Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Someone convince me not to put John Forester on ignore

Fawning and obsequious are very accurate words for people who allow you to describe them in a condescending tone for their lack of antipathy for John Forester.

Sometimes you remind me of a schoolyard bully, who resorts to intimidation to get his way.

Sometimes to fight a bully, you need a bully on your side. Right? ;)

every brick and mortar store I've looked in- even Powells' in Portland, arguably one of the best bookstores in america- doesn't have old mossy.

I think he's out of print for a reason- unreadable! what editor would let that stuff fly nowadays? he was pubbed by a university house, traditionally prone to printing unreadable, opiniated rantings of self described 'experts'.

Nah, it's still available on Amazon... I just checked.

Although Hurst's book was right out on the shelves there in Powells. (great place BTW... got one of their red and black T shirts and a few other books the last time we were there)

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

The definition of the VC subforum on BF is arguing about the same things over and over expecting different results.

randya, nobody give a flying fluck what you do.
that is unnecessary, Galen

The definition of the VC subforum on BF is arguing about the same things over and over expecting different results.
This is no different than any other sub-BF, or any other internet forum for that matter.
That said I have seen opinions and ideas of some forum member change over time.
I know mine has.
I may need to buy this JF book after all, so I can participate with knowledge in debate about this character and his ideas. Its folks like Bek, randya and sbhikes making me think I ought to read it, not its proponents. They are the ones making the sale. ;)

Al

Amazon has EF for $27.74. and also a glowing review by our own helmut head.

"I found this book to be nothing short of a godsend. With over 30 years of cycling experience, I felt comfortable and competent cycling in traffic, at least in most circumstances. But this book was recommended so many times, I decided to read it anyway. At first, it didn't seem like a big deal. It all made sense, and seemed to describe how I already rode, perhaps with a few subtle differences.

But as I began to incorporate these subtle changes in my own riding the results were amazing. My relationship with car drivers completely changed. Instead of interacting with them once in a while -- only when necessary -- I became an integrated participant with the rest of traffic.

It is impossible to explain in words how just subtle lane positioning changes, and a new attitude, can make such a radical difference in one's cycling experience in traffic. But consider what Forester conveys in this simple statement: "Between intersections, position yourself according to speed; at intersections, position yourself according to destination". You may think you do this already, but based on the fact that I almost never see any cyclists do this consistently, I can almost assure you that you don't. And I'm not talking about kids and "recreational cyclists". I'm talking about experienced commuters, and experienced club riders and racers. Only a very small percentages of cyclists actually behave like a (slow) vehicle driver consistently. Much of the time on the road is spent in space "left over" by motorists, riding too far to the right, not positioning at intersections according to destination (THINK about what that means), etc. etc.

"Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles" - John Forester

This book is for you if any of the following is true:

* You want to learn to LOVE to ride your bike in traffic, not just tolerate it.
* You're tired of motorists passing you and then cutting you off when they turn in front of you, or motorists coming from the other direction cutting you off when they turn in front of you (believe it or not, if you read this book you will learn how to stop them from ever doing this to you again!).
* You are comfortable riding in bike lanes passing stopped or slow car traffic on their right.
* You think that you should assume that you're invisible to motorists, and ride accordingly.
* You don't think you should position yourself away from the edge of the road, often in the path of motorists coming from behind, in order to be more visible and predictable.
* You don't feel safe riding in traffic.
* Your greatest fear is that you will be hit from the rear.
* You don't know that almost all bike-car collisions are caused by, or could have been prevented, by the cyclist.
* You feel safer riding on shoulders and in bike lanes than "out" in the regular traffic lanes.
* You're rusty on what the laws are regarding cycling.
* You believe the best thing that can be done for cycling is building more bike lanes and bike paths.
* You've never taken any courses on cycling in traffic (like LAB's Road 1 course - see bikeleague.org).
* You don't believe cyclists have the same rights on the road as do motor vehicle drivers.
* You ride on the side of the road opposing traffic (like a pedestrian should walk).
* You ride on sidewalks.
* You value your life and want to ride your bike accordingly.

This is not the perfect book. Forester does tend to ramble, and some of the advice I don't agree with (like you don't really need a rear light at night, just a rear red reflector and a good front light). Also, some of the material, like on equipment and racing, is dated. But the chapters on riding in traffic are timeless and priceless, and so TRANSFORMATIONAL that they alone make this a 5-star book.

This is no different than any other sub-BF, or any other internet forum for that matter.
l

Quite possibly, but over in the LD forum where I usually hang out we tend to be a little more helpful to each other. (with exception of a few crusty, grumpy types)

Quite possibly, but over in the LD forum where I usually hang out we tend to be a little more helpful to each other. (with exception of a few crusty, grumpy types)
Right, but I'm sure, even with very casual reading, you know the hot buttons to press in most of the other more heavily visited forums.
Al

Right, but I'm sure, even with very casual reading, you know the hot buttons to press in most of the other more heavily visited forums.
Al

carbon, steel, campy, shimano, LSD training, intervals, Floyd Landis, aero wheels, weight weenie, Euro, bikes direct, fixie, hipster, retrogrouch, poseur, cafe racer, bar end shifter, brifter, STI, compact crank... yawn. this is hard work.

[edit: i forgot titanium, anatomic bars, seated vs standing climbing, ...]

;)

You can try fawning and obsequiousness to see if you can get a responsive answer to any criticism of his methods or conclusions and see if it works better.

Should I be boorish and cantankerous to get better results?

Anyway, this is silly. I hope that you have better things to do and can move on. I find this unproductive and distasteful. If somehow I insulted you along the way, then I apologize. If what I write is offensive, then please place me on ignore.

-G

It is easy to observe and to measure the traffic behavior of cyclists on the roadways. Beginning in the late 1970s, I have observed and measured the behavior of some hundreds of cyclists. My criterion for rating is shown on the Forester Cycling Proficiency Score Sheet, shown on my website and in the Effective Cyclist Instructor's Manual. The traffic criteria are all concerned with obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Those cyclists range from randomly selected general population cyclists in various "bike friendly" cities to club cyclists in much the same cities. The average performance for the cycling populations of those cities was uniformly flunking.
There is zero correlation between any rating on the Forester Cycling Proficiency Score Sheet with any other cycling metric, be it safety, efficiency, fun, or anything else. Forester does not gather or provide an iota of evidence or data about these "rated" individuals' safety record or anything else related to their cycling. The cyclists' experiences, safety record, or daily cycling environment/experiences, (i.e. where, when, or how often any of these randomly selected cyclists cycle) was never measured yet Forester makes all sorts of conjured Reasonable Assumptions about his sample population.

All that the above observations and measurements amount to are just Forester's arbitrary rating scheme, period. A rating scheme which when included with a quarter is worth exactly 25 cents, given its correlation with nothing. Except maybe Forester's definition of cycling skill which is also correlated with nothing except Forester Brand Reasonable Assumptions.

Amazon has EF for $27.74. and also a glowing review by our own helmut head.:lol:

What a tool... :lol:

Sometimes to fight a bully, you need a bully on your side. Right? ;)
Some like to go along to get along; others agree with everything the bully says as a means of ingratiating themselves and think that such behavior will mellow out bully boy.

Others do not allow themselves to be backed down with bogus claims of science/engineering hocus pocus that consists mostly of ranting, insults and over-the-top sophistry.

Nah, it's still available on Amazon...
What isn't?

I might just put this whole forum on ignore. Let the John Forester VCers have a big group hug here where they can be sequestered from normal society. Have you noticed that there have actually been some interesting topics in the A&S main forum lately?
That would work if we could keep them in here, but they have this need to push their agenda in the main forum rather than stay here.

How many times must I repeat myself. What I write is in accordance with traffic-engineering knowledge, with the accident statistics, with the laws. What you people believe is contrary to all of these, and you believe it with such extreme passion. You are where the cult is, not on the vehicular-cycling side.I'm sorry, Are we being "glib"?

"You people" is that some sort of discriminatory statement?
Besides, I recognized L. Ron Hubbard for the idiot he has been in 1949, or whenever he made his first publication in Amazing. I didn't predict, though, that he would become a world-wide cult leader; he was just too absurd. But then, as I have been pointing out to you all, absurdity doesn't prevent a cult from forming, it just makes it a cult rather than an engineering discipline.
Just as I recognized John Forester for the idiot he is back in 1999, or whenever it was when I first saw more than his basic tenants on the web. I didn't predict, though, that he would become a world-wide cult leader; he was just too absurd. But then, absurdity doesn't prevent a cult from forming, it just makes it a cult rather than a "engineering discipline" as so claimed.

Folks, It is my understanding that Hubbard distanced himself from the Scientologists a number of years ago.Really? When was this? Do you have any documentation?

It seems that Hubbard, as a good science fiction writer, had enough science in him to overcome some of the odder beliefs.Ok now you've officially lost all credibility. Hubbard "a good science fiction writer"? :roflmao::roflmao: Hubbard wouldn't know "good" if it resurrected his ass and showed him.

Tarring Hubbard with the Scientology brush then attacking Forester by comparing him with Hubbard may be logically inconsistent. I don't believe it is, especially since you've yet to show me the "distancing" you claim. Now I will admit that Hubbard didn't follow his own beliefs (majorly into the psych drugs) and that may be what you're after, but I don't recall any disavowment of his cult

Helmet Head and Mr. Forester may be hard heads and challenge some of your belief systems but it does not make them lunies.My belief system isn't challenged. In fact I actually agree with the basics of EC however, I'm not going to sit here and and create 15 page threads on "and = or" and not listen to a damn thing that's said that conflicts with my preconceived notions. Or to blindly follow the tenants of VC without acknowledging that most drivers won't understand that a "look back" signals intent to turn. Do to that would be akin to me believing a bad science fiction writer who claims that "The Dark Lord Xenu" brought billions of people to Earth 75 million years ago, in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. It would have made for a dicey novel at best but to sell Scientology as a religion or VC as the best method of cycling in anything less than a perfect world is sheer insane genius.

Helmet Head and John Forester - welcome to my ignore list. I-Like-To-Bike welcome back from the ignore list

:lol:

What a tool... :lol:

an embarrassingly fawning tool, too.

that is unnecessary, Galen

But the truth must be told....

an embarrassingly fawning tool, too.
Should be, but I doubt it. Do you think the fawning tool is embarrased or proud? Time for a poll?

Poll...Poll...Poll...Poll!!!

But the truth must be told....
LBM prefers his truth covered in sugar.

[color=blue]Just as I recognized John Forester for the idiot he is back in 1999, or whenever it was when I first saw more than his basic tenants on the web. I didn't predict, though, that he would become a world-wide cult leader; he was just too absurd. But then, absurdity doesn't prevent a cult from forming, it just makes it a cult rather than a "engineering discipline" as so claimed.
Really? When was this? Do you have any documentation?

Or to blindly follow the tenants of VC without acknowledging that most drivers won't understand that a "look back" signals intent to turn. .



You support your claim that I lead a cult with no evidence except that you think my recipe for cycling is "just too absurd". Consider your one specific statement, "that most drivers won't understand that a "look back" signals intent to turn." Well, of course it doesn't. Nobody I know has ever made that claim.

The claim that is made regarding looking back is that it signals the desire to move laterally, into another line of traffic. The accuracy of that statement is easily determined, and has been determined over a span of years. Turning the head to look back convinces a very large proportion of motorists who are in a position to slow down, to slow down and let you in. The proportion of drivers who do so is so high that it is reasonable to conclude that most drivers understand the signal, even if some of them either cannot or will not accede to your request.

Many years ago there was a study made of this, in New York state, as I remember, in which motorists were shown pictures of cyclists with left arm extended and other pictures of cyclists with head turned to look back. A high proportion of these motorists were more confident about the intent of the cyclists with head turned than were confident about the intent of the cyclists with arm extended.

I had an experience this AM of making a merge from BL to outer lane (eventually crossing another to get to LTOL)
I saw in mirror a long line of vehicles. No gaps, but a early in line small one I needed to negotate into. I glanced back quickly, I signaled with arm, no response, again several seconds no response. The only way to get driver to yield was to stop signalling and solidly look back at them.

Al

John Forester
This message is hidden because John Forester is on your ignore list.
:D

LBM prefers his truth covered in sugar.
I don't give a rat's ass if people believe what you just said.

I don't give a rat's ass if people believe what you just said.
That's not nicey-nice. But not to worry I have no ignore list; only certain posters who have earned credibility and you are on the right list for your intelligent comments, despite your moderator wannabe efforts.

I got nothing. To me John Forester = L. Ron Hubbard , Helmet Head = Tom Cruise
I choose not to be a member of either wacked out cult.


Sorry. I posted this elsewhere but thought it would work here: Not Hubbard, but sci-fi nonetheless.



Feel the Dark Side. Succumb to my statistics.
Yes, yes. The Forester is strong in you, young Padawan.

The only way to save your friends is to join me. If they keep riding as they do they will be dead before the day is through. You are superior to them. Do not succumb to your emotions. Do not succumb to the inferiority of the cyclist.





EMPEROR
Your cause is lost. And your friends in the
bike lane will not survive. There is no
escape, my young apprentice. The AC Alliance
will die...as will your friends. The automobile will triumph. Cyclists will ride vehicularly.

[snip]

EMPEROR
If you will not be turned, you will be
destroyed.

Blinding bolts of words, evil, twisted, selective, outdated statistics, shoot from the
Emperor's mouth at Luke. Even in his surprise, the young cyclist
tries to use reason to deflect them. At first he is half
successful, but after a moment the words and statistics are coming
with such speed and power the young cyclist shrinks before them, his
knees buckling.

EMPEROR
Young fool...only now, at the end, do you
understand.

Luke is almost unconscious beneath the continuing assault of the
Emperor's verbage. He clutches his handlebar to keep from falling
into the arterial as the twisted verbage of the Emperor's semantical arguments tear through him.
Books begin falling upon him. Hundreds of copies of 'Effective Cycling', each tome
weighing on him, crushing him even more.

EMPEROR
Your feeble skills are no match for the power
of the vehicular cyclist. You have paid the price for
your lack of vision.

Luke writhes on the road in unbearable pain, reaching weakly up
toward where HH stands watching. A tractor trailer bears down upon him.


I didn't change it all that much...

That's not nicey-nice. But not to worry I have no ignore list; only certain posters who have earned credibility and you are on the right list for your intelligent comments, despite your moderator wannabe efforts.
I love it when you whip me.

Do it again...Oh, that feels good...

Oop, sorry. Family Channel.

I had an experience this AM of making a merge from BL to outer lane (eventually crossing another to get to LTOL)
I saw in mirror a long line of vehicles. No gaps, but a early in line small one I needed to negotate into. I glanced back quickly, I signaled with arm, no response, again several seconds no response. The only way to get driver to yield was to stop signalling and solidly look back at them.

Al
It ain't no different from the driver's seat of your car.

It ain't no different from the driver's seat of your car.
What do you mean? I am only halfway thru my AM coffee.
al

she means they don't let you in no matter what your vehicle is.

she means they don't let you in no matter what your vehicle is.

But the point is that someone did let him in, but it was not a standard hand signal that got their attention. He had to use a lookback in order to get the response he was looking for, you know, that "ambiguous" signal that we had a long thread about. I find a hand signal alone completely useless for merging. If I do not lookback along with issuing the hand signal, no one would ever let me over. I've tried. Lookbacks alone have worked more often for me than signals alone, not that that is saying much.

But the point is that someone did let him in, but it was not a standard hand signal that got their attention. He had to use a lookback in order to get the response he was looking for, you know, that "ambiguous" signal that we had a long thread about. I find a hand signal alone completely useless for merging. If I do not lookback along with issuing the hand signal, no one would ever let me over. I've tried. Lookbacks alone have worked more often for me than signals alone, not that that is saying much.
That was my point. The hand signal was ineffective, the look back achieved the desired result.

It happens all the time. As I am begining a left merge and there is a long string of traffic, I will stick out left arm and ride along checking mirror if anyone slows. Hardly anyone does. It is only when I start looking back that I can get a good response.

Al

I hardly ever look. It hurts my neck and I've got a good mirror and know how to use it, and hand signals.

I hardly ever look. It hurts my neck and I've got a good mirror and know how to use it, and hand signals.
I can confidently merge left based only what I see in mirror. But when driving any vehicle that is considered a bad habit - so I always try and give a look back, so far I've never seen anything that I hadn't already seen in mirror.

I do think my bicycle mirror covers a far wider range than my automotive one, resulting in minimal if no blind spot vs. in a car.

Al

My take on this:

I don't agree with all of JF's conclusions, but have read his book and seen the material he has referenced. I have to give him the following:

He has done a valid set of scientific observations based on valid scientific method
He uses valid forms of argument to advance his views, I disagree with some of his initial premises,thus I disagree with some of his conclusions based off of those premises


My basic disagreement is with "Cyclist Inferiority Phobia"; I have issues with use of psychological jargon used to present a personal opinion disguised as a "valid psychological principle", as there is no specific diagnosis of this disorder in the DSMIV. Using this tactic smacks of intellectual dishonesty(** although I do understand what you're driving at John.... ).

A suggestion to John:
Perhaps using the term overperception of risk, rather than trying to come up with a specific phobia might be a better tactic, just my thought. This would take the drama out of it and remove the perception advanced that people who were more risk aversive ref/ Traffic riding are individuals with a mental disorder. I'm not accusing you of intellectual dishonesty, by the way, so don't think that I am. Rather, I am pointing out a semantical and tactical error in advancing your viewpoint that does you a disservice, in my opinion. Bear in mind, my field of study is behavioral sciences and specifically, social learning theory/emotional intelligence theory and perception.

I don't give a rat's ass if people believe what you just said.
Sorry, ILTB, I guess I got a little hot, didn't I?

My take on this:

I don't agree with all of JF's conclusions, but have read his book and seen the material he has referenced. I have to give him the following:

He has done a valid set of scientific observations based on valid scientific method
He uses valid forms of argument to advance his views, I disagree with some of his initial premises,thus I disagree with some of his conclusions based off of those premises


My basic disagreement is with "Cyclist Inferiority Phobia"; I have issues with use of psychological jargon used to present a personal opinion disguised as a "valid psychological principle", as there is no specific diagnosis of this disorder in the DSMIV. Using this tactic smacks of intellectual dishonesty(** although I do understand what you're driving at John.... ).

A suggestion to John:
Perhaps using the term overperception of risk, rather than trying to come up with a specific phobia might be a better tactic, just my thought. This would take the drama out of it and remove the perception advanced that people who were more risk aversive ref/ Traffic riding are individuals with a mental disorder. I'm not accusing you of intellectual dishonesty, by the way, so don't think that I am. Rather, I am pointing out a semantical and tactical error in advancing your viewpoint that does you a disservice, in my opinion. Bear in mind, my field of study is behavioral sciences and specifically, social learning theory/emotional intelligence theory and perception.
I have to agree that "phobia" is not quite right for many reasons. But I think more and more that "cyclist inferiority" is spot on.

My take on this:

I don't agree with all of JF's conclusions, but have read his book and seen the material he has referenced. I have to give him the following:

He has done a valid set of scientific observations based on valid scientific method
He uses valid forms of argument to advance his views, I disagree with some of his initial premises,thus I disagree with some of his conclusions based off of those premises
...Bear in mind, my field of study is behavioral sciences and specifically, social learning theory/emotional intelligence theory and perception.
My field in the past has been risk analysis and risk management. And I have a very different view than you about the "validity" of John Forester's "scientific method" and "form of argument." In every respect his specific methods of data collection, measurements, comparisons, evaluations and arguments are shamefully bogus when they deal with the fundamental issue of evaluating cycling risk and/or evaluating the effect or results of risk countermeasures. Since almost all his conclusions and "arguments are based on just those invalid premises and/or Forester Brand Reasonable Assumptions I can only wonder what you think constitutes a "valid scientific method."

Sorry, ILTB, I guess I got a little hot, didn't I?
I don't even remember; did you say something hot? Got pictures?:)

My field in the past has been risk analysis and risk management. And I have a very different view than you about the "validity" of John Forester's "scientific method" and "form of argument." In every respect his specific methods of data collection, measurements, comparisons, evaluations and arguments are shamefully bogus when they deal with the fundamental issue of evaluating cycling risk and/or evaluating the effect or results of risk countermeasures. Since almost all his conclusions and "arguments are based on just those invalid premises and/or Forester Brand Reasonable Assumptions I can only wonder what you think constitutes a "valid scientific method."
Tell ya what, we'll just agree to disagree then, ILBT, as I don't have any desire to get into a comparison of volume, distance and duration of the stream.;)

Tell ya what, we'll just agree to disagree then, ILBT, as I don't have any desire to get into a comparison of volume, distance and duration of the stream.;)
I wouldn't think you would. Disagree it shall be.

In every respect his specific methods of data collection, measurements, comparisons, evaluations and arguments are shamefully bogus

I disagree with this assessment.

His methods are shamelessly bogus.

I disagree with this assessment.

His methods are shamelessly bogus.
I stand corrected.

I might just put this whole forum on ignore.

but... but... I LOVE YOU

My field in the past has been risk analysis and risk management. And I have a very different view than you about the "validity" of John Forester's "scientific method" and "form of argument." In every respect his specific methods of data collection, measurements, comparisons, evaluations and arguments are shamefully bogus when they deal with the fundamental issue of evaluating cycling risk and/or evaluating the effect or results of risk countermeasures. Since almost all his conclusions and "arguments are based on just those invalid premises and/or Forester Brand Reasonable Assumptions I can only wonder what you think constitutes a "valid scientific method."


Talk about bogus science! ILTB propounds far more bogus science than I do, because he has no evidence at all to support his agenda regarding bicycle transportation. ILTB fails to consider the problems of making decisions under uncertainty and of weighing the weight of the scientific evidence on each side. The issue is whether the vehicular-cycling view or the cyclist-inferiority view is more likely to be correct.

In a purely scientific context, a conclusion about this controversy might be held back until more evidence is collected. But even in the purely scientific context, concern about professional advancement suggests what lines of research would be most likely to produce professional advancement. In other words, if hypothesis A is considered most unlikely while hypothesis B is considered to be likely, then it would be better to direct one's research to disproving A (disproof is possible in science) or of supporting B (support, not proof, because proof is not possible in science) than research in the other directions.

However, we do not have the luxury of delay until all criticisms are settled. We have been acting according to the cyclist-inferiority view for decades, and all signs are that we will continue to do so unless corrected. Therefore, the evaluation of the controversy has to lie on two factors, the weight of the evidence now available, and the probability of obtaining new evidence on each side.

The bikeway system was invented, designed, and enacted by motorists for the convenience of motorists, with little regard for the safety of cyclists. We now have claims that this bikeway system produces several unintended effects that are desired by others than its designers. These are that bikeways reduce the car-bike collision rate, that bikeways reduce the level of skill that is required for safe cycling, that bikeways reduce motoring.

Consider the research that has been done. Before modern bikeways were invented, there was standard traffic engineering, a discipline of comparatively long standing. Bikeways contradict standard traffic engineering principles. At the start of the bikeway controversy, government paid for research into car-bike collisions, evidently in the belief that this information would support the cyclist-inferiority view. Government was appalled when those statistics (the initial Cross statistics) disproved the cyclist-inferiority view and supported the vehicular-cycling view; government then suppressed the report of that study. The second set of Cross statistics, the national sample, produced the same conclusion, but the report was published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which has responsibility for providing accurate information about traffic safety. Since then, government, most frequently in the form of the Federal Highway Administration, has conducted many studies (maybe 30?) and prototype programs attempting to provide support for the cyclist-inferiority bikeway hypothesis, at costs considerably exceeding ten million dollars. However, these studies have uniformly failed in this attempt.

The research on the vehicular-cycling hypothesis has used some information produced by government: largely standard traffic-engineering knowledge and car-bike collision statistics, and, of course, the governmental studies that failed to support the bikeway hypothesis. It has added information from research conducted by cyclists and cycling organizations, and analysis to a greater depth than before concerning traffic movements. Much of this has been amateur and the total cost has been small. This research has demonstrated both support for the vehicular-cycling hypothesis and distrust for the cyclist-inferiority bikeway hypothesis.

Therefore, considering the weight of the evidence on each side, there is much evidence for the vehicular-cycling hypothesis and none for the cyclist-inferiority bikeway hypothesis. The balance of the weights is overwhelmingly on the side of the vehicular-cycling hypothesis. Now, consider the probability that there exists information, not yet discovered, that will be sufficient to reverse the balance to favoring the cyclist-inferiority hypothesis. Considering both the efforts on each side and the evidence so discovered, the probability that there exists information so conclusive as to change the balance to favor the cyclist-inferiority hypothesis is effectively zero.

Therefore, we should operate according to the vehicular-cycling hypothesis, which means stopping our current actions that are based on the cyclist-inferiority bikeway hypothesis and implement a policy and program that aims to advance vehicular cycling.

To return to ILTB's comments. ILTB is just another of those who promote the cyclist-inferiority bikeway agenda without any evidence to support it and regardless of the evidence against it. But ILTB is smart enough to attempt to conceal the fact that there is no evidence supporting his agenda, concentrating his attacks on the fact that the evidence against it is not perfect.

I might just put this whole forum on ignore. but... but... I LOVE YOU

+1 :beer: The only reason why I look over this junk is to see how Diane responds.

BTW How does one put some one on the ignore list? All I see is an option to put them on a buddy list when I click on the name.

The issue is whether the vehicular-cycling view or the cyclist-inferiority view is more likely to be correct.

...
We have been acting according to the cyclist-inferiority view for decades, and all signs are that we will continue to do so unless corrected. Therefore, the evaluation of the controversy has to lie on two factors, the weight of the evidence now available, and the probability of obtaining new evidence on each side.

...

To return to ILTB's comments. ILTB is just another of those who promote the cyclist-inferiority bikeway agenda without any evidence to support it and regardless of the evidence against it. But ILTB is smart enough to attempt to conceal the fact that there is no evidence supporting his agenda, concentrating his attacks on the fact that the evidence against it is not perfect.
Bottom line:
"We" (AKA Forester and his acolytes) have determined that Forester's theories (relying on his version of evidence - conjuring, sophomoric risk analysis and statistical manipulations/fabrications) is more likely correct than the cyclist-inferiority bikeway agenda straw man argument fabricated by Forester and assigned by Forester to all who are skeptical of his various theories.

And "We" will continue to be obnoxious obstructionists until all the ignorant, incompetent members of the public come around to see things as "We" do.

BTW How does one put some one on the ignore list? All I see is an option to put them on a buddy list when I click on the name.

Go to your User Control Panel. Go to Buddy/Ignore Lists. Type in the member name. Click on "update".

ILTB is just another of those who promote the cyclist-inferiority bikeway agenda without any evidence to support it and regardless of the evidence against it. But ILTB is smart enough to attempt to conceal the fact that there is no evidence supporting his agenda, concentrating his attacks on the fact that the evidence against it is not perfect.

How can he promote an agenda which you fabricated out of nothingness? "Fabricated" may be a bit of a strong word, as your pseudoagenda doesn't even have a proverbial polyp of a developing leg to stand on.

Cyclist inferiority is fake, hot air, hubris, false, bull$hit, etc. You made it up. It's nonexistant.

I just received an email that says:

At the National Bike Summit last March, the closing presentation was by
Prof John Pucher from Rutgers. He is a transportation professor
specializing in bicyclist/pedestrian safety in Europe vs the US. In
slide after slide, he showed what Northern Europe has done to reduce
bike/ped fatalities by 70-80% through innovative infrastructure over the
past 3 decades. By comparison, the US has seen a 20% drop in the same
time period.


You can find his keynote from the summit in pdf form at this URL. Seems there are some real data out there for anyone who cares about reality anymore. Perhaps you would be interested in reading some of it firsthand:
http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher.html


P.S. I love where he says in his keynote, "Only when cycling attracts women is it really a success!" Got that right!