Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Forester takes on BF Posters

DJ, you characterized unspecified members here. whom you apparently believed to be representing John, as "minions." That's name-calling. It's childish, annoying and unproductive.


(edit: nevermind, I see a mod has already weighed in, so I'll just say, perhaps you could practice what you preach?)

The poster you responded to was speaking about this particular piece.



But then notice this paragraph from the link:


This writer has obviously read the reports. He is either so blinded by his psychological condition (whatever it may be), or he is willing to lie his way to his desired conclusion. Up to 1980 or so, club cyclists, with whom I rode a great deal, were almost the only American cycling population that exhibited general vehicular-cycling behavior. I did not learn it from them, for I had already brought the idea from my English cycling, but American club cycling behavior enabled me to formalize my descriptions of that behavior. Later, I measured the behavior, on the road, in traffic, of several cycling groups: club cyclists; general public adult cyclists in Davis, Palo Alto, Berkeley, Sunnyvale; students completing my Effective Cycling classes from ages 8 to mature adults. Club cyclist and student cyclist scores averaged about 95%; general public adult cycling populations averaged about a failing 60%. The accident rates reported in several studies of general public and of club cyclists showed that club cyclists had car-bike collision rates only 75% of those of the general cycling public. The reports of cycling club accidents showed that the strongest factor in reducing accidents was the first four years of club cycling experience, which correlates well with learning vehicular cycling behavior. At no time did I ever compare the unmeasured cycling behavior of 8-year-old cyclists with the unmeasured cycling behavior of adults; I compared only the actual measured behavior of the groups.

This is a very common error people make, confusing correlation for causation.
The correlation is club riding experience to fewer accidents. The causation he assumes is that it is the VC concepts of club riding that cause the fewer accidents.

One moment, he denies claiming a scientific basis for supporting lane position, but the next he uses faulty scientific reasoning to support VC, including.... lane position.



Huh? I don't see anything about lane position in your quote of him, much less anything about "one lateral roadway position is proved by study to be either safer or more dangerous than another. "

your avatar is scaring me.

BOOH!

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j203/TeteDeCourse/killerklown.jpg

BOOH!

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j203/TeteDeCourse/killerklown.jpg

I've got that one. He's cute. I'm only using Pennywise this week because I watched "It" on Sunday.

So please stow it, or more than likely this thread will end up locked.

I think locking would be an appropriate way to communicate that personal nastiness is unacceptable behavior here.

So far, however, it appears that nastiness is not only acceptable, but is normal behavior for members like you, chipcom, along with Bekologist, ILTB, etc. Evidently, the people who operate the forums, contrary to their published guidelines, actually approve of your constant ugly spewing.

HH, I'm not (and haven't been) arguing that Forester claimed a study backed up his lane position ideas.

What I am arguing (and have been) is that "pretty solid ground" is a questionable description of the link.

My points, to reiterate, were

- in one instant he uses an unscientific analysis to assume that VC is the cause of club bicyclist's lower accident rates

- in another he denies supporting lane position because there were no studies to back it up

In other words, he can find support for his ideas (which include lane positioning) where he wants to, but so long as he didn't actually claim that a study backed up his lane position idea, he hasn't said anything false.... sounds like a technicality to me.

I just wonder why anyone is so starry-eyed over him...

He's a liar. He doesn't know anything about the American Dream Coalition Speakers Bureau? Then why's his name and pic ib the site?

Congrats Randy, finally, after all the personal attacks on ILTB and posturing horsepucky by JF's apostles, you get down to the real issue: Forester either reads what goes on here or his apostles here are feeding this stuff to him. Either way it's quite obvious that he takes it seriously enough to feel the need to respond on his web site (where nobody can counter his comments or engage in a semi real-time debate as we do in here).

So HH, you gleefully created this thread, I suspect because it would help support your wacky theories and allow you to make personal attacks on ILTB, but you shot yourself in the foot again, because all you have done is proven to everyone who posts here that the emperor has no clothes and is downright peeved that the unwashed masses in an internet forum have the audacity to point it out.

To everyone who posts here using independent thinking, creativity and innovation, keep up the good work, it seems certain people are noticing. Chipcom, do you think you keep your posts in the universe where I gleefully started this thread and it backfired on me, where they might make some sense?

In this universe ILTB, the one with the personal vendetta against Forester, is the one who gleefully started this thread, and it backfired on him.

I think locking would be an appropriate way to communicate that personal nastiness is unacceptable behavior here.

So far, however, it appears that nastiness is not only acceptable, but is normal behavior for members like you, chipcom, along with Bekologist, ILTB, etc. Evidently, the people who operate the forums, contrary to their published guidelines, actually approve of your constant ugly spewing.

You know, I'd love to enforce the rules, but when you do the hue and cry is that mods are too heavy handed. Folks, you can't have it both ways. What do you think?

Maybe we should vote on what threads are locked and what posts are nasty...

Should I lock this thread?

not even CLOSE to nasty enough to close, clown-man!

Not only is he a liar, I think he feels threatened that he was exposed as the charlatan he is when Bek showed us the ADC web site and I debunked his phony science and exposed his speaking engagement in Santa Barbara. Why would he come and not a local cyclist if whoever invited him didn't specifically hire him for his car-centric point of view? Everybody in Santa Barbara knows the official cycling point of view on traffic calming. And it's not the same as JF.

He didn't pwn us or whatever that silly word is. We pwned him and he's lashing out in a cowardly, dare I say phobic, way.

Questions---How does one's support of "segregated" bike facilities translate into "anti-motoring" emotional sophistry???????--As the chainguard letter states

I really don't understand why you can't have both segregated facilities and lawful bicycle use in traffic at the same time. Why are these 2 ideas oppossed? How does advocating that people know the rules of the road when cycling in traffic result in opposition of all other types of cycling?

What am I missing here? I understand his point that cyclists are a minority and the reality is that we need to learn to operate in the world as it is---but how does that translate into oppossition of efforts to change that reality?

I personally believe that a lot of government efforts to create segregated facilities such as rail trails and streamside paths in their own right of way are motivated by a genuine interest to provide cyclists with greater convenience and desirable alternate routes, and that many bike lane facilities are intended to provide greater comfort for cyclists via wider passing distances. (We'll leave for another thread the debate about whether the outcomes always live up to the intentions.)

However, John Forester began his opposition to segregated facilities at a time when the primary motivation for the facilities appeared to be to maximize motorist convenience by clearing the roads of cyclists and ensuring a clear path for motorists. The proposed facilities were far more hazardous for cyclists than what advocates here might call "good" bikeway designs today. At the time, those promoting the problem designs did not appear to care about cyclists' safety or convenience, and - as a few people there at the time report - when evidence was presented that the proposed facility designs would reduce safety, the evidence was suppressed. Forester's struggles at the time eliminated the worst designs and minimized the proposed legal changes that would have mandated the use of unsafe facilities and generally prevented normal vehicular cycling. Meanwhile, John Forester's attempts to promote improved education of cyclists in vehicular cycling practices as a safety strategy went generally unheeded by the government.

It appears that those events permanently affected Forester's view of any government bikeway program. He remains skeptical of any bicycle transportation program that appears intended to either clear the road of cyclists or promote bicycle operation that is either contrary or ignorant of the normal vehicular rules. While he promotes wide outside lanes to improve cyclists' comfort, he is skeptical of striped bike lanes, use of which is mandatory for cyclists where he lives. He generally views greenway paths as linear parks useful for recreation but of little consequence to the majority of bicycle transportation, which occurs on roads. From time to time somebody in government tries to mandate that cyclists be banned from some important roadways, sometimes with an alternate separated path in mind, and that adds more fuel to the fire. In summary, any bicycle transportation program that is light on education and enforcement wrt how to travel on the widely available system of normal roads, while instead focusing on segregated facilities, is likely to be described by John Forester in the same way that he saw the first proposals to get cyclists "out of the way" in the early 1970s.

Really, ILTB, the evidence of your personal animosity for Forester is miles, and years, long. Nobody who is familiar with, or becomes familiar with, even a bit of that history is likely to believe a denial from you.

Again, ridicule, name-calling, bullying -- none of these are convincing arguments for anything and don't contribute to the discussion. If the operators of this forum were serious about the "Forum Guidelines," this sort of thing would be weeded out.
What happened your ignore button? Is it broken? Too bad.

Listen, K. Like I had to explain to HH, again, your distaste for truth, facts and logic when it comes to describing the Forester Brand body of work doesn't convert the truth, facts and logic into personal insult, ridicule, name-calling, bullying or any other phrase you throw up as a smokescreen.

Your pig don't fly either.

He's a liar. He doesn't know anything about the American Dream Coalition Speakers Bureau? Then why's his name and pic ib the site?
I'm sure there's a perfectly illogical explanation for it.

I vote yes.
You vote no.

2 to 1 to LOCK.

pwn3d and triple pwn3d you bikepath *******
So speaketh the cycling advocate.:rolleyes:

Actually, I saw his CG letter (http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/message/23113).
If you get it by email take a look at the CC line. Reveals the identity of Forester's BF "mole."

All of the above??? In the chainguard letter, he actually names bikeforums.net specifically. Apparently he's a lurker here.
No. His mole is though.

You haven't gone to his web site yet, have you?

Here's the write-up on Forester from the ADC web site:
http://americandreamcoalition.org/forester.html

Here's his picture:
http://americandreamcoalition.org/forester.jpg

Here's a download the offer about John Forester:
Article on the Place of Cycling in Modern Societies (http://americandreamcoalition.org/forester.pdf)

Just in case JF gets it removed out of embarrassment. If you click on these links and all this stuff is gone, it's JF's doing, not my mistake.

Uh where does it mention BF or it's memebrs?
Paragraph 2 and 3.

I don't see a CC line. I guess that's because I'm not a member. It doesn't matter. I already know who the Mole is and what his real name is.

ILTB: I did notice that! I was wondering...

Boy, if you just do a search on the word bikeforums.net on that CG page you can find out a lot about what goes on behind the scenes in these arguments. Moles moles everywhere.

Talking in circles makes fertile ground for passionate exegesis.

and walking in circles makes more fertile ground for passionate excretion...why else you think we have to walk our dogs?

nothing to do w/ the subject...just had to throw it in.

ILTB, what did JF ever do to piss you off? What did he do to mess you up so much? What ever it was it must have been really awful. No one likes to have their cheerios tinkled in, but let it go dude. Life is much to short to habor hatred for another person.


we all know & get that you don't like him, his beliefs, his manner of cycling, etc, etc., etc. But enough is enough already. JF has his own style he is not going to change it.
Your silly Pigs don't fly either. Read previous responses to the other two thinkers (HH and K) like yourself who think their cherished beliefs are sacrosanct and above reproach. And whose best defense is to claim that valid criticism can be written off as personal attacks.

you are such an evil clown!

I'm no clown...

Holy ****! What a jerk!

JF responded to what I posted to Diane about natural fear of being attacked from behind. I love his response to what I wrote. How is what I posted a version of denying the cyclist inferiority phobia? What was I denying? He more or less accused me of stating because of our natural fears cyclists are inferior to others. Where does he come off doing that? I don't mind if anyone disagrees with me, but to say I am denying something, when he doesn't know & is making assumptions with out proof is ridiculous.

It seems he is denying humans have a natural fear & instincts, which I'm guessing he views as one of our short comings, of being attacked from behind. There is nothing wrong with that natural fear. Humans have been dealing with it for centuries. In times of conflict & war it comes in quite handy & gives us a 6th sense so we can defend ourselves.

Is JF so perfect that he has no shortcomings, unlike the rest of us? Or is he just as human as everyone else he just doesn't want to admit it or his shortcomings?

ILTB, never mind me asking you what he did to piss you off. I now see why you don't like him. But I still think you should let it go, the jerk is not worth your time.

I vote yes.
You vote no.

2 to 1 to LOCK.

No, don't lock it.

Ok, Iv'e gotta ask. WTF is: pwn3d? Someone please tell me.

I just re-read JF's rants. it's interesting how he doesn't say much about not agreeing with ADC's autocentric views, he just keeps saying he was not paid.

I think locking would be an appropriate way to communicate that personal nastiness is unacceptable behavior here.

So far, however, it appears that nastiness is not only acceptable, but is normal behavior for members like you, chipcom, along with Bekologist, ILTB, etc. Evidently, the people who operate the forums, contrary to their published guidelines, actually approve of your constant ugly spewing.
Put a sock on it. You've been singing that tune about eveyone who doesn't fall into line with the obsequious mole and his master since the first week you posted anything here.

Ok, Iv'e gotta ask. WTF is: pwn3d? Someone please tell me.

http://www.answers.com/pwn3d?nafid=3

I kinda got it's meansing from context, but here's the straight dope.

No, don't lock it.


I won't - I'm just going to let you guys tear each other up and watch - it's much more fun.

Chipcom, do you think you keep your posts in the universe where I gleefully started this thread and it backfired on me, where they might make some sense?

In this universe ILTB, the one with the personal vendetta against Forester, is the one who gleefully started this thread, and it backfired on him.

My apologies, you are right...I coulda swore I saw your name on it. :o

I don't agree that ILTB has a personal vendetta unless JF also has a personal vendetta, since he saw fit to 'out' him on his web site. I think both have very little love for each other, but out of strong disagreement in positions and methods. ILTB treats everyone, even JF, the same...it's just his personality, IMO. If you remember, ILTB and I had a pretty rocky start here in BF, but I'm not as thin-skinned as some and figured out that we agreed on many things - and he took the initiative to extend the olive branch, not I...which is a sign of character in my book. Indeed, if I recall correctly I was defending YOU when I first got into it with ILTB, go figure.

Edit: What I said about JF taking notice stands, obviously. One does not make the effort to respond to things they consider meaningless or harmless. I wonder if he realizes that his response will probably intensify the debate, not end it.

You know, I'd love to enforce the rules, but when you do the hue and cry is that mods are too heavy handed. Folks, you can't have it both ways. What do you think?

Maybe we should vote on what threads are locked and what posts are nasty...

Should I lock this thread?
I thought the K-man was going to ignore all the posters who offended his obsequious sensitivities. Now he wants to lock 'em up. Better fix his ignore button.

What's the policy on moles reporting BF content for posting/comment on other web sites?

I don't see a CC line. I guess that's because I'm not a member. It doesn't matter. I already know who the Mole is and what his real name is.
I'm sure you are correct in your assumption.

I won't - I'm just going to let you guys tear each other up and watch - it's much more fun.

I want to have your children!!!

Holy ****! What a jerk!

ILTB, never mind me asking you what he did to piss you off. I now see why you don't like him. But I still think you should let it go, the jerk is not worth your time.
Your pig is starting to get wings now. It isn't a question of liking or disliking. The issue is the use of blatantly distorted data and fabricated data in biased and sophmoric risk analyses to "sell"/promote the Forester Brand Program; both by the Master and his obsequious followers.

I think both have very little love for each other, but out of strong disagreement in positions and methods. ILTB treats everyone, even JF, the same...it's just his personality, IMO.
That's about the size of it. Just the facts, ChipcomMan, just the facts.

I don't discriminate. I treat all Jack Donkeys the same, regardless of race, creed, or national origin

I won't - I'm just going to let you guys tear each other up and watch - it's much more fun.
Exactly. Not only should this thread not be locked, it should be a sticky. There will be attempts to sabotage this thread. The offending posts should be removed and the thread should be allowed to continue. John Forester deserves nothing less.

I was surprised to see that I was quoted on the Forester website on the issue of Cyclist inferiority phobia.



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 )



My point was missed, IMO, which was that there's no need to over analyse the way cyclists feel about riding on the road, and how that is linked to the uptake of cycling. Of course new cyclists feel vulnerable and insecure in traffic. This is not an issue that is solved by anything except riding experience.

JF's rebuttal manages to drag bike path/lane/way politics into this, which is something I never intended to invoke in my posting:


However, the absence of phobia in one example does nothing to refute the fact of persistent and successful demands that American policy regarding bicycle transportation be based on the combination of the fear of same-direction traffic and the bikeways that are justified by it.

Ed

Boy, if you just do a search on the word bikeforums.net on that CG page you can find out a lot about what goes on behind the scenes in these arguments. Moles moles everywhere.
On the bright side, as the attack becomes formally organized, it's focusing more and more on specific battle threads. Only a month or two ago, it was tough to come up with a thread these guys couldn't derail into a fight. But now, with the holy war fully established and attracting some actual offsite strategic discussion, these incursions are beginning to focus on strategic hot spots. The "Cyclists have only themselves to blame" thread is practically begging to get derailed, but it's gone totally ignored and has been chugging along productively for a whole week! With results, too!
I like these moles. I hope they continue to focus the war into a few hot threads and let the rest of us discuss advocacy and safety productively.

JF's rebuttal manages to drag bike path/lane/way politics into this, which is something I never intended to invoke in my posting:

This is typical JF "rebuttal" technique; provide the quote but respond to his own interpretation or strawman argument. Fools some of the people, some of the time; fools the obsequious fools all the time.

Your pig is starting to get wings now. It isn't a question of liking or disliking. The issue is the use of blatantly distorted data and fabricated data in biased and sophmoric risk analyses to "sell"/promote the Forester Brand Program; both by the Master and his obsequious followers.

Agreed. His data seems to be according to him or his experiences.

It is fine if if a person writes about personal experiences or how they see things based on that. But they should not try to indoctrinate others into to believing the same thing based on what has happened or because of their opinions. It should not be used as material for teaching.

I highly doubt JF has ridden bike or even driven a motor vehicle in all areas of the country. So how can he assume what applies in his area applies in mine? Or Burlington, Iowa for that matter. If anything ILTB your area & mine have more in common the JF's & mine, or JF's & yours. Simply because we're both in Iowa, we are subject to the same state laws & DOT policies & probably very similar county & local laws & issues as well.

I now see why he was not voted director or president of the LAB. If I use anything he wrote in his book Essential Cycling I will be very careful to seperate his personal opinions from the actual unbiased facts.

This is typical JF "rebuttal" technique; provide the quote but respond to his own interpretation or strawman argument. Fools some of the people, some of the time; fools the obsequious fools all the time.

Not me ;)

ILTB treats everyone, even JF, the same...it's just his personality, IMO.
I'd like to take a moment to nominate ILTB for the position of Bike Forums Curmudgeon.

I'd like to take a moment to nominate ILTB for the position of Bike Forums Curmudgeon.
Say that with a smile (or at least a smilie :) ), Pahdner!

I like these moles. I hope they continue to focus the war into a few hot threads and let the rest of us discuss advocacy and safety productively.I like the moles, too. They're entertaining. I've been a moderator on another site for many years and I find the dynamics of internet propaganda wars fascinating. I wish I had mod powers here (without any responsibility) so I could be even more entertained.

If I use anything he wrote in his book Essential Cycling I will be very careful to seperate his personal opinions from the actual unbiased facts.

That is the hard part...figuring out where the facts end and the bias begins. He intermingles them quite well, as any good politician or con man does.

i read through the Forester post in detail, sometimes twice in more arcane areas; this is what i gleaned from it:

1. 'vehicular cyclists' are good, happy, and safe, by practicing this 'art' of riding with some ethereal skill;
2. 'bicycle advocates' are anti-car crybabies who want to be pre-eminent in the travel hierarchy;
3. critics and nay-sayers are either unskilled speed-readers who missed his salient points, or spin doctors who lie to suit their agenda;
4. the aforementioned crybabies are riddled with an unnatural phobia of being run over from behind that no one else in the world experiences or suffers from;
5. in the author's own experience and empirical testing, 'club cyclists' scored 95% proficient in road skills, where the average adult 'failed' with 60% -- yet, this great disparity only resulted in an accident reduction among clubbers of 25%.

my conclusions from this:
i do agree that we have, and should exercise, our right to the road, keeping our safety paramount;
i do not agree that bike paths are a 100% bad idea -- they have their place, but not all over the place!
i do not agree that his point of view is the only true and accurate one -- he is one person (who denies his affiliation with pro-car organizations who openly parade his name on their own websites like a champion for their cause); thus, his own veracity and 'authority' status is a house of cards.
i do not agree that many cyclists have a crippling fear of the rear-end accident; it is a necessary caution, owing to the ignorance and carelessness of many motorists;
i do agree that knowledge and skill HELP cyclists stay safer on the roads, but it is not the 'magic bullet' to eliminate the problem -- comprehensive education of drivers will do more!

far too many drivers are marginally educated in the pursuit of their licenses, and even more poorly regulated in their use; it is a classic example of "that which is not directly opposed is condoned".

my home state has enacted the "share the road" campaign, putting signs up in supposedly strategic locations in cities and towns (my opinion? put them beneath every speed limit sign!), which has done little of any real value. i put forth the suggestion to both the state and the local riding club that hi-viz yellow vests be produced for sale to cyclists that contain the sign and message, clearly visible on the back -- after a year, no notice. i've argued with cops about the traffic laws, and can produce evidence upon demand to support my stance. there is a cross-section of the city's finest who know and agree; one even surprised me by referring to "idiots on the road".

where do we go from here? speaking for myself -- forward, one pedal stroke at a time; and woe be the motorist who carelessly lets me see his plate after 'buzzing' me while i ride safely and according to the law....