Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Forester takes on BF Posters

On his web site that is.
http://johnforester.com/Articles/Social/Cyclist_vs_Bicycle_Advocacies.htm See paragraph 2 & 3.
Nothing like a one sided debate, Forester style. What a guy!

On his web site that is.
http://johnforester.com/Articles/Social/Cyclist_vs_Bicycle_Advocacies.htm See paragraph 2 & 3.
Nothing like a one sided debate, Forester style. What a guy!
Actually, Forester quotes extensively from the statements and arguments quoted here, which he then responds to quite succinctly. Nothing "one sided" about it.

Actually, Forester quotes extensively from the statements and arguments quoted here, which he then responds to quite succinctly. Nothing "one sided" about it.
Sorry, Jack. Forester does the same old, same old routine of repeating the quote, but reponding to his own interpretation of what the quote really means per Forester. This is an open Forum if he wished to respond, or have one of his tools like you or HH do it for him, the mike was open. Instead he posts just another of his one sided diatribes. Maybe you can suggest that he open up his web site for responses from those whom he criticizes and belittles.

No surprise you are the first to respond to defend the Great One, you are tuned right in to the Master, ain't ya?

John-boy sure doesn't like ILTB. :eek:

On his web site that is.
http://johnforester.com/Articles/Social/Cyclist_vs_Bicycle_Advocacies.htm See paragraph 2 & 3.
Nothing like a one sided debate, Forester style. What a guy!

ha ha ha... he pwn3d you guys.

John-boy sure doesn't like ILTB. :eek:
They have a long history.

Make no mistake, ILTB's perspective about vehicular cycling is colored by very personal matters.

John-boy sure doesn't like ILTB. :eek:
The gored sacred cow is obnoxious ain't he!:)

He doesn't like anyone to tip over his house of cards or to call a statistical charlatan, a statistical charlatan. And he has apoplectic fits when his sophomoric so-called risk analysis and tests are revealed for exactly what they are - biased fabrications and statistical crap.

.

Make no mistake, ILTB's perspective about vehicular cycling is colored by very personal matters.
Is that right? Who told you?

The gored sacred cow is obnoxious ain't he!:)

He doesn't like anyone to tip over his house of cards or to call a statistical charlatan, a statistical charlatan. And he has apoplectic fits when his sophomoric so-called risk analysis and tests are revealed for exactly what they are - biased fabrications and statistical crap. See, it's objective analysis. It's not a personal vendetta or anything like that. :rolleyes:


Is that right? Who told you?
Like you don't make it blatantly obvious that you have a personal vendetta against John Forester? :roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

I consider myself to be fairly well educated, having a post graduate degree and all, but I could barely understand half of that. I'm not necessarily knocking the man's ideas (i'm not sure I understand them yet), but as far as debating style and response to criticism, he talks in circles.

See, it's objective analysis. It's not a personal vendetta or anything like that. :rolleyes:


Like you don't make it blatantly obvious that you have a personal vendetta against John Forester? :roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:
Sorry, that pig don't fly.

Strictly the facts, Jack. It is YOU and the other Foresterites who believe that the facts and truth are a personal attack on your cherished beliefs.

I consider myself to be fairly well educated, having a post graduate degree and all, but I could barely understand half of that. I'm not necessarily knocking the man's ideas (i'm not sure I understand them yet), but as far as debating style and response to criticism, he talks in circles.
It can be a lot of work to understand his writing sometimes.
If you don't do the work, it might seem like he's talking in circles.
But if you do the work, the objective analysis, usually you'll find he's on pretty solid ground.
But because so few are willing to do that work, it's easy to criticize what he's saying.

Sorry, that pig don't fly.

Strictly the facts, Jack. It is YOU and the other Foresterites who believe that the facts and truth are a personal attack on your cherished beliefs.
OMG! I really stumbled onto this one. It didn't occur to me that you would be in denial about having a personal grudge and vendetta against Forester. This is classic! Amazing.

I saw that. I don't think I like being characterized as "anti-motorist." I also don't like the California centric viewpoint, that the environment was designed for cars only, and cyclists just have to deal. Not all places are as autocentric as California. And in many places where cycling for transportation has been encouraged, lo and behold, the number of cyclists on the streets goes up! How does J. Forester reconcile that amongst his theory that cycling will always be unpopular and basically without merit as a serious transportational option?

Mr. Forester has thrown in his towel in resignation for cycling advocacy. I think he is getting old and pessimistic. He spoke at that convention, under the exact auspices that we feared: as a pro-motorist who happens to bike. According to his worldview, cycling will always be second best to the car, always fighting for space on the road and to be left alone against the encroaching auto-centric society. I've seen this sentiment in other emails he has posted on chainguard. I think he has come full circle and is not a cycling advocate anymore. He just wants to be left alone. He'll adapt to the changing and more auto-centric road environment (in California, at least) as long as he can, and all others can just f-ck themselves.

Actually, Forester quotes extensively from the statements and arguments quoted here, which he then responds to quite succinctly. Nothing "one sided" about it.

How do you not see that quoting and responding on a static HTML page is not "one-sided"?

Quite cowardly in my opinion. If he wishes to debate members of this forum he should do so from inside the forum instead of sending his "minions" here to do his bidding.

Additionally, he may be infringing upon the rights of this forums owners and members by quoting them on another site without their consent.

Is that right? Who told you?


Like you don't make it blatantly obvious that you have a personal vendetta against John Forester? :roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

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.

That's hilarious! The great scientist in his own mind even got in a comment about the Cyclist Inferiority Phobia.

John Forester's website is one of the funniest websites I've ever seen in my life - a true "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science" classic.

John Forester
What a scientist!
What a class act!

Advocacy at its best. :rolleyes:

This thread will probably be:

very funny
very hostile
very long OR
shut down by the mods

ha ha ha... he pwn3d you guys.

pwn3d and triple pwn3d you bikepath *******

Actually, I saw his CG letter (http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/message/23113).

Advocacy at its best. :rolleyes:

This thread will probably be:

very funny
very hostile
very long OR
shut down by the mods


All of the above??? In the chainguard letter, he actually names bikeforums.net specifically. Apparently he's a lurker here. Wish he'd come out and post so we could talk with the guy...

ha ha ha... he pwn3d you guys.
You think?

:rolleyes:

How do you not see that quoting and responding on a static HTML page is not "one-sided"?
I don't know "how" it is, but I don't see it that way at all. The statements were made in this public forum and he responded in a public way. His e-mail address is readily available, along with any number of other ways to contact him should someone wish to do so.


Quite cowardly in my opinion. If he wishes to debate members of this forum he should do so from inside the forum instead of sending his "minions" here to do his bidding.
Whatever qualities John Forester may exhibit, cowardliness is not, most assuredly, one of them.

I'm getting really tired of this childish name-calling, DJ. I am, decidedly, not anyone's minion. If you knew me, as opposed to having simplistically categorized me, you would be in no doubt of that fact.

What is it with the adolescent gang mentality that prevails here? Did you people all beat up kids who "dressed funny" in junior high? Did you feel proud of yourselves when you did?


Additionally, he may be infringing upon the rights of this forums owners and members by quoting them on another site without their consent.
That's an interesting interesting legal theory. I don't advise spending too much money pursuing it.

On his web site that is.
http://johnforester.com/Articles/Social/Cyclist_vs_Bicycle_Advocacies.htm See paragraph 2 & 3.
Nothing like a one sided debate, Forester style. What a guy!

Uh where does it mention BF or it's memebrs?

The rest of society, be they motorists on the road, highway engineers in their offices and on the highway, legislators in their halls, and just plain people, should treat cyclists with the same care and consideration that they treat other drivers of vehicles.
All the rest of John's theories collapse when this assumption is revealed as the pipe dream it is, which will never become reality.

I have to check out his responses. Although it would make more sense if he responded directly to the forum.

Then again, it might not be as productive.

At least we know he reads other people's opinions.

By the way, we sold our place in DC and are now looking for another place to live. Then comes the "exciting" part of actually moving. Apologies for my discontinuous participation. I hope no questions or statements directed to me were unanswered.

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.

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?

You think?

:rolleyes:

Look at that, we got him to respond. Who pwn3d who now? He replies to a public forum on his own private website??? WTF?

Uh where does it mention BF or it's memebrs?

At the bottom. He takes individual posts and replies to them, like we do here, but he does it on his own little private website.

Talking about an ivory tower.

I'm getting really tired of this childish name-calling, DJ. I am, decidedly, not anyone's minion. If you knew me, as opposed to having simplistically categorized me, you would be in no doubt of that fact.

What is it with the adolescent gang mentality that prevails here? Did you people all beat up kids who "dressed funny" in junior high? Did you feel proud of yourselves when you did?


I did not use any names on purpose, and as I said to HH before if you are replying directly to this you must at least be suffering from a guilty conscience.

I am also not saying I will or would take legal action against Forester, but this is a FORUM! Meaning where we discuss things openly. If he wishes to engage the members then do so here, and don't hand pick quotes to attack and post them on a static web page. He may or not be cowardly, but his actions regarding this are.

Look at that, we got him to respond. Who pwn3d who now? He replies to a public forum on his own private website??? WTF?
He must have felt threatened, otherwise he would have simply ignored us; that means we've got some traction. The private - rather than public - response is just cowardly.

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 think I'm w/ you.

I think it's more of the PEOPLE who repsesent these 2 ideas/ opinions(?) that create the opposition/ venom. Me right, you wrong --- it's almost as bad as politics & religion. But hopefully not as dangerous. :)

It's a friggin website for crying out loud. That's "real private". Just because he quoted some of the more delusional posts and posters her on BF for rebuttal is no reason to get your panties in a wad if your delusion post was not rebutted. Better luck next time.

Get over yourselves.

It can be a lot of work to understand his writing sometimes.
If you don't do the work, it might seem like he's talking in circles.
But if you do the work, the objective analysis, usually you'll find he's on pretty solid ground.
But because so few are willing to do that work, it's easy to criticize what he's saying.
The work your doing is not objective analysis, it's rationalization.

It takes a lot of work rationalizing, to get to the place where you would believe that the page in the link is on "pretty solid ground".

If you ask me, it sounds like a wannabe scientist, jumping from one method to the next to defend his reputation from the unholy.

But then again, Helmet Head imagines he can draw "pretty solid" conclusions from unscientific polling and anecdotal "evidence", or imaginary hypothetical scenarios he has built up around dead cyclists. This is not personal/animosity motivated, that's just what I've seen.

"Pretty Solid Ground"

I have never stated that any one lateral roadway position is proved by any study to be either safer or more dangerous than another. I haven't done so because no study contains the date from which this could be derived.

He finally makes sense in his last sentence "Batt's evaluation is the antic of an ideologue so smitten that he has lost the ability understand himself." I don't know much about Batt, so I decline to comment there, but I know that if I change the name to Forester, it seems to fit nicely with the link I read.

It's a friggin website for crying out loud. That's "real private". Just because he quoted some of the more delusional posts and posters her on BF for rebuttal is no reason to get your panties in a wad of your delusion post was not rebutted. Better luck next time.

Get over yourselves.

By way of "private" I mean, the content is controlled only by him.

Are you okay? You seem to be having mood swings as of late.

The work your doing is not objective analysis, it's rationalization.
Huh?, I never claimed I did the work for this particular piece. In fact, I've only skimmed it.


It takes a lot of work rationalizing, to get to the place where you would believe that the page in the link is on "pretty solid ground".
Perhaps in this case. I don't know, since I haven't taken the time to do the work objective analysis requires. I was talking about his writing in general, not this particular piece.

I did not use any names on purpose, and as I said to HH before if you are replying directly to this you must at least be suffering from a guilty conscience.

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.


I am also not saying I will or would take legal action against Forester, but this is a FORUM! Meaning where we discuss things openly. If he wishes to engage the members then do so here, and don't hand pick quotes to attack and post them on a static web page. He may or not be cowardly, but his actions regarding this are.

I'm not sure why you think people who, along with their bodies of work, are attacked here have some obligation to respond only here, or here at all. On the contrary, they may choose to respond or not, and may also choose the time, place and manner of any response(s).

I can't speak for Forester (whatever some may imagine), but I suspect that he is unwilling to subject himself to the viciousness and defiant ignorance that characterizes this forum. One can hardly blame him.

i vc!
i live on the east coast where bicycle inclusion is cramped, or non existant in road planning from what i recently saw on the west coast.
i support and practice following set traffic laws, carry a printout of the state and town specific bicycle laws.
i mainly ride a road bike on the road and believe in forester concepts his responses appeared well thought out and fosused (alittle wordy).

"Pretty Solid Ground"


I have never stated that any one lateral roadway position is proved by any study to be either safer or more dangerous than another. I haven't done so because no study contains the date from which this could be derived.
What's your point?

He apparently thinks he was accused of stating that one lateral roadway position is proved by study to be either safer or more dangerous than another.

He denies ever stating that, and explains why.

What's the problem?

Are you okay? You seem to be having mood swings as of late.

I know it's hard for you not to stoop to pandering. But at least you could make the effort. If you ever want to make a comment of a personal nature to my face, man to man, please be my guest.

Minion - 1. One who is esteemed or favored. 2. a. An obsequious follower or dependent. b. A subordinate official.

The only judgement that this word constitutes name calling is coming from you, Kal.

kalliergo is a Forester minion!:p kalliergo is a Forester minion!:p

I never claimed I did the work for this particular piece. In fact, I've only skimmed it.
The poster you responded to was speaking about this particular piece.


What's your point?

He apparently thinks he was accused of stating that one lateral roadway position is proved by study to be either safer or more dangerous than another.

He denies ever stating that, and explains why.

What's the problem?

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.

He must have felt threatened, otherwise he would have simply ignored us; that means we've got some traction. The private - rather than public - response is just cowardly.

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.

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

Never-the-less, I used general terms in my response: "It can be a lot of work to understand his writing sometimes."

Okay - here we have it -did he or didn't he- -is he or isn't he- -are you are or aren't you-

Let's stick to a discussion of the issues discussed on Forester's site - name calling and second-guessing are going to lead to a world of pain.

Everyone cool off - breath deeply - it's only a forum - it's only ascii.

your avatar is scaring me.

your avatar is scaring me.

I've got worse.

...he talks in circles.
Talking in circles makes fertile ground for passionate exegesis.

:eek: