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

He's more biased and arrogant than Helmet Head, he doesn't listen to what he's told, he's immune to logic and reason, and sometimes it seems like a discussion with a bag of hammers would have a more reasonable outcome.

Any reason not to put him on ignore (just like the most of the rest of the bicycling community did a long time ago)?

Quoted from another thread..[JF] Vehicular cycling clearly is the appropriate technique for operating on roadways; the fact that it is so difficult to achieve in America demonstrates that the concerns about vehicular cycling have to cover the social difficulties that prevent it from being the standard method. I don't make it complicated; American society, which apparently includes you, too, makes the obvious almost impossible.

Anytime someone can indirectly compare VC to the civil rights movement, they obviously have something to say.

But... but... but....
I'm drawing a blank here, sorry.

Go read the current last page of the Stripes II thread. Read John C. Ratliff's "logic" then read JF's responses using the same "logic." If you can refute any of JF's logic in that thread, please do so as I'd love to read it.

Go read the current last page of the Stripes II thread. Read John C. Ratliff's "logic" then read JF's responses using the same "logic." If you can refute any of JF's logic in that thread, please do so as I'd love to read it.
Have you ever noticed that even a broken clock is right twice a day?

I know. He's like Helmet Head on steroids. sometimes he says things that are reasonable, and then turns around and says something completely nuts. and their writing style is so similar it drives me crazy.

I like to read his posts when I'm not feeling well. They make me feel better.

Reminds me that there are people more oblivious than I...

He's more biased and arrogant than Helmet Head, he doesn't listen to what he's told, he's immune to logic and reason, and sometimes it seems like a discussion with a bag of hammers would have a more reasonable outcome.

Any reason not to put him on ignore (just like the most of the rest of the bicycling community did a long time ago)?
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.

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.

you nailed it.

:roflmao:

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.
Dude, I've said that before myself.
VC, I mean VC is like Scientology. And they always end their arguments (not discussions) with "you just don't get it".
I can't wait for the movie to come out.

How much do I have to pay to be "clear?"

I've been considering putting him on ignore, too. Despite ridiculing others for being "emotional" he oozes emotion with every word. In fact, his phony logic is a compensatory tool he uses to try to mask his emotion. But it doesn't work.

He has nothing to say for cycling. He advocates for autocentric transportation planning and assumes you can just shoehorn everybody into it, despite all the empirical evidence to the contrary. Despite the studies showing that autocentric road design is hindering economic growth and is having a negative effect on our communities. Despite the fact that many communities want something different, build something different and are happy with the outcome. He's an anachronism.

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?

How much do I have to pay to be "clear?"

I've been considering putting him on ignore, too. Despite ridiculing others for being "emotional" he oozes emotion with every word. In fact, his phony logic is a compensatory tool he uses to try to mask his emotion. But it doesn't work.

He has nothing to say for cycling. He advocates for autocentric transportation planning and assumes you can just shoehorn everybody into it, despite all the empirical evidence to the contrary. Despite the studies showing that autocentric road design is hindering economic growth and is having a negative effect on our communities. Despite the fact that many communities want something different, build something different and are happy with the outcome. He's an anachronism.

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?

He has to be that way. He's here to sell books, remember?

Someone convince me not to put John Forester on ignore
Put him on ignore.

how can he sell books? mossy john hasn't had a book 'in print' for over 20 years.

his stuff is so pedantic, even the most mouldy bookstore wouldn't stock it. likely pulped years ago, sold by weight to the recycler.

Put him on ignore.
Did you?

He's more biased and arrogant than Helmet Head, he doesn't listen to what he's told, he's immune to logic and reason, and sometimes it seems like a discussion with a bag of hammers would have a more reasonable outcome.

Any reason not to put him on ignore (just like the most of the rest of the bicycling community did a long time ago)?

Because a bunch of posts will no longer make any sense.

Did you?
I don't put anyone on ignore. I just ignore them.

scroll down. works for me!

Have you ever noticed that even a broken clock is right twice a day?

This makes no sense, unless you are saying that John is only right some of time, even though he's always said the same thing when arguing about the same things.

...he's always said the same thing when arguing about the same things.
precisely!!!

i think it'll be best if the sane and reasonable riders ignore mossy john completely.

using his name or discussing his tactics by name or initials will up his google relativity, and the best thing is if his dystopian visions and skewed ideas get banished to the far reaches of the internet dustbin.

I'm personally going to misspell mossy jon's name and ideology from now on, and ignore his ranting acerbic pedantism as well.

Unfortunately, JF's web site comes up very easily in search. Not only that, but you can still buy his book at Amazon.

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'.

precisely!!!

Is there something wrong with being consistent? Also, please read my statement in the context that I wrote it :)

He's more biased and arrogant than Helmet Head, he doesn't listen to what he's told, he's immune to logic and reason, and sometimes it seems like a discussion with a bag of hammers would have a more reasonable outcome.

Any reason not to put him on ignore (just like the most of the rest of the bicycling community did a long time ago)?

Surely, the fact that I write on this list demonstrates that I pay attention to what is being written. Am I immune to logic and reason? Well, I am immune to logic and reason that is based on your inaccurate view of traffic cycling. That's because your ideology is so far from reality that you cannot think reasonably about the real world. The subject has come up repeatedly, and I repeat it again because it is so relevant to your situation. You praise a system in which a stream of cyclists is directed across a stream of motorists. Any traffic engineer knows that this is the wrong way to design the intersection. You have been unable, despite the continuous references, to provide any explanation, let alone an explanation that attempts to be based on reality and reason.

Yes, I am immune to your illogical arguments; present some arguments that are based on facts and reason and I will consider agreeing with them.

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.

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.

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.

Because a bunch of posts will no longer make any sense.
You are one of the few who finds sense in the posts of Forester and his acolytes. Either out of a misplaced mission to be seen as an even-handed mediator; or you really believe in the sophistry.

How much do I have to pay to be "clear?"

I've been considering putting him on ignore, too. Despite ridiculing others for being "emotional" he oozes emotion with every word. In fact, his phony logic is a compensatory tool he uses to try to mask his emotion. But it doesn't work.

He has nothing to say for cycling. He advocates for autocentric transportation planning and assumes you can just shoehorn everybody into it, despite all the empirical evidence to the contrary. Despite the studies showing that autocentric road design is hindering economic growth and is having a negative effect on our communities. Despite the fact that many communities want something different, build something different and are happy with the outcome. He's an anachronism.

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?


False. I do not advocate autocentric transportation planning. I never have, and I have opposed the motoring establishment when it has tried that.

Your environmentalism, Diane, may be useful, but it also makes you lie about whatever it is that you think might oppose it. This is the kind of emotionalism that I have been opposing with facts and reason, because it ends up being harmful to cyclists.

Folks, It is my understanding that Hubbard distanced himself from the Scientologists a number of years ago. And he has backed off from most if not all of the tenants of that Cult. It seems that Hubbard, as a good science fiction writer, had enough science in him to overcome some of the odder beliefs. Tarring Hubbard with the Scientology brush then attacking Forester by comparing him with Hubbard may be logically inconsistant. Helmet Head and Mr. Forester may be hard reads and challenge some of your belief systems but it does not make them lunies.

Go ahead and put JF on ignore. At least he will not put rattlesnakes in your mailbox. Oops, sorry, wrong cult.

Surely, the fact that I write on this list demonstrates that I pay attention to what is being written. Am I immune to logic and reason? Well, I am immune to logic and reason that is based on your inaccurate view of traffic cycling. That's because your ideology is so far from reality that you cannot think reasonably about the real world. The subject has come up repeatedly, and I repeat it again because it is so relevant to your situation. You praise a system in which a stream of cyclists is directed across a stream of motorists. Any traffic engineer knows that this is the wrong way to design the intersection. You have been unable, despite the continuous references, to provide any explanation, let alone an explanation that attempts to be based on reality and reason.

Yes, I am immune to your illogical arguments; present some arguments that are based on facts and reason and I will consider agreeing with them.
....the meter is moving closer to the 'ignore' side.

The only other beneficial improvement to this intersection would be to eliminate the slip lane entirely, which would just shift the bike-right turning motorist conflict down the road to the next intersection...so you would still have to train both cyclists and motorists to merge or otherwise interact somewhere along the road. The next most logical solution would be to tear the whole damn viaduct down and return to the surface street grid, which was the situation until the 1950s or 60s.

old mossy thinks cyclists that appreciate planning for bikes in the transportation mix with bike specific infrastructure a cult? :roflmao: pluease.

Mossy- I ride 150-350 miles a week- more if I'm riding a vacation- vehicularily, and I advocate for bicycle specific infrastructure in communities.

riding vehicularily and the desire for bike infrastructure ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

a rider that rides vehicularily can ride in a bike lane and appreciate that space.

a rider that rides vehicularily can use a bike path safely and competantly for transportation; thousands do it every day just here in the Northwest.

riding with cognizance of the laws of traffic and the desire for community enhancements for bicyclists like bike lanes are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

his insistence in that fallacy makes old mossy out to be ludicrously misguided.

I wouldn't put anyone on ignore, much less someone who has his knowledge,it may suit the likes of you though.

do what you want ,you will anyway

I wouldn't put anyone on ignore, much less someone who has his knowledge,it may suit the likes of you though.
I see the VC reinforcements have arrived. Another geriatric martyr cycling for motorists' rights to use the full roadway.

It sounds like you've already made up your mind, JF. You accept certain logic, and you reject other logical arguments as "illogical". There really is no discussing anything with you. You, like HH, have your answer and you will defend it to the death, come hell or high water.

You've called a lot of people names as well. You being a noob here on this forum, this is impolite. I might've learned something talking to the author of the book who got me seriously into traffic cycling, but you choose to insult me and my father instead. Shame on you. I, for one, will put you on ignore and never recommend your book to anyone ever again.

I am immune to logic and reason that is based on your inaccurate view of traffic cycling.

"Hi Kettle. I'm Pot."
"Um, hi, Pot."
"Hey, you're black!."
"Yeah, I am."

Get it?

Oozing, dripping with emotion. Pot meet kettle.

You are one of the few who finds sense in the posts of Forester and his acolytes. Either out of a misplaced mission to be seen as an even-handed mediator; or you really believe in the sophistry.
...I'm just sittin' on the dock of the bay
Watchin' the tide roll away
Sittin' on the dock of the bay, wastin' time

Looks like nothin's gonna change
Everything, everything remains the same
I can't do what ten people tell me to do
So I guess I'll just remain the same...

You are one of the few who finds sense in the posts of Forester and his acolytes. Either out of a misplaced mission to be seen as an even-handed mediator; or you really believe in the sophistry.

You must be fun at parties. ;)

Since you broke the purpose of the thread, I will write a quick response. I think John has some good points. I feel he is wrong on some points as well. My opinions vary according to subject groups. However, I am comfortable being around people with different opinions.

Since we are writing about each other, I actually think that you and John share an interesting attribute. Both of you can be pretty abrasive and potentially a lot more convincing with a more patient and diplomatic approach. You brought up many good points that John never addressed. Then again, you asked questions in a manner that would lead people to ignore you or simply spew abrasive words back. I would have really liked to read John's defense to your questions about skill and experience (particularly about experienced cyclists that use non-VC techniques).

I would have really liked to read John's defense to your questions about skill and experience (particularly about experienced cyclists that use non-VC techniques).
Don't hold your breath. Forester has yet to even define the terms or metrics for skilled cyclists, let alone indicate that he has any source for his "data" about "skilled cyclists" other than his so-called "Reasonable Assumptions."

Note: there is no effective "diplomatic approach" to getting Forester to answer for honest criticism of his risk analyses methods, sophist claims of fantastic risk reduction for "trained" cyclists; glaring errors/distortions in his statistical manipulations, nor the validity of conclusions based on such bogus methods. It’s been tried by many, and the response is invariably more repetition of the same mantra, or insults or both. Forester only responds diplomatically to praise and flattery of his work.

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.

....the meter is moving closer to the 'ignore' side.

The only other beneficial improvement to this intersection would be to eliminate the slip lane entirely, which would just shift the bike-right turning motorist conflict down the road to the next intersection...so you would still have to train both cyclists and motorists to merge or otherwise interact somewhere along the road. The next most logical solution would be to tear the whole damn viaduct down and return to the surface street grid, which was the situation until the 1950s or 60s.

Well, of course, the proper way to handle a situation in which streams of traffic must cross each other is to have them merge. That is the standard way, no reason to substitute for the merge a direct crossing, which is much more dangerous.

If and when you slow the motorists down to 15 mph, it might be possible. I can assure you that the merge that used to be necessary at this location was neither pleasant, nor safe. The current situation is most like a normal intersection where the motorists are required by law to yield to cyclists. It gives cyclists priority. It is safer and easier than requiring through cyclists to perform interweaving merges with two directions of 40 mph + traffic. Why do you have a problem with that?

old mossy thinks cyclists that appreciate planning for bikes in the transportation mix with bike specific infrastructure a cult? :roflmao: pluease.

Mossy- I ride 150-350 miles a week- more if I'm riding a vacation- vehicularily, and I advocate for bicycle specific infrastructure in communities.

riding vehicularily and the desire for bike infrastructure ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

a rider that rides vehicularily can ride in a bike lane and appreciate that space.

a rider that rides vehicularily can use a bike path safely and competantly for transportation; thousands do it every day just here in the Northwest.

riding with cognizance of the laws of traffic and the desire for community enhancements for bicyclists like bike lanes are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

his insistence in that fallacy makes old mossy out to be ludicrously misguided.

But I have never made that fallacy. That fallacy is of your own creation, to suit your own ideology. What I have always written is that the views on which vehicular cycling and bikeways are based are opposite and contradictory, and thereby mutually exclusive. Certainly, unless society and government get so emotional about bikeways that they openly oppose vehicular cycling, vehicular cyclists can put up with, mostly ignore, the bikeway system, including using the few such paths as are useful and safe. However, the bikeway view, embraced by bicycle advocates, actively encourages incompetent cycling and denigrates, often opposes, vehicular cycling. Just as we have seen so much of on this list, where people appear to be trying to think about cycling. The situation is far worse for the general public, who don't bother to think about cycling but just follow their superstitions. This is the situation that is bad for cyclists and therefore bad for bicycle transportation, and that is the reason that I oppose the bikeway view and the programs for which it is the excuse.

If and when you slow the motorists down to 15 mph, it might be possible. I can assure you that the merge that used to be necessary at this location was neither pleasant, nor safe. The current situation is most like a normal intersection where the motorists are required by law to yield to cyclists. It gives cyclists priority. It is safer and easier than requiring through cyclists to perform interweaving merges with two directions of 40 mph + traffic. Why do you have a problem with that?

Is there a yield sign for motorists, and do motorists actually perform the yielding movement as is required for a yielding situation. I haven't seen evidence of these.

Yes and yes. Two yield signs w/ explicit instructions to yield to bikes plus two yellow flashing lights. Of course, you still need to be cautious, but it works fine for cyclists. You see no evidence because you don't ride it daily.

Invisible Hand asked:"I would have really liked to read John's defense to your questions about skill and experience (particularly about experienced cyclists that use non-VC techniques)."

To which ILTB commented:


Don't hold your breath. Forester has yet to even define the terms or metrics for skilled cyclists, let alone indicate that he has any source for his "data" about "skilled cyclists" other than his so-called "Reasonable Assumptions."

Note: there is no effective "diplomatic approach" to getting Forester to answer for honest criticism of his risk analyses methods, sophist claims of fantastic risk reduction for "trained" cyclists; glaring errors/distortions in his statistical manipulations, nor the validity of conclusions based on such bogus methods. It’s been tried by many, and the response is invariably more repetition of the same mantra, or insults or both. Forester only responds diplomatically to praise and flattery of his work.

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.

Just more of ILTB's offensive propaganda to suit his ideology, most nearly, as far as I can discern from his myriad writings, that of the bicycle advocate.

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. I have also had a long history of experience with club cyclists, starting in 1946, and, though I did not measure their performance, it was so much more vehicular than that of the general cycling public that the difference was easily noticeable, and this was born out in conversation, because those who led in traffic-cycling knowledge had, nearly all of them, learned from experience of cycling in Europe, where cyclists were expected to obey the rules of the road. Reports of these measurements are also on my website. You can easily compare ILTB's tirades to what is written there.

It sounds like you've already made up your mind, JF. You accept certain logic, and you reject other logical arguments as "illogical". There really is no discussing anything with you. You, like HH, have your answer and you will defend it to the death, come hell or high water.

You've called a lot of people names as well. You being a noob here on this forum, this is impolite. I might've learned something talking to the author of the book who got me seriously into traffic cycling, but you choose to insult me and my father instead. Shame on you. I, for one, will put you on ignore and never recommend your book to anyone ever again.

Well, you know, you should be able to accept criticism of your ideas that are silly, and, equally, of your insistence in persisting in silly ideas.

We agree that we disagree, and, you at least, consider that your facts and reasoning are equal to mine. However, consider that I have repeatedly shown that your facts and reasoning are incorrect, while you have not shown the same for mine. You have repeatedly asserted your point of view, but you have never advanced facts and reasoning that logically provide the support that your assertions require.

I can't help that; only you are in a position to advance reasonable arguments to support your view, and since you have not done so it is reasonable to conclude that you cannot. Therefore, my view is more reasonable than yours.

Well, you know, you should be able to accept criticism of your ideas that are silly, and, equally, of your insistence in persisting in silly ideas.

We agree that we disagree, and, you at least, consider that your facts and reasoning are equal to mine. However, consider that I have repeatedly shown that your facts and reasoning are incorrect, while you have not shown the same for mine. You have repeatedly asserted your point of view, but you have never advanced facts and reasoning that logically provide the support that your assertions require.

I can't help that; only you are in a position to advance reasonable arguments to support your view, and since you have not done so it is reasonable to conclude that you cannot. Therefore, my view is more reasonable than yours. :beer:

This is the crux for me.

I read and respect both what Forester has to say, and what Brian has to say (his Dad too, and all other forum members). The difference is not that I just happen to agree with most of Forester's opinions, and not with Brian's (in fact, Brian and I probably agree on much more than we disagree).

It is on the specific issues that involve bike lanes, the existence and negative effects of the cyclist inferiority taboo, and the value of promoting vehicular cycling where I tend to agree with Forester and disagree with the Ratliffs.

But even on this issues, is not merely a matter of happening to agree with the Forester opinions and not with the Ratliff's opinions. There are reasons that I agree with Foresters, and reasons that I disagree with the Ratliffs. The primary reason is that Forester's positions in these areas are based on reason, and the Ratliffs' are not.

If I'm wrong, which is certainly possible, then it should be easy to show it. Pick any issue, identify the positions, and the arguments on each side.

By the way, I know that if someone could present an argument based in reason showing that cyclists in general benefit more from bike lanes as compared to the harm that bike lanes cause for cyclists and cycling in general, I would change my mind. And I believe John Forester would too. The reason we have not changed our minds is because no such argument has been presented. Not from the Ratliffs, and not from anyone else. This is how people of reason make their decisions.

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.
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.

randya, nobody give a flying fluck what you do.