Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Do you want John Forester Advocating for you?

First, I am hesitant to post this thread, but I am interested in the general opinion
Second, this is not a personal attack on Mr Forester
Third, Feel free to substitute Mr Foresters name for anyone who has the SAME ideals and advocacy position
Fourth, this is not a discussion on VC though reasons are welcome

My view
After reading the "Forester responds" thread and perusing the associated website, I am of the view that while I agree with a lot of the ideas expressed, I would rather Mr Forester not advocate for cyclists in general as the areas that I differ are pretty much deal breakers.

I do not want John Forester or anyone like him advocating for me or the interests of cycling in my community.

While I don't agree with everything JF says, I don't have issues with his advocacy. Cycling needs all the advocates we can get and if he manages top keep us visible, then so be it! He's not the Antichrist after all! He just follows HIS passion. The hoohaw about the American Dream coalition, for example....would you rather they never heard anything about cycling and cyclists rights and needs? Advocacy is all about attacking the problem from multiple angles and through any contact or source you can utilize after all....... (and no, I am not a VC Acolyte, I just use a common sense approach to riding and ride defensively).

Sorry for delay in getting the poll going :) my first

- who is John Forester?

- who is John Forester?

You're kidding right?

You didn't provide my answer - Don't really care either way.

When I heard that John was a memeber and speaker for the Amercian Dream Coalition, that was the deal breaker once and for all. That militant pro-motorcar organization is actually against the type of infrastructure that promotes cycling in the first place. Anyone who is a member of an organization that is against public transit and dreams that every man and woman in this nation should be able to purchase a single family home is living in fantasy land.

Buried in that lengthy topic, Forester takes on BF, he did write about some advocacy work he had done a long time ago. I was impressed by his description of how doggedly he fought for a bikeway in the Los Angeles river. But he lost the fight and went cynical on the whole idea of good cycling facilities. Sounds like he had been a top activist in his day. It's too bad because now those who he lost his fight with are wanting to build what he wanted back then.

You're kidding right?

Nope. It is a valid question. Remember most cyclists have no knowledge of VC or the book Effective Cycling. There is no outreach program to cyclists to teach any form of cycling. No bike shop* that I am aware of teaches any form of cycling (well a few may offer "racing" classes.) And certainly there is little cycle training in the public school system. (there are some places that do offer some bicycle training... I believe Hawaii has a program)

Just as motorists are generally not aware of cyclists rights to the road**, neither too are cyclists aware of their rights... and fewer still know to exercise them.

Is it any wonder why there is such "confusion" on the road?


* BTW I tested this by going to several local bike shops and asking if they knew of any classes available to teach safe cycling. Every one said no. Locally there is a series of LAB classes available.


** I test this regularly by asking motorists if they are aware that cyclists have rights to the road. The answers would astound you.

You didn't provide my answer - Don't really care either way.

Do I dare ask, what is your answer?

You didn't provide my answer - Don't really care either way.

Damn, and I tried to cover all bases. Sorry chip, you will just have to join the silent majority.

My response would be closest to Tom Stormcrowe's and GeneC's (above). Forester's heart was (is?) in the right place, and he has done alot for bicyclists, particularly in California. (For example, Forester is one of the main reasons we don't have a mandatory sidepath law.) I realize many consider "Effective Cycling" to be the most authoritative text on the subject of bicycling in traffic, but John Franklin's "CycleCraft" is more concise and readable and at least as informative. Forester can be abrasive and tactless at times; I can easily forgive and forget the diatribes, but I think he could be more (dare I say?) "effective" politically if he took a Dale Carnegie course or focused more on a win-win style of negotiation.

Where Forester, who is my father's age, and I differ most is on our respective views of the practicality of cycling for transportation. At heart, I am still that naive UCLA physics undergrad and member of Earth Action Council who biked to work, to school, and even to the grocery store. I also reject Forester's total distain for the unwashed masses and his belief that we vehicular bicyclists are worse off when John Q. Public takes up cycling. My answer is education, training, and some legal enforcement against cyclists whose practices endanger the rest of us, such as the guys who ride at night without lights, generally wearing dark-colored clothing, or who violate our right-of-way.

Do I dare ask, what is your answer?

You just quoted it.

Damn, and I tried to cover all bases. Sorry chip, you will just have to join the silent majority.

It's OK...I won't sue. :D

After reading the "Forester responds" thread and perusing the associated website, I am of the view that while I agree with a lot of the ideas expressed, I would rather Mr Forester not advocate for cyclists in general as the areas that I differ are pretty much deal breakers.
I support your need to be represented by bicycling advocates who more closely represent your views and desires. Not all cyclists are alike--to each, his own.

Yet you might have asked the question, "Does Mr. Forester represent valid interests of cyclists who believe their views and desires are not being adequately represented by many bicycling advocates today?"

He does, and so do many other cycling advocates whose views are not in complete agreement with Mr. Forester's. There are valid concerns amongst some cyclists who don't believe that the best approach for all cyclists is to build us special facilities to ride on. We differ on our acceptance of these facilities in some ways, but we all tend to agree that our place on the road is of primary importance.

Having said that, I prefer that these two "camps" strike compromises, rather than fight each other incessantly.

Heck, ride a bike together once in a while (ooops! where are we going to ride? :D)

I support your need to be represented by bicycling advocates who more closely represent your views and desires. Not all cyclists are alike--to each, his own.

Yet you might have asked the question, "Does Mr. Forester represent valid interests of cyclists who believe their views and desires are not being adequately represented by many bicycling advocates today?"

He does, and so do many other cycling advocates whose views are not in complete agreement with Mr. Forester's. There are valid concerns amongst some cyclists who don't believe that the best approach for all cyclists is to build us special facilities to ride on. We differ on our acceptance of these facilities in some ways, but we all tend to agree that our place on the road is of primary importance.

Actually this is the exact reason I made this poll. I tried to make the choice simple but to give each represented party a category to respond (obviously I missed chip :) ). Then I provided my own view.
Maybe I failed, but I still think that the title of the post is the most valid point ...

Do you want John Forester advocating for you?

(maybe I should of appended ... in 2007 .... to it, but I only thought of that just now).

Actually this is the exact reason I made this poll. I tried to make the choice simple but to give each represented party a category to respond (obviously I missed chip :) ). Then I provided my own view.
Maybe I failed, but I still think that the title of the post is the most valid point ...

Do you want John Forester advocating for you?

(maybe I should of appended ... in 2007 .... to it, but I only thought of that just now).
I think Mr. Forester has his contributions to make, just as do others, even those who disagree with him. We all have something to say.

I wonder who voted for the Yes, I fully agree et al. Could it be someone who voted & did not comment? HH maybe?

I voted no with qualifications. I'm glad he has contributed to maintaining the rights of cyclists to ride on the road and not be forced onto mandatory sidepaths (assuming it happened as he tells it), and I learned a lot when I read EC in the early days of my commuting. However, I find his style of advocacy to be extremely divisive. He demeans and belittles those who disagree with him, accuses them of being emotional and/or phobic, insists that those who want separate bike facilities (in addition to continuing access to the road system) are being played by the motoring establishment when there's no evidence that is the case, and seems to be completely inflexible in any discussion of the nuances of street riding.

Damn, and I tried to cover all bases. Sorry chip, you will just have to join the silent majority.
It's a lot harder than it seems to cover all the bases. I normally get accused of intentionally biasing polls when I inadvertently do not cover all the bases.

I wonder who voted for the Yes, I fully agree et al. Could it be someone who voted & did not comment? HH maybe? Wasn't me. I voted yes but have differences...

For this type of poll I don't see the point of making it anonymous.

I'm glad he has contributed to maintaining the rights of cyclists to ride on the road and not be forced onto mandatory sidepaths (assuming it happened as he tells it), and I learned a lot when I read EC in the early days of my commuting. However, I find his style of advocacy to be extremely divisive. He demeans and belittles those who disagree with him, accuses them of being emotional and/or phobic, insists that those who want separate bike facilities (in addition to continuing access to the road system) are being played by the motoring establishment when there's no evidence that is the case, and seems to be completely inflexible in any discussion of the nuances of street riding.
:beer:

I'm with Dahon.Steve and cooker on this one. I learned a lot about Vehicular Cycling principles and how to effectively deal with car traffic when riding a bicycle in the roadways. However, his alliance with the American Dream Coalition and Diane's experiences have led me to believe that John Forester isn't a true bicycling advocate for cycling in the roadways at all.

So, I picked the, "negatives outweigh the positives" option. Sorry, Mr. Forester.

I'm with Dahon.Steve and cooker on this one. I learned a lot about Vehicular Cycling principles and how to effectively deal with car traffic when riding a bicycle in the roadways. However, his alliance with the American Dream Coalition....

I view John Forester's speaking to pro-motoring groups that have tried to kick cyclists off the roads as being equivalent to Nixon going to China. Nobody is tougher on pro-motoring organizations than John Forester when it comes to protecting and promoting cyclists' road rights.

I'm with Dahon.Steve and cooker on this one. I learned a lot about Vehicular Cycling principles and how to effectively deal with car traffic when riding a bicycle in the roadways. However, his alliance with the American Dream Coalition and Diane's experiences have led me to believe that John Forester isn't a true bicycling advocate for cycling in the roadways at all.

So, I picked the, "negatives outweigh the positives" option. Sorry, Mr. Forester.
I also picked the "negatives outweigh the positives" option. And it has nothing to with his association with the ADC or any other irrelevant non bicycling personal issue. Its all about his methods of analysis of cycling risk and cycling behavior and unique "scientific methods" for reaching predetermined conclusions. And his recommendations for reducing cycling risk (i.e. "Buy my Book/Take My class" and all will be well) are often counterproductive to the advocacy of either safer cycling or increased cycling by the general public.

Buried in that lengthy topic, Forester takes on BF, he did write about some advocacy work he had done a long time ago. I was impressed by his description of how doggedly he fought for a bikeway in the Los Angeles river. But he lost the fight and went cynical on the whole idea of good cycling facilities. Sounds like he had been a top activist in his day. It's too bad because now those who he lost his fight with are wanting to build what he wanted back then.
Diane,

Reread those post:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=4058764#post4058764

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=4060670#post4060670

The Prokop vs City of Los Angeles appeal began about 2005 and is ongoing today. JF did not loose the original case, he provided testimony in support of Prokop. A bad legal decision by a judge lost the original case.
JF has put a lot of his own money into the appeal effort, worked very hard with the new lawyers to get the appeal going and worked hard to bring LAB and CABO into the fight.

This legal case has profound implications on the quality of the bike path you currently ride and future paths that may be built in all of CA, including Santa Barbara. With this case, JF is working hard for quality bike paths and cyclist rights.

What are you, Diane, currently doing to help win the ongoing Prokop vs City of Los Angeles appeal that affects you and all CA bike path users? Your time might be better spent helping the effort rather than looking for more JF complaints.

A bad legal decision by a judge lost the original case.

IAW whom? The plaintiff and John Forester, no doubt. Obviously the judge deciding the case and defendants may have a different opinion.



JF has put a lot of his own money into the appeal effort, worked very hard with the new lawyers to get the appeal going and worked hard to bring LAB and CABO into the fight.
That's true. Forester convinced the plaintiff to appeal and hire new lawyers more receptive to arguing Forester's legal strategies. Forester has been active in trying to help the plaintiff, Prokop pay the legal bills Prokop has incurred for following Forester's amateur "legal" advice to appeal.

I wish I could vote "yes" and "no".

I was torn between the second option and the third but finally settled on the second. Yes, I want John Forester advocating for me (I just wish he would :D). I agree almost completely with what cooker said (in post #20). I am thankful for John Forester's advocacy (I suspect that his account of the history is somewhat biased but I don't doubt that he made significant contributions).

Considering JF's entire career, I'd say the positives outweigh the negatives, and that's what I'm basing my vote on. On the other hand, considering recent history, I'd say the negatives are winning. John Forester's politics is extremely counterproductive at times.

John Forester is not the first public figure in history to fall victim to fatal character flaws-- I can think of at least one who I respected immensely (far more than I respect JF) whose downfall was their stubborness and their pride.

John Forester has a lot of negatives, as well as some positves that are difficult to ignore. I strongly disagree with him on some issues. Some of his "science" is, quite honestly, a joke (I doubt that JF would know science if it bit him on the rear end). Some of his theories can best be described as bizarre. But, heck, I'm sure John Forester is as convinced he's right as I am he's wrong.

At this point, though, I'm not that concerned about what John Forester does. He's a big boy. He can do what he wants.

Whatever JF does, I don't have to agree with it.

It took me a while to figure out an answer to this.

Do I want John Forester advocating for me? In the present day, no. In the past, perhaps, but likely not.

I don't think he comes to logical conclusions and thus his "advocacy" would be a detriment towards me.

This legal case has profound implications on the quality of the bike path you currently ride and future paths that may be built in all of CA, including Santa Barbara. With this case, JF is working hard for quality bike paths and cyclist rights.

What are you, Diane, currently doing to help win the ongoing Prokop vs City of Los Angeles appeal that affects you and all CA bike path users? Your time might be better spent helping the effort rather than looking for more JF complaints.I respectfully disagree. Having read the arguments, I have to say that the case in question is pretty sketchy. I don't know the outcome but I'm a little suprised that anyone thinks this is an appropriate test of cyclists' rights. Even if Prokop wins, I'm not sure what it proves. It's certainly not the kind of test case I'd have chosen. Now I kind of wish I could change my vote from "yes" to "no".

CB HI, your sanctimonious attitude is not becoming.

According to this little poll, we have an overwhelming (80%) mandate that Forester is a mixed blessing for the cycling community, and there is consensus in several specific areas. I think we can emphasize and work from the common ground, which argues that we DO have a right to use the road, but that special facilities, INCLUDING BIKE-RESPONSIVE TRAFFIC SIGNALS, have their place.

According to this little poll, we have an overwhelming (80%) mandate that Forester is a mixed blessing for the cycling community, and there is consensus in several specific areas. I think we can emphasize and work from the common ground, which argues that we DO have a right to use the road, but that special facilities, INCLUDING BIKE-RESPONSIVE TRAFFIC SIGNALS, have their place.

I don't really want to draw conclusions on this poll itself (it was more to make people think), as the opposite view that the A&S community is polarized around the middle ground is also a relevant conclusion.

However, I think the responses have been great and I would like to hear more! Keep them coming please, as I think that some of the one post responses so far have been more revealing than wading through 10 pages of some random VC debate.

Even if Prokop wins, I'm not sure what it proves.
It will "prove" that Forester is a legal genius and missed his calling; if Prokop loses, Forester is still a legal genius; unfortunately the judge, jury and lawyers were all jerks. At least that is the bottom line that can be expected from the Forester & Associates School of Law; as far as cyclists' rights and benefits: probably nothing significant no matter how the case is decided.

I don't know anything about a legal struggle in LA. I don't live in LA. Let LA fight its own battles. Santa Barbara prides itself on NOT being LA, and as any kind of activist person, I prefer to focus my energy at a local level.

According to this little poll, we have an overwhelming (80%) mandate that Forester is a mixed blessing for the cycling community, and there is consensus in several specific areas. I think we can emphasize and work from the common ground, which argues that we DO have a right to use the road, but that special facilities, INCLUDING BIKE-RESPONSIVE TRAFFIC SIGNALS, have their place.

well said!

pretty much all of us want to retain the right to the road. some of us want different kinds of "facilities' as well. some of don't. there is still common ground.

CB HI, your sanctimonious attitude is not becoming.
It apparently comes with the territory, as all the Fosterites seem to adopt John's sanctimonious attitude.

I don't know anything about a legal struggle in LA. I don't live in LA. Let LA fight its own battles. Santa Barbara prides itself on NOT being LA, and as any kind of activist person, I prefer to focus my energy at a local level.
Actually, it is a legal struggle in California courts affecting all of California. You do live in the state of California, don't you.

I want to have John Forester's baby. Why isn't that option in the poll?

Chip, you need to go to the Forester beauty contest thread to have his baby. Although, it may be difficult seeing as how you're both bearded ladies.

Chip, for you and John I will be happy to be a sperm donor.

Chip, for you and John I will be happy to be a sperm donor.

Ha, as if your boys can swim :p

Ha, as if your boys can swim :p

:D any excuse to get into my porn drawer!

who needs a porn drawer when we have kindgirls????

I don't think anyone should have the right to vote in this poll until they have closely studied John Forester's 600 page book "Effective Cycling". Actually, just studying the 200-some pages that deal specifically with safer cycling would be enough.

The one thing Mr. Forester's critics have in common: Not one of his critics seems to have closely studied and thought about what he writes in his book. If they had studied his book, they would realize that he has literally hundreds of proposals about how to get more Americans on bikes, how to get more Americans to ride everyday as a routine part of their lifestyle, and scores of good ideas on how to do so safely.

Instead, his critics pick out details of anything he says and nick-pick it to death. If Mr. Forester said something positive about 25mm tires, his critics would seek to prove 25mm tires cause cancer.

He devotes much of his books to in-depth discussion of basic "ride in traffic" skills that not even 1% of American cyclists have truly mastered. If every single person in America who rides a bike surrounded by heavy urban motor traffic would study Mr. Forester's book, and then master the skills he discusses, dozens of lives could be saved every year.

But, why bother reading his book? Bike Forums is a wonderful place to "pool ignorance", and Mr. Forester's critics have demonstrated that they have an endless amount of ignorance to pour into the pool.

The one thing Mr. Forester's critics have in common: Not one of his critics seems to have closely studied and thought about what he writes in his book...



I've read EC (all of it...a very long slog) and I've read his posts here and in previous list-serves and maybe Usenet groups dating back at least to 1993 when I got serious about bike commuting. As I said, I learned a lot from it.

Wrong again, Alan. Your batting average with assumptions is pretty sad lately, you need to quit swinging at those high, inside fastballs. :p

... But, why bother reading his book? ... I do advocate reading Forester, although he is guilty of cramming 150 pages of useful content into 600 pages, which is why I prefer Franklin's book and/or John S. Allen's "Street Smarts." Also, "Effective Cycling" is hopelessly out of date regarding everything from lighting to tires to pedals.

I actually base most of my opinions of Forester on personal email correspondence with him, as a fellow member of SDCBC. He has many good ideas, but his patronizing, dismissive attitude toward others gets tiresome.

The other major difference between me and some hard-core VCers is that I probably spend as much time (not distance) walking or jogging on public rights-of-way as I do bicycling. Some of the free-merging and free-diverging intersections which are "challenging" to cyclists are even worse for pedestrians, who are not in a position (so to speak) to take the lane or to exercise various other VC maneuvers.

I don't think anyone should have the right to vote in this poll until they have closely studied John Forester's 600 page book "Effective Cycling". Actually, just studying the 200-some pages that deal specifically with safer cycling would be enough.
What percentage of US citizens does this much research before voting (consequentially) candidates into public office? Even worse, how many vote for whoever the neighbors/church/tv tell them to vote for?
I don't think this inconsequential little poll is going to hurt anyone.

So, back to the poll... What do you mean by advocacy? Something like this? (http://bikeportland.org/2007/03/20/final-thoughts-and-themes-from-national-bike-summit/)

I don't think anyone should have the right to vote in this poll until they have closely studied John Forester's 600 page book "Effective Cycling". Actually, just studying the 200-some pages that deal specifically with safer cycling would be enough.

The one thing Mr. Forester's critics have in common: Not one of his critics seems to have closely studied and thought about what he writes in his book. If they had studied his book, they would realize that he has literally hundreds of proposals about how to get more Americans on bikes, how to get more Americans to ride everyday as a routine part of their lifestyle, and scores of good ideas on how to do so safely.

Instead, his critics pick out details of anything he says and nick-pick it to death. If Mr. Forester said something positive about 25mm tires, his critics would seek to prove 25mm tires cause cancer.

He devotes much of his books to in-depth discussion of basic "ride in traffic" skills that not even 1% of American cyclists have truly mastered. If every single person in America who rides a bike surrounded by heavy urban motor traffic would study Mr. Forester's book, and then master the skills he discusses, dozens of lives could be saved every year.

But, why bother reading his book? Bike Forums is a wonderful place to "pool ignorance", and Mr. Forester's critics have demonstrated that they have an endless amount of ignorance to pour into the pool.


ABH - you seem to hold that anything said here on "these bike forums" is worthless... and you tend to dismiss quite a bit of the criticism, thought, and writing that goes on here. i tired of your staple reply when the floyd landis stuff broke, and i tire of your staple reply with the JF stuff.

there are lots of intelligent folks* that read, write, cycle, and post to BF. give them some credit, and why not assume that if someone doesn't agree with you that they might have well thought out reasons for their view?

*and plenty who don't and are just looking for pie, or photos of chipcom