiency of the bicycle as a grand and wonderful thing, those same wiser youth also learn through trial and error that all traffic has a place on the road and that co-operation is key to any and all traffic situations.

There are also those few youth who are less wise who later feel that the motor car is their new "toy," and that they can play "road racer" on the streets. Often these drivers are eliminated in a Darwinian manner as they push their motor cars beyond the operating envelope in dangerous maneuvers such as speeding, drinking and driving, road racing etc. Some of those less wiser persons survive into adult hood and continue to drive in a reckless manner, not in co-operation with other traffic. Those motorists should be avoided.

The majority of motorists however never progress beyond the toy view of the bicycle, and thus retain their fear of the motor car, and cannot envision bicycles as traffic... Nor are they trained in any other manner along the way. While they may be taught traffic basics in some six week class called drivers' ed., they hardly have time to build proper motor skills, much less gain all the finer skills of traffic handling... much less be indoctrinated in the facts regarding their once beloved bicycles, as traffic. Thus the average adult driver, once taught to keep out of the way of cars while on a bicycle, retains that knowledge as a phobia.

[Bekologist]

my biggest objection is foresters' insistence that only 'serious' cyclists have any business riding a bike.

what an elitist predication! I'm envisioning him scowling as he drives past helemtless, bluejean wearing, wal-mart bike riding transportational cyclists on their way to work.

biking is a populist activity, and more butts on bikes IS a good thing, for individuals health, for the good of the planet, for the good of a community.

[Helmet Head]

I think that it is important to discuss John Forester because his words carry a lot of weight in the cycling community. If we don't take an honest look at his words and actions, we as bicycle advocates do ourselves a disservice. At the same time, his words clearly bear the all the marks of a crackpot so I'm not even sure it's worth our tiime.
Whatever your impressions of what he stands for, let's remember that John Forester is a living human being with a computer at home.

Diane, have you ever met John Forester in person?

And if you're going to "debunk" him (or anyone else), it's only fair to cite what he has actually said, rather than give one's impression of what he has said, and debunk that.

[Bekologist]

are you john forester, mr head, or just one of the cronies? is he a 'lurker?'

[LittleBigMan]

I never liked Forester's style of insulting people with whom he disagreed.

But I'm not afraid to say that he was the main person to encourage me to gradually master my current 30 mile round-trip commute route where there were only about 2 miles of bicycle facilities available.

Not everything (or everyone) is black-and-white. (Now if only we can get Forester to see that... :D)

[sbhikes]

Here's the thing, Diane - Mr. Forester does not carry a lot of weight with decision & policy makers - because he doesn't carry as much weight in the cycling community as you think or as his supporters in A&S would have you believe. Indeed, much of his site rails on about how all these poor, misguided policy makers have ignored his recommendations and how he has only prevented them from being stupider than they could have been. While his supporters take his word as gospel, there are also people who don't and pretty effectively counter his claims...as evidenced by decisions made in the public policy arena that are not lock-step with Forester's theories and claims. JF has an overinflated sense of his own importance to cycling-related policy decisions and pretty much writes off anyone who does not take his word as gospel, including all those poor misguided policy makers, as ignorant or paid off.
Thanks, Chip. You are probably right. I kinda get the feeling that in our local advocacy group, John Forester is a taboo subject.

[invisiblehand]

my biggest objection is foresters' insistence that only 'serious' cyclists have any business riding a bike.

Does he actually say this?

I am about 2/3s through a first pass at Effective Cycling. I read a handful of his other articles. Although I agree that his writing style is not to be admired, (he and I can form a club!) roughly speaking, I understand his beliefs to be that anyone could be taught how to ride safely in a relatively short time.

Well ... before I misinterpret you, what do you mean by serious?

Like others, he is headstrong in his writing. And I can see how people describe his writing as condescending; but with regards to his description of who can cycle and what it takes to ride safely, I don't think that the ideas nor the material content is elitist.

I have not read the article that SBHIKES (Diane) references. So it is hard for me to understand and critique her post. And I am too far behind in my queue to read yet another article. But with that in mind, could you connect the dots to the following paragraph which I found surprising?

His first fault is to believe that all people who wish to see better conditions for cyclists have a fear of being hit from behind. Then he decides to call these people with a fear of being hit behind "victims", setting up his whole silly exercise.

[invisiblehand]

Oh ... I can handle economics and statistics ... so don't be afraid of a dry and dull response. I have lots of practice. :)

[Brian Ratliff]

invisiblehand: Most of the stuff in Forester's book represents a good guide to traffic cycling. To get into his more extremist views, read the last chapter of the book (kind of like an editorial section) and the articles on sociology and psycology on his website.

[noisebeam]

Oh brother, am I going to have to now read Forester in order to particpate in BF discussions? This is like the third or fourth thread about him.

As to the fear of being hit from behind - most every cyclist I've ridden with has it

Al

[CrosseyedCrickt]

Oh brother, am I going to have to now read Forester in order to particpate in BF discussions? This is like the third or fourth thread about him.

As to the fear of being hit from behind - most every cyclist I've ridden with has it

Al
Just treat his writings as any other outdated book of fiction that people hold as gospel, I'm sure we can all name a few.
I find all the stuff people go on about humerous, especially this effective cycling book. It's just a bunch of theories from one_person written before the roads I ride on even exist, so how can I take it seriously?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I understand his beliefs to be that anyone could be taught how to ride safely in a relatively short time.
To be more precise, Forester claims that anyone can be taught what he is teaching. Period. There is no known relationship between being taught and tested on Forester's selected material, and any effect, safety or otherwise, short term or long term for the "successful" students.

[invisiblehand]

invisiblehand: Most of the stuff in Forester's book represents a good guide to traffic cycling. To get into his more extremist views, read the last chapter of the book (kind of like an editorial section) and the articles on sociology and psycology on his website.

OK. Although I still need more time to grind through these sections. Thanks for the pointer.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Oh brother, am I going to have to now read Forester in order to particpate in BF discussions? This is like the third or fourth thread about him.

As to the fear of being hit from behind - most every cyclist I've ridden with has it

Al
Read the Web Site.There is nothing new in the Forester World. It's all there, all the sophistry a logical person can stand and more.

You can start with his comparing the alleged safety record of 8 year olds with the alleged safety record of middle aged experienced cyclists to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of his training program. Or try his cock-eyed risk analysis of cycling "crashes" and "falls" and "accidents" as identical issues with no consideration of exposure, probability or severity consequences; another Forester 10 bagger of Sophistry.

[invisiblehand]

It's just a bunch of theories from one_person written before the roads I ride on even exist, so how can I take it seriously?

I agree that one should not take the opinion of one person too seriously without corresponding evidence. But he does appear to present evidence--note that I did not write proof--supporting some of his claims.

That everyone seems to get so fired-up about him motivated me to read his book and a handful of articles. I started reading his stuff with the expectation that he will have some good ideas, some bad, and perhaps present interesting evidence along the way.

[sggoodri]

I disagree with Forester's characterization of cyclists' worry about operating in the same space as motor vehicles as "phobia" or "superstition". These terms assign ignorance to the people who share this worry without providing acknowledgement to the social factors affecting them.

I prefer to call this worry a "taboo." Taboos are fearful beliefs for self-preservation based on some reality-based experience but are oversimplified and do not fully recognize the real cause and effect relationships. Most importantly, taboos are actively promoted by society. Even if one desires to reject the taboo, one must deal with the social stigma associated with doing so, in some cases, even retribution for upsetting the normal social order. I believe society actively teaches the taboo about cycling on ordinary roadways in the vehicular manner in order to protect young children who are too young to understand the rules of the road, and in order to promote motorists' convenience. To some extent people who truly believe the taboo may promote it in an effort to protect others, and some people who don't believe the taboo themselves may attempt to accommodate people who believe it by not challenging it, even when not challenging it ends up needlessly reinforcing it.

In summary, a smart person can be affected by a taboo, and should not be ashamed of (or insulted for) this unfortunate situation. Meanwhile, dispelling the taboo creates a tricky social situation, because there are many who believe that the taboo, while oversimplified, provides some desirable end, be it protection of the ignorant, or preservation of a desired social order.

Forester insults those who worry about traffic. This is not an effective way to address a taboo, in my opinion.

-Steve Goodridge

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I agree that one should not take the opinion of one person too seriously without corresponding evidence. But he does appear to present evidence--note that I did not write proof--supporting some of his claims.
Take careful note of the evidence presented. Most often it is his own or a handful of carefully parse studies that never drew the conclusions that he does from the gathered data. Often Forester fabricates the missing data for those studies to fill in for the immense gaps in the data.

For instance his assumption about cycling populations that he claims have "good" safety records actually practice undefined Vehicular Cycling techniques in some significant manner, and it is those undefined /unmeasuredVC techniques that are the sole explanation for the alleged superior safety record. He pulls that stunt often, most obscenely when comparing grossly different populations such as 8 year olds with adults, that no one measured for Vehicular Cycling practices.

[invisiblehand]

You can start with his comparing the alleged safety record of 8 year olds with the alleged safety record of middle aged experienced cyclists to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of his training program. Or try his cock-eyed risk analysis of cycling "crashes" and "falls" and "accidents" as identical issues with no consideration of exposure, probability or severity consequences; another Forester 10 bagger of Sophistry.

Well, from what I can tell, he repeats the analysis that others present as evidence. Or sometimes uses the same techniques that others use as evidence. Or simply works with the limitations of the data.

I recall reading the example you reference (vaguely) ... this is on his website, right? But I don't recall him over-stating the evidence nor obfuscating the problems with the data. Could you explain your point in more detail?

More generally, I think that there are important differences when somebody writes "this proves X" versus "this is evidence for X" versus "this is suggestive of X" versus "this does not conflict with X" and so on.

In the past, I wrote that I found it hard to support many strong statements about cycling safety because the data is generally bad. But it also means that if you reverse the null hypothesis, it will be difficult to disprove many statements. Like other fields, my anecdotal experience is that this leads to theory being the basis of many actions without enough consideration to the opposing view.

Hmmmm, I think that we are getting a bit far from Diane's original post. So I will stop here until I read her response.

[CrosseyedCrickt]

I agree that one should not take the opinion of one person too seriously without corresponding evidence. But he does appear to present evidence--note that I did not write proof--supporting some of his claims.

That everyone seems to get so fired-up about him motivated me to read his book and a handful of articles. I started reading his stuff with the expectation that he will have some good ideas, some bad, and perhaps present interesting evidence along the way.

I started reading it, but it bored me about as much as watching a chicken roast. Good thing I never purchased it but rather found a PDF of it.
Here is what I think. In 1970, on the roads in California (or wherever he was), maybe this was the best style to ride and methods and wot-not. But that was 30 years ago. Operating a motor vehicle in 1970 was considered more of a privilage than what it is now. The speed limits were lower, the traffic was lower, and people recognized cycling as trasportation. Nowadays is a completely different world. I wouldn't read a book on using a 30 year old calculator and pretend to know how to program a 2007 computer.

[invisiblehand]

Take careful note of the evidence presented. Most often it is his own or a handful of carefully parse studies that never drew the conclusions that he does from the gathered data. Often Forester fabricates the missing data for those studies to fill in for the immense gaps in the data.

For instance his assumption about cycling populations that he claims have "good" safety records actually practice undefined Vehicular Cycling techniques in some significant manner, and it is those undefined /unmeasuredVC techniques that are the sole explanation for the alleged superior safety record. He pulls that stunt often, most obscenely when comparing grossly different populations such as 8 year olds with adults, that no one measured for Vehicular Cycling practices.

Hah! You beat me to it. If you have anything to add to my later post, I am still interested in reading your response.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Well, from what I can tell, he repeats the analysis that others present as evidence. Or sometimes uses the same techniques that others use as evidence. Or simply works with the limitations of the data.

I recall reading the example you reference (vaguely) ... this is on his website, right? But I don't recall him over-stating the evidence nor obfuscating the problems with the data. Could you explain your point in more detail?
Read this: http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Social/aaas94.htm

He uses the studies cited over and over to reach conclusions that none of the original researchers made. Note the lack of any definition or even recording of accident severity. The Cross Studies give no indication of the exposure rates. That is, if a large number of accidents occur on the far right of the roadway, what is the percentage of time cyclists ride in that exposure area. If few cyclists are cycling down the middle of busy high speed arterials, Forester would discover how safe that location is because of the relatively few accidents recorded. Better yet he ignores the difference in expected severities of bike-car collisions when comparing to the scrapped knees of 8 year olds riding on the playground.

For a belly whopper analysis of another color, read: http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Social/natattit.htm

All about National Attitudes as determined by Forester the Scientist.


Another Forester funny is his description of his self described death defying ride on the bike path of Palo Alto. I know it is on his web site somewhere. If anyone knows the URL please post; I need a refresh of my laughing cells. It's hilarious because he is serious!

[filtersweep]

Hilarious... completely misses the concept.

[Helmet Head]

I never liked Forester's style of insulting people with whom he disagreed.

But I'm not afraid to say that he was the main person to encourage me to gradually master my current 30 mile round-trip commute route where there were only about 2 miles of bicycle facilities available.

Not everything (or everyone) is black-and-white. (Now if only we can get Forester to see that... :D)
It is unfortunate that John Forester's approach can be so insulting.
It is also unfortunate that because of his approach, many people don't pay attention to what he's saying.

People like invisiblehand are capable of discerning:

I agree that one should not take the opinion of one person too seriously without corresponding evidence. But he does appear to present evidence--note that I did not write proof--supporting some of his claims.


Others...

my biggest objection is foresters' insistence that only 'serious' cyclists have any business riding a bike.

Not so much...


Could you [ILTB] explain your point in more detail?

I too would be interested in seeing it.

[Helmet Head]

Read this: http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Social/aaas94.htm

[Forester] uses the studies cited over and over to reach conclusions that none of the original researchers made.
So? It is common scientific practice to compare, combine and contrast the results of multiple studies to synthesize new conclusions. It is the practice of assembling evidence that supports a conclusion.

What you fail to do is identify a single specific conclusion of Forester's, summarize the evidence he cites to support that conclusion, and explain why you believe that specific conclusion is not supported. Absent that, your vague criticisms amount to accomplishing nothing other than being an expression of your negative feelings about the man.

Note the lack of any definition or even recording of accident severity. So? Note the lack of you citing any conclusions that Forester has reached for which accident severity is relevant.

[Ed Holland]

Thanks for the link Diane,

I trawled through a few of the articles on JF's website. He does like to go on, and on.... "The Existence of the cyclist-inferiority phobia" is an absurd piece of conjecture.

I think what he really means (in relation to easily discouraged cycle beginners) is:

1. The new cyclist finds them self on the road without a big comfy box around them...
2. Wow! that car was going faster than me, this isn't like driving at all, I'd better keep right out of the way or I might get hurt.
3. My legs are tired, I'm out of breath and I havent made it to the shops yet.
4. F*(k this for a game of soldiers, where's me car?

OR....
1. I tried it, liked it (but felt tired and a bit out of place at first).
2. Got into it, got fitter, rode further and gained experience and confidence on the road.
3. Never looked back! (except before turns :p )


Ed

[N_C]

Got some questions about JF. Is it possible because he wants people to convert to his way of thinking he deluges his opponents with huge amounts of data, something that would rival the library of congress, they either say well with this much info. to sift through he must be right or they give up & ignore him? Why can't this stuff be simploy stated with out taking a novelistic approach? Maybe a paragraph at best. I don't have the time or the patience to sift through all that crap to see whether or not I believe what he is trying to allegedly improve upon.

I am not sure if he is ofr or against BL's, for or against MUP's, for or against better drivers education to teach how to behave around a cyclist or for or against Complete Streets. Hell JF may not even know about the Complete Streets campaign.

Can someone clear this up for me in the simplest terms possible? Please keep it to one paragraph. I just need to know the basics here.

Thank you.

[Helmet Head]

Got some questions about JF. Is it possible because he wants people to convert to his way of thinking he deluges his opponents with huge amounts of data, something that would rival the library of congress, they either say well with this much info. to sift through he must be right or they give up & ignore him? Why can't this stuff be simploy stated with out taking a novelistic approach? Maybe a paragraph at best. I don't have the time or the patience to sift through all that crap to see whether or not I believe what he is trying to allegedly improve upon.
No, it's not possible that he deluges his opponents with huge amounts of data for any reason, because it's not very much data.

Why would he or anyone else want people to convert to "his way of thinking"? What would that accomplish?

I am not sure if he is for or against BL's, for or against MUP's, for or against better drivers education to teach how to behave around a cyclist or for or against Complete Streets. Hell JF may not even know about the Complete Streets campaign.
He's generally opposed to BLs and a strong proponent of well-designed and properly maintained bike paths. I'm pretty sure he supports improved driver education with request to treating cyclists, though I don't think he believes it to be a high priority. He knows about Complete Streets. He's well informed on cycling issues, and I've seen posts from him where he wrote about Complete Streets.

Hope this helps.

[CrosseyedCrickt]

Why would he or anyone else want people to convert to "his way of thinking"? What would that accomplish?


Take a look at organized religeon.

[edit];)

[sbhikes]

could you connect the dots to the following paragraph which I found surprising?
His first fault is to believe that all people who wish to see better conditions for cyclists have a fear of being hit from behind. Then he decides to call these people with a fear of being hit behind "victims", setting up his whole silly exercise.

Dot #1
Some writers in the newsgroup rec.bicycles.soc say that the cyclist-inferiority phobia does not exist. However, they have not explained why they hold this opinion. They may believe that American cycling opinion does not overexaggerate the fear of motor traffic from behind and drive American cycling policy in unwise directions...

American cycling opinion is reduced to having a single source: a fear of motor traffic from behind. There is no other consideration for the rest of the article for what American cycling opinion (whatever the heck that really is) actually might be.

Dot #2
Is fear of motor traffic from behind a "persistent fear of a circumscribed stimulus?" Yes, it is. The victim fears a specific situation, motor traffic from behind while riding a bicycle.
Now these poor souls are victims of an illness.

Dot #3
Does exposure to motor traffic from behind, while riding a bicycle, almost invariably provoke an immediate anxiety response. Certainly it does, and even contemplating the exposure of others to the stimulus causes anxiety response, as when people organize political committees to obtain protection from the condition that they fear.
Basically here he is saying that bicycle advocates, the victims above, are just sick phobics and their advocacy is just an anxiety response.

[N_C]

Diane,

The fear of humans being hit or attacked from behind comes from our natural human instincts from thousands of years ago when it was a more serious matter then it is is now. There is nothing wrong with this instinct it is part of our nature as humans to have this. There is also nothing we can do about it. Some think it is part of our genetic code. Being called a victim because of this is way out of line, even for JF to say. Unless he does not count himself as a human with similar genetic codeing as everyone else. Or is he trying to make excuses & accusations to make up for his weakness as a human because he too has these natural fears from thousands of years ago? Humans used to be attacked by the wild beasts of the field when we were hunters & gatherers, so our fear of being attacked from behind & how to react to it was ingrained into us & is still with us to this day.

Over 3/4 of collisions with motor vehicles are not from the rear. They are merging & intersecting collisions. In a lot of these cases the cyclist saw the vehicle right before the impact happened but there nothing that could be done to avoid it. Humans were probably rarely if ever attacked from the wild beasts fo the field from the side, head on or as an intersecting attack. This would have given us more of an advantage because we would see the attacking animal and have a better chance at avoiding it or defending ourselves. Because of this it was never ingrained into our genetic makeup to have instincts on how to deal with this. Yet over 3/4 of collisions with motor vehicles happen in this manner.

Maybe JF ought to focus his energies on that fact rather call us victims because of our natural instincts with getting hit from behind.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Quote:Note the lack of any definition or even recording of accident severity.

So? Note the lack of you citing any conclusions that Forester has reached for which accident severity is relevant.
Nuff said about the relevance of any risk assessment from this gang.

[buzzman]

Whatever your impressions of what he stands for, let's remember that John Forester is a living human being with a computer at home.

Diane, have you ever met John Forester in person?

And if you're going to "debunk" him (or anyone else), it's only fair to cite what he has actually said, rather than give one's impression of what he has said, and debunk that.

didn't you just start a thread (recently closed) but saying, "as cycling advocates we should all be disappointed, if not outraged" over a statement that you introduced by saying, "I don't have the exact quote, but he said something like..." where you then proceeded to interpret his comments to mean that the person you were attempting to vilify, ".. is promoting the notion that cyclists don't belong on roads with lanes too narrow to be safely shared."

The thread then continued for some time and the exact quote never appeared and was never offered but instead it continued in this fashion:

"The implication of his statement (and I hope someone has it on Tivo and will give us the exact words)..."

and it turns out you were not even accurate about the route in question and when someone pointed this out you continued...

" Thanks for the clarification. I'm not sufficiently familar with the area/route to recognize where they turned off PCH and detoured along some rural side road. But, it looked very bikable."

Talk about feeding an emotionally based response (outraged?) without presenting sufficient supporting evidence for such a public vilification.

I think in the OP's case there is sufficient information for most of us to draw our own conclusions with a little bit of research.

Maybe this post will be deleted by moderators- I hope it is on topic enough to remain.

But personally I don't put much stock in John Forester's opinions myself. I find them counter productive and divisive of the cycling community and feel that it's a waste of words and time to be constantly bickering about his outdated opinions. I predict this thread, too, will close- and have probably unintentionally contributed to it's demise. Sorry. :(

[Helmet Head]

Buzzman, I did not attempt to vilify anyone, certainly not Phil Liggett! I'm a big Phil Liggett fan!
While I could not remember the exact words, no one that heard the broadcast questioned whether the essence of what Liggett said was that cyclists should not normally ride on the road depicted when motor traffic is on it because it was too narrow.

On the other hand, the stated purpose of this thread is to vilify Forester. No one can or would deny that. I think it's safe to say that those participating would not call themselves fans of Forester. And their stated impressions of what Forester has said and written are often questioned.

[PaulH]

Who the heck is this Phil Liggett person and why does he matter?

Paul

[sbhikes]

Doesn't quoting JF's written words count as quoting what he actually said? I am not interested in JF the human being, the guy someone would go out for coffee or bowling with. I'm interested in JF the author/authority. His written words are important in that regard, as well as fair game for debunking.

[Helmet Head]

Doesn't quoting JF's written words count as quoting what he actually said?
Certainly. But there has been very little of that in this thread. As far as I can tell, only in your post #35.

However, it is not clear, at least to me, what exactly you think these quotes show.

In Dot #1, Forester does not assert anything, so there is nothing to debunk.
Dot #2 is really a semantic complaint, that it's inappropriate to refer to cyclists who are overly concerned about potential hazards from the rears as "victims". That is not debunking.
Dot #3 is an assertion from Forester. Your comment about it is your opinion, implying at most that you seem to disgree, but it's hardly a debunking.

So I'm not sure what you think this shows.

[Helmet Head]

Who the heck is this Phil Liggett person and why does he matter?

Phil Liggett is the so-called "voice of cycling" (the most famous English speaking bike race announcer).

Buzzman brought up something from another thread (which involved Phil Liggett), and I responded to his accusations of my alleged inappropriate behavior. Sorry for the diversion. It's irrelevant to this thread.

[Helmet Head]

Okay, Diane, I think maybe I understand your point. Let me know if I get this right, or if I missed something.

Forester is trying to show that the cyclist-inferiority phobia exists.
As part of doing this, he explains how phobia is defined and assessed in the DSM. I don't think you have a problem with that part of his essay. As part of this, he cites the diagnostic criteria for Simple Phobia, including:

B: During some phase of the disturbance, exposure to the specific phobic stimulus (or stimuli) almost invariably provokes an immediate anxiety response.

Then he takes you through each criterium. For B, he states:

Consider Diagnostic Criterion B:

Does exposure to motor traffic from behind, while riding a bicycle, almost invariably provoke an immediate anxiety response. Certainly it does, and even contemplating the exposure of others to the stimulus causes anxiety response, as when people organize political committees to obtain protection from the condition that they fear.

If I understand your position, it is that he simply asserts, "Certainly it [exposure to motor traffic from behind] does [almost invariably provoke an immediate anxiety response]", without explaining why, or how he knows that it does, or even how the anxiety manifests itself. Apparently, he thinks it's so obvious that exposure to motor traffic from behind provokes anxiety that it is self-evident, and not requiring any further explanation or evidence.

If that's what you're trying to say, okay, that's a fair criticism, but it's hardly a debunking. In order to debunk it, you have have to go further and show that exposure to motor traffic from behind does not almost invariably provoke an immediate anxiety response. Without showing this, the most you can say is that there is insufficient evidence to be persuaded either way.

[rando]

"American cycling opinion is reduced to having a single source: a fear of motor traffic from behind. There is no other consideration for the rest of the article for what American cycling opinion (whatever the heck that really is) actually might be.

Dot #2
Quote:Is fear of motor traffic from behind a "persistent fear of a circumscribed stimulus?" Yes, it is. The victim fears a specific situation, motor traffic from behind while riding a bicycle.

Now these poor souls are victims of an illness.


Dot #3
Quote:Does exposure to motor traffic from behind, while riding a bicycle, almost invariably provoke an immediate anxiety response. Certainly it does, and even contemplating the exposure of others to the stimulus causes anxiety response, as when people organize political committees to obtain protection from the condition that they fear.

Basically here he is saying that bicycle advocates, the victims above, are just sick phobics and their advocacy is just an anxiety response."



Hey man, I'm not afraid of just traffic from behind. I'm afraid of dying because some jerk isn't paying attention. front, side, back, wherever. I use less-travelled roads to increase my chances of not getting smushed. you think I'm phobic, so what. I do what I feel is right for my personal safety. I like riding but I am not dying for it.

[Cyclepath]

I know we've been through this before but hits from behind are far from the number 1 reason for using a dynamic lane position, as opposed to static bike lane guided position. Just wanted to clear that up.

No doubt all those hostile, speeding drivers are suffering from paranoid schizophrenia & an inferiority complex, compensating for the smallness of their organs with the large size of their pickups, SUVs, & car engines....:)

[chipcom]

Thing is, I don't buy the "cyclist-inferiority phobia". It is more accurately "a human being's natural fear of anything new". EVERYONE who is not acclimated to operating a vehicle in traffic, whether that vehicle is a bike, car, truck or tank, is not comfortable doing so and has a fear of having a whoopsie.

Take my mother as an example. When she learned to drive in the early seventies, she was scared to death of driving on anything but a deserted road and even then she was slow, tentative, hugged the curb and was over cautious. That fear continued for the first few years she drove...she wouldn't drive anywhere unless she absolutely had to. Yet, at the same time, she was perfectly comfortable riding her bike on the same roads she didn't want to drive on. She didn't ride a bike as a kid, she learned to ride at the same time my Dad was teaching me...a good 5 or 6 years before she learned to drive.

The phobia, if you prefer to call it that (I don't agree) is not limited to cyclists, which is where Forester's theory falls flat and comes off as merely twisting something to his own ends. It's simply human nature to be uncomfortable doing something new.

[Helmet Head]

you think I'm phobic, so what. I do what I feel is right for my personal safety.
As do those who refuse to get on airplanes due to their fear of flying.
As do those who refuse to walk into caves due to their fear of closed spaces.
Etc., etc.

So what, you ask? Forester's point is that if the reason someone does not do something is because of a phobia (an irrational fear that is inconsistent with reasonable risk analysis), then only a certain course of action (repeated successful exposure to the feared something) can help them. The relevance to cycling advocacy is that if the reason someone does not ride his bicycle much, or as much, is because of the "cyclist inferiority phobia", then only a certain course of action (repeated successful exposure to riding in traffic) can help them.

This is why the issue of whether the cyclist inferiority phobia exists is relevant to cycling advocacy.

[buzzman]

one of my problems with Forester is he seems to feel the same way about bicycling as Bill Clinton did about abortion:

"It should be safe, legal and rare." :rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

Thing is, I don't buy the "cyclist-inferiority phobia". It is more accurately "a human being's natural fear of traffic". EVERYONE who is not acclimated to operating a vehicle in traffic, whether that vehicle is a bike, car, truck or tank, is not comfortable doing so and has a fear of having a whoopsie.

Take my mother as an example. When she learned to drive in the early seventies, she was scared to death of driving on anything but a deserted road and even then she was slow, tentative, hugged the curb and was over cautious. That fear continued for the first few years she drove...she wouldn't drive anywhere unless she absolutely had to. Yet, at the same time, she was perfectly comfortable riding her bike on the same roads she didn't want to drive on. She didn't ride a bike as a kid, she learned to ride at the same time my Dad was teaching me...a good 5 or 6 years before she learned to drive.

The phobia, if you prefer to call it that (I don't agree) is not limited to cyclists, which is where Forester's theory falls flat and comes off as merely twisting something to his own ends. It's simply human nature to be uncomfortable doing something new. But don't you think it goes beyond being merely uncomfortable doing something new? Uncomfortable doing it is one thing, refusal to consider doing it is quite another. It's the latter to which Forester is referring, I believe.