Does John Forester still ride a bike?

[LittleBigMan]

While you lament that some folks cannot discern error in JF's ideas without demonizing him, JF, in many instances, has done the very same thing.

"Isn't it possible to glean truth from people's ideas without canonizing them?

Or to discern error in their ideas without demonizing them?"
I got that part.

I'm still waiting for a little introspection on yours.

[LittleBigMan]

Yet, you still refuse to answer the question regarding why you have one set of standards for JF, and another set of standards for the folks that think he's a loon.

Apparently answering the question truthfully would be too painful for you.



Introspection on my what?
Your smoke and mirrors.

[The Human Car]

Yet, you still refuse to answer the question regarding why you have one set of standards for JF, and another set of standards for the folks that think he's a loon.

Apparently answering the question truthfully would be too painful for you.



Introspection on my what?

The days when the good guys wore white hats and the bad guys wore black hats are over, get used to it. If you don’t get the double standard that I think quite a few of us have for JF and why some think he is a total loon and a select few think he is a totally awesome dude then I really don’t know what to suggest as I don’t think any concise summary of the issues involved are written anywhere and it would be a fairly hard thing to write as it would have to cover many decades of issues. But more to the point I don’t think there is one person on this planet that is in 100% agreement in everything with another person on this planet that is just the way life is. The whole nature of this forum depending on the subject you will find different sets of people in the pro and con side of things. There is little to no brand loyalty here, we are all grown adults and make up our own dang minds about an issue.

What you seem to be suggesting would be like trying to discredit any winner of the Nobel Prize due to the controversial nature of the funding. Life is simply not that black and white.

But seriously dude ease up on LBM, I understand his point and if you don’t get it I am really not sure what to say.

[larryfeltonj]

IF he rides, I bet he curses the bike infrastructure under his breath, while taking advantage of the space demarcated by the white stripe, vehicularily positioned in the bike lane.....

quixotic, delusional JF- his cause celebre has now left him tilting at windmills and prostituting himself to the Auto lobby & the urban sprawlers of the American Dream Coalition. What a sad performance by a once relevant bicycling advocate.

"Once relevant bicycling advocate"? This disrespect for the value of continuity in cycling practice appalls me, and makes me fear for the rights of cyclists of continued use of the public roads. Forester and the late JF Scott used my head as batting practice on a transportation related forum for several years. Yet I somehow managed to place their role in protecting the rights of cyclists to the road in the US in realistic perspective.

I have a wall full of cycling books and manuals, and I STILL pull Effective Cycling off the shelf more often than any of the others.

[The Human Car]

I was merely commenting on how amusing LBM's whine about "demonizing" was when his "hero" does the very thing that he is protesting.

Get it?

Yes I get your point but do you get mine? There are many, many facets to an individual and JF is certainly not an exception. If you don’t understand the totality of what JF represents then you can’t understand LBM point. You can disagree with it and that’s fine but to harp to get an answer that is acceptable in your world view of things is going over the top IMHO. LBM is entitled to his opinion, you are entitled to yours and I am entitled to mine.

This is the VC sub forum and most here will agree that Vehicular Cycling is a very good thing but this does not necessarily make JF (who coined the phrase) our hero or agree with his derogative manner. I think LBM was quite clear that he picks and chooses what he likes it is only you who are trying to associate something else to that set. If you find it funny and want to poke fun at it fine, but it is getting kind’a old now.

Ease up? What are you, his self-appointed knight in shining armor or something?

This is a discussion forum. He posted something, I think it's silly, and we're discussing it.

Who are you to tell anyone what they can, or cannot, discuss?

This is a discussion forum not an insult forum, that is all I am trying to say. And who are you to tell me what I can and cannot discuss, he who pokes fun at other peoples’ inconstancies?

[randya]

you guys really should lighten up or you'll start outshining the man himself

[LittleBigMan]

What smoke and mirrors?
I can see myself...

[LittleBigMan]

Thanks for the confirmation.
:lol:

This could go on forever...

:D

(I'm sure it's very fascinating to everyone else...)

[sbhikes]

I haven't been following this whole discussion. What was the conclusion? Does he or doesn't he (still ride a bike)?

[Bushman]

who is John Forrester?

can i have my own thread too?

[rando]

can i have my own thread too?

No!

:p

[genec]

who is John Forrester?

can i have my own thread too?

Write a book... open a web page.

http://www.johnforester.com/

[The Human Car]

I haven't been following this whole discussion. What was the conclusion? Does he or doesn't he (still ride a bike)?
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4956522&postcount=69

And check out Bek's new sig line.

Edit: I can’t find the quote (in another thread?) but from memory and highly paraphrased JF said that bikes were not practical for utilitarian purposes such as shopping due to their limited cargo capacity but when on trips he has been known to do a shopping run or two on a bike.

[genec]

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4956522&postcount=69

And check out Bek's new sig line.

A classic actually... along with sbhikes sig line... I think these really say it all. ;)

[LittleBigMan]

I haven't been following this whole discussion. What was the conclusion? Does he or doesn't he (still ride a bike)?
I don't know.

I know my dad rode a bike for commuting in the '70's. He's in his 80's, now, and a sweet gent.

He probably never heard of John Forester, bike lanes, or helmets, back then.

;)

[JRA]

Edit: I can’t find the quote (in another thread?) but from memory and highly paraphrased JF said that bikes were not practical for utilitarian purposes such as shopping due to their limited cargo capacity but when on trips he has been known to do a shopping run or two on a bike.I don't know the whereabouts of the post in question, but I can quote from the paper Forester presented to the "Preserving the American Dream Conference, 2005."

The Place of Bicycle Transportation in Modern Industrialized Societies
http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Social/place_of_bicycle_transportation.htm

In section 2 Utility of Bicycle Transportation in Modern Society:

"As you can see from the above, when combined with the performance limitations of bicycle transportation, the uses which are competitive in modern society are no more than niche uses. The widest niche is probably that for those without immediate access to a car who would otherwise use local mass transit..."

"It has become more and more apparent that the utility of bicycle transportation in modern society has to be evaluated by non-transportational criteria. The two criteria most often suggested are environmentalism in its anti-motoring form and pure enjoyment, either for the immediate pleasure of cycling during the work week or for maintaining the physical condition necessary for enjoying weekend cycling..."

In section 3 Demography of Transportational Cyclists:

"This paper does not directly address the pure recreational cyclists who only rarely and incidentally perform transportational functions by bicycle..."

"Those who cycle for transportation to any significant extent can be divided into the voluntary and involuntary cyclists..."

Of uses by involuntary transportational cyclists, Forester says, "These are all niches with little significance."

Having dismissed voluntary transportational cyclists and after criticising anti-motorists, Forester describes another group of cyclists:

"Voluntary cyclists do not respond to the niche considerations above. They recognize that the activity of bicycle transportation rarely provides transportational benefits and generally incurs transportational disadvantages..."

Is it any wonder that Forester has, by his own admission, never been a dedicated transportational cyclist? Sheesh! Forester makes transportational cycling sound so bad, I'm not sure I want to do it anymore. :D

[LittleBigMan]

"...when combined with the performance limitations of bicycle transportation, the uses which are competitive in modern society are no more than niche uses. The widest niche is probably that for those without immediate access to a car who would otherwise use local mass transit..."
In our auto-centric society, this is a sad fact. I wish it weren't so.

Of uses by involuntary transportational cyclists, Forester says, "These are all niches with little significance."
"Involuntary," by definition, means, "they don't really want to do it, but have to." As soon as they can afford a car, they will be cagers in the USA.

Does that mean they don't deserve equal treatment in the form of adequate cycling facilities? Does that mean they can't ride on the sidewalk? NO!

It means they'll be cruisin' in a Coupe-De ASAP.

[John Forester]

THINK jf is a loon?

dude is an anti-bicyclist, refuses to recognize the people he supossedly represents and instead sets an artifical, impractical, unobtainable metric for bicyclist 'competancy'.

You actually mean, bekologist, that I do not represent you and yours. That's quite correct, and absolutely correct in all senses. People with thoughts such as yours should not be represented, but opposed.

As for setting "an artifical, impractical, unobtainable metric for bicyclist 'competancy'", I take it that you believe that obeying the traffic laws, the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, is all of these characteristics that you list? By the standards of our society, that makes you as loony as they come, for we expect most people to develop these skills.

[John Forester]

You were sent packing. your delusions made it necessary to send you on your way. otherwise, your beliefs, supossedly so sensible, would have made the premier bicycling advocacy group in america embrace your policies. why did you get sent packing? the LAB's members had no interest in your methodology and dogmatism. are you going to call the LAB nothing but incompetant bicyclists now? :rolleyes:

You are deluded, your methods blow, and you are in denial of your damage to american bicycling advocacy.

Bekologist, you have only one view of American bicycling advocacy: that is, more butts on bikes, and you produce absurd and irrelevant arguments to support that against more reasonable strategies. It happens to be correct that LAB was taken over by people with your opinions, and they made sure (by unethical use of League funds) that I was not re-elected. However, if either of us should be considered deluded, it is surely you, for you can see only one side while I understand both sides.

Your foolish rhetorical question "are you going to call the LAB nothing but incompetant bicyclists now?" shows the degree of your delusion. For many recent years, LAB was under the control of the bicycle industry with its interest in more butts on bikes to be obtained through bikeways; that's not the interest of cyclists. And I know that LAB does not consist of only incompetent cyclists (just as I understand that, though you champion a policy of incompetent cycling, you are yourself competent), which is the content of your question. However, LAB has long embraced and advocated the governmental policy of incompetent cycling on bikeways; what it is today is not much different from what it has been for more than half of the past thirty years, a propaganda machine rather than an organization of cyclists.

[sbhikes]

I think this is kind of interesting, that John Forester never was a dedicated transportational cyclist. I mean, aren't we always complaining that if any of these road engineers ever actually rode a bike maybe they'd understand better how to design and build roads? So wouldn't we expect the same of someone who claims to be an expert on bicycle transportation? That his expertise in bicycle transportation is actually informed by something more than just those enjoyable moments when a little utility can be added to an otherwise recreational pastime?

And, how does one measure the empirical quality of a statement like "I cycle because I enjoy cycling and have found that I can often combine enjoyment with useful transportation"? I think my mother could make the same statement even though she probably only rides her bicycle in campgrounds, combining her "enjoyment of cycling" with "useful transportation" to the little store in the campground where she picks up a carton of half-n-half for her morning coffee.

[John Forester]

I think this is kind of interesting, that John Forester never was a dedicated transportational cyclist. I mean, aren't we always complaining that if any of these road engineers ever actually rode a bike maybe they'd understand better how to design and build roads? So wouldn't we expect the same of someone who claims to be an expert on bicycle transportation? That his expertise in bicycle transportation is actually informed by something more than just those enjoyable moments when a little utility can be added to an otherwise recreational pastime?

And, how does one measure the empirical quality of a statement like "I cycle because I enjoy cycling and have found that I can often combine enjoyment with useful transportation"? I think my mother could make the same statement even though she probably only rides her bicycle in campgrounds, combining her "enjoyment of cycling" with "useful transportation" to the little store in the campground where she picks up a carton of half-n-half for her morning coffee.

Diane, your argument claims that unless one does not enjoy cycling one cannot learn from it. How rotted is your brain to make such claims? Does riding to and from work daily for many years, over 1,500 foot climbs in some years, on roads carrying 40,000 cars a day at 50 mph in other years, in rain and snow, in fog, and darkness, not provide a learning experience? Does riding between airports and meeting points in far-distant and unfamiliar parts of the world not provide learning experiences? Does towing a loaded trailer, and for that matter testing it for roadability under extreme handling conditions not provide learning? Does developing and using a useful, reliable, and convenient nighttime lighting system not provide learning?

If you learn only when you don't like the activity, I am very sorry for you.

[sbhikes]

John, I never said enjoyment was a prerequisite. I said that being a transportational cyclist ought to be, which is something I understand you have said you have never been.

Now you say you have been a transportational cyclist? You are either a liar or seriously befuddled.

You seem to have serious thinking problems whenever I say anything in these forums. You go into serious conniptions. Perhaps there is a pill for that. You should ask your doctor.

[joejack951]

John, I never said enjoyment was a prerequisite. I said that being a transportational cyclist ought to be, which is something I understand you have said you have never been.

Now you say you have been a transportational cyclist? You are either a liar or seriously befuddled.

You seem to have serious thinking problems whenever I say anything in these forums. You go into serious conniptions. Perhaps there is a pill for that. You should ask your doctor.

Diane, did you find the post where JF made this statement or are you basing your commentary solely on Bek's out-of-context quote? If the latter, please, go look up the original yourself otherwise you might look just as foolish as Bek does every time he posts with that signature line. If the former, you need to reread the paragraph.

[genec]

Diane, did you find the post where JF made this statement or are you basing your commentary solely on Bek's out-of-context quote? If the latter, please, go look up the original yourself otherwise you might look just as foolish as Bek does every time he posts with that signature line. If the former, you need to reread the paragraph.

Read it for yourself... here is the post:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4956522&postcount=69

Of course JF owns the post and so may at any time change it... so for the record, here is a copy of it:

Originally Posted by Bekologist
Bekologist asks the following question regarding my habits:

did you EVER ride on a regular basis to the grocery store as a dedicated transportational bicyclist?


I now see Bekologist's intent in pursuing this question; therefore I answer it now.

I was never a dedicated transportational bicyclist. I cycle because I enjoy cycling and have found that I can often combine enjoyment with useful transportation. Bekologist is free to carry on his life as he chooses, unusual though it probably is. For that matter, he is free to advocate that more people decide to live as he does. However, his way of life is not the criterion for being a cyclist, and has nothing at all to do with expert knowledge of bicycle transportation. Furthermore, his effort to persuade government to operate as if his way of life were public policy deeply involves him in the irrational tangle of bicycle advocacy, advocating the system that was designed to limit cyclists rather than benefit them. Bekologist is a bigot whose advice should be shunned as publicly harmful.

Make of it what you will... but John does admit to never being a dedicated transportational cyclist.

I take it as meaning that he has always ridden routes that he found favorable in some fashion, and has never been subject to riding roads that were perhaps "less than accommodating" to a cyclist; whereas a "dedicated transportational cyclist" may have no other choice, and thus may face situations which JF has never encountered in real life... the latter which JF has only dealt with "theoretically."

Others here on BF have lived lives car free, and/or made a living by bike, such as being a messenger... all of which may involve situations which JF has never encountered, nor envisioned.

[joejack951]

Make of it what you will... but John does admit to never being a dedicated transportational cyclist.

I take it as meaning that he has always ridden routes that he found favorable in some fashion, and has never been subject to riding roads that were perhaps "less than accommodating" to a cyclist; whereas a "dedicated transportational cyclist" may have no other choice, and thus may face situations which JF has never encountered in real life... the latter which JF has only dealt with "theoretically."

Others here on BF have lived lives car free, and/or made a living by bike, such as being a messenger... all of which may involve situations which JF has never encountered, nor envisioned.

What special world do these car-free cyclists live in that a cyclist who also happens to own a car couldn't have experienced? From JF's listing of where he's cycled and conditions he's cycled in, even if there was something he hadn't experienced, I'm sure his prior experiences would be more than enough for him to understand how to handle it. Keep in mind that while Bek may rant and rave about cagers, he does own a car and admits to using when he feels it's his best option. A bit hypocritcal then to conclude that JF isn't a "real" transportational cyclist because he has a car at his disposal.

When you were car-free, did you ever rent a car, hitch a ride with someone, use public transportation, etc.? If you didn't enjoy cycling, would you still have chosen to live car-free or would you have managed to find a way to fit car ownership into your budget?

[genec]

What special world do these car-free cyclists live in that a cyclist who also happens to own a car couldn't have experienced?



Well to begin with, there are areas of towns that motorists (or cyclists that drive) may never need enter due to our vast freeway system that isolates motorists from surface streets. Many motorists for instance may never have to deal with roads in heavily industrialized areas of a town... where the pavement may be in particularly poor shape due to the use of heavy equipment... or the roads may be covered in fine metal shavings... something that doesn't effect a motorists' tires, yet can create havoc on bicycle tires.

Motorists may not have to endure taunting from local residents as those motorists quickly "fly by" on overhead freeways that cyclists are not allowed to use.

Cyclists that also own cars may chose to drive past the above to a point of their choice to commute or they may only ride off road. A cyclist that lives car free has no such choice in their daily transportation, and will use what ever routes are available to accomplish their transportation needs.



From JF's listing of where he's cycled and conditions he's cycled in, even if there was something he hadn't experienced, I'm sure his prior experiences would be more than enough for him to understand how to handle it. Keep in mind that while Bek may rant and rave about cagers, he does own a car and admits to using when he feels it's his best option. A bit hypocritical then to conclude that JF isn't a "real" transportational cyclist because he has a car at his disposal.


Perhaps, but then JF is also a product of his own inferiority syndrome by chosing to drive when he felt it most convenient, vice enduring the reality of the very roads he avoided cycling through his choice of driving.




When you were car-free, did you ever rent a car, hitch a ride with someone, use public transportation, etc.? If you didn't enjoy cycling, would you still have chosen to live car-free or would you have managed to find a way to fit car ownership into your budget?

I could have easily afforded a car. And later I did in fact acquire one. But living car free, I depended on a bicycle just as one would a car... I did not see a need to rent a car, ever; I rarely used public transit as my access and freedom on a bike were far superior. I did use public transit to travel long distances... just as a car owner might.

I did quite enjoy cycling, and cycled recreationally also going long distances on weekends and doing long tours. But the choices I made while depending on a bicycle as my only means of transit were based on not even considering an alternative... as I never felt such a need. (how often does a motorist consider some alternative?) I knew the approximate times it would take me to get to various locations in town, and the routes to get there... many of which did not have reasonable alternatives due to the geography of the area. There is no grid structure in many parts of this town due to the ocean, rivers, and canyons of the area... just as one may only cross, say the rivers of Portland, only at the bridges. The illusion of "alternate routes" so often touted by many are generally only available in downtown grid like situations.

My underlying point is that John does not think like a cyclist, but as a motorist that occasionally cycles... This is somewhat akin to the views of Helmet Head who would comment on "facilities" he had seen from the seat of his large RV.

John may have walked a mile in my shoes, but he chose that mile carefully.

Now to be fair, I no longer am a transportational cyclist... I too use a car when I feel it is most convenient... but part of that convenience is due to what I perceive is a worsening traffic situation brought on by a very auto centric attitude of the general populace and the government. (I base that on observations of motorists and changing road conditions such as ever increasing speed limits and the general lack of enforcement thereof).

[Helmet Head]

Gene, first, all Forester "admitted" to was never being a dedicated transportational cyclist.


Main Entry: ded·i·cat·ed

1 : devoted to a cause, ideal, or purpose : ZEALOUS <a dedicated scholar>

m-w.com

So, he has never been zealous about transportational cycling. Sometimes he also walks or uses a bus, plain, train, taxi or even drives his own car :eek:.


Well to begin with, there are areas of towns that motorists (or cyclists that drive) may never need enter due to our vast freeway system that isolates motorists from surface streets. Many motorists for instance may never have to deal with roads in heavily industrialized areas of a town... where the pavement may be in particularly poor shape due to the use of heavy equipment... or the roads may be covered in fine metal shavings... something that doesn't effect a motorists' tires, yet can create havoc on bicycle tires.

Motorists may not have to endure taunting from local residents as those motorists quickly "fly by" on overhead freeways that cyclists are not allowed to use.

Cyclists that also own cars may chose to drive past the above to a point of their choice to commute or they may only ride off road. A cyclist that lives car free has no such choice in their daily transportation, and will use what ever routes are available to accomplish their transportation needs.
:rolleyes:

Like Forester wouldn't recognize "where the pavement may be in particularly poor shape" and advocate for better pavement? And if there is any significant amount of motor traffic, that same traffic will sweep the road of fine metal shavings. This is one of the silliest points I've ever seen you try to make.



Perhaps, but then JF is also a product of his own inferiority syndrome by chosing to drive when he felt it most convenient, vice enduring the reality of the very roads he avoided cycling through his choice of driving. Who ever said anything about JF choosing to drive in order to avoid " enduring the reality of the very roads he avoided cycling"???




I could have easily afforded a car. And later I did in fact acquire one. But living car free, I depended on a bicycle just as one would a car... I did not see a need to rent a car, ever; I rarely used public transit as my access and freedom on a bike were far superior. I did use public transit to travel long distances... just as a car owner might.

I did quite enjoy cycling, and cycled recreationally also going long distances on weekends and doing long tours. But the choices I made while depending on a bicycle as my only means of transit were based on not even considering an alternative... as I never felt such a need. (how often does a motorist consider some alternative?) I knew the approximate times it would take me to get to various locations in town, and the routes to get there... many of which did not have reasonable alternatives due to the geography of the area. There is no grid structure in many parts of this town due to the ocean, rivers, and canyons of the area... just as one may only cross, say the rivers of Portland, only at the bridges. The illusion of "alternate routes" so often touted by many are generally only available in downtown grid like situations.

My underlying point is that John does not think like a cyclist, but as a motorist that occasionally cycles... This is somewhat akin to the views of Helmet Head who would comment on "facilities" he had seen from the seat of his large RV.

John may have walked a mile in my shoes, but he chose that mile carefully. Oh, please. And what "large RV" are you talking about?

Now to be fair, I no longer am a transportational cyclist... I too use a car when I feel it is most convenient... but part of that convenience is due to what I perceive is a worsening traffic situation brought on by a very auto centric attitude of the general populace and the government. (I base that on observations of motorists and changing road conditions such as ever increasing speed limits and the general lack of enforcement thereof).
If you ever commute to work on bike, then you are a transportational cyclist. You just might not be a dedicated transportational cyclist.

[genec]

Gene, first, all Forester "admitted" to was never being a dedicated transportational cyclist.


Main Entry: ded·i·cat·ed

1 : devoted to a cause, ideal, or purpose : ZEALOUS <a dedicated scholar>

m-w.com

So, he has never been zealous about transportational cycling. Sometimes he also walks or uses a bus, plain, train, taxi or even drives his own car :eek:.



:rolleyes:



Ah the apologist returns. Oh hail the disciple. :rolleyes:

[The Human Car]

What special world do these car-free cyclists live in that a cyclist who also happens to own a car couldn't have experienced? From JF's listing of where he's cycled and conditions he's cycled in, even if there was something he hadn't experienced, I'm sure his prior experiences would be more than enough for him to understand how to handle it. Keep in mind that while Bek may rant and rave about cagers, he does own a car and admits to using when he feels it's his best option. A bit hypocritcal then to conclude that JF isn't a "real" transportational cyclist because he has a car at his disposal.
Some of the best bicycling advocates that I know are not just one kind of cyclist, they are several. By understanding why groups like/dislike a particular facility helps promote designs that can accommodate more then one kind of rider. Those that are only one kind of cyclist end up fighting with the other groups for their kind of facility so it comes down to what kind of cyclists has the most popularity wins and by John’s own admission his kind is in the minority.

In one of my conversations with John he stated that he has ridden in MD and has not experienced an attempted assault by a motorist (implying I don’t know what I am talking about) but in a different thread someone else (who I assume is a VC purist) mentioned that they experienced their first JAM in MD. So what is it, MD is a nice place to ride or isn’t? Well that all depends on where you ride. The more you are driven to ride in diverse conditions the more you can see the totality of the “cycling condition” in an area, the less you ride the more incomplete picture you have.

One of the failings that I think John has is failure to inspire confidence that he represents cyclists’ best interests which should include a strong desire for extra road width. For example this well written statement:
Vehicular cycling skill development makes cyclists more safe, confident and comfortable on a wide variety of roads than without it; roadway engineering should be conducted in a manner that is compatible with vehicular cycling including the vehicular rules of the road as well as the kinematic and dynamic aspects of bicycles as vehicles.
Vs
As to the extent to which comfort needs to be considered, comfort is a very subjective feeling that differs from person to person and changes within one person with experience. I rather doubt that our society is willing to pay the costs of making all road users comfortable; the issues of safety and efficiency and convenience are far more important, more measurable, and more manageable.

I’m not sure if anyone has asked Steve if he still rides a bike but at least for me he instills confidence that he does ride even if I don’t agree with every point he makes. Even if I disagree with Steve [on a point] there is a feeling (at least for me) of being on the same side but with John I am an enemy because I promote engineering as well as education, something is just wrong with that picture.

[John Forester]

Some of the best bicycling advocates that I know are not just one kind of cyclist, they are several. By understanding why groups like/dislike a particular facility helps promote designs that can accommodate more then one kind of rider. Those that are only one kind of cyclist end up fighting with the other groups for their kind of facility so it comes down to what kind of cyclists has the most popularity wins and by John’s own admission his kind is in the minority.

In one of my conversations with John he stated that he has ridden in MD and has not experienced an attempted assault by a motorist (implying I don’t know what I am talking about) but in a different thread someone else (who I assume is a VC purist) mentioned that they experienced their first JAM in MD. So what is it, MD is a nice place to ride or isn’t? Well that all depends on where you ride. The more you are driven to ride in diverse conditions the more you can see the totality of the “cycling condition” in an area, the less you ride the more incomplete picture you have.

One of the failings that I think John has is failure to inspire confidence that he represents cyclists’ best interests which should include a strong desire for extra road width. For example this well written statement:

One of the failings that I think John has is failure to inspire confidence that he represents cyclists’ best interests which should include a strong desire for extra road width. For example this well written statement:

Originally Posted by sggoodri
"Vehicular cycling skill development makes cyclists more safe, confident and comfortable on a wide variety of roads than without it; roadway engineering should be conducted in a manner that is compatible with vehicular cycling including the vehicular rules of the road as well as the kinematic and dynamic aspects of bicycles as vehicles."

Vs
Originally Posted by John Forester
"As to the extent to which comfort needs to be considered, comfort is a very subjective feeling that differs from person to person and changes within one person with experience. I rather doubt that our society is willing to pay the costs of making all road users comfortable; the issues of safety and efficiency and convenience are far more important, more measurable, and more manageable."



I’m not sure if anyone has asked Steve if he still rides a bike but at least for me he instills confidence that he does ride even if I don’t agree with every point he makes. Even if I disagree with Steve there is a felling (at least for me) of being on the same side but with John I am an enemy because I promote engineering as well as education, something is just wrong with that picture.

You are telling us, Human Car, that you believe that safety, efficiency, and convenience are not engineering criteria? These, with cost as well, are the standard criteria for transportation engineering. I can't help it if you think that Steve includes engineering and I don't. That's your problem, not mine.

Furthermore, do you not know that for decades I have been campaigning for sufficient width of roadways to accommodate cycle traffic? The first edition of what is now Bicycle Transportation, then called Bicycle Transportation Engineering Handbook, published in 1977, argued for wide outside lanes.

[John Forester]

Read it for yourself... here is the post:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4956522&postcount=69

Of course JF owns the post and so may at any time change it... so for the record, here is a copy of it:





Make of it what you will... but John does admit to never being a dedicated transportational cyclist.

I take it as meaning that he has always ridden routes that he found favorable in some fashion, and has never been subject to riding roads that were perhaps "less than accommodating" to a cyclist; whereas a "dedicated transportational cyclist" may have no other choice, and thus may face situations which JF has never encountered in real life... the latter which JF has only dealt with "theoretically."

Others here on BF have lived lives car free, and/or made a living by bike, such as being a messenger... all of which may involve situations which JF has never encountered, nor envisioned.

Your assumption that I care as much about roads that are "accommodating" as you do is just plain false. That's the cyclist-inferiority phobia showing through. I never cared about whether a road was "accommodating to cyclists" or not. I knew that all roads accommodated cyclists, so I cycled wherever I chose. My criteria concerned the practicality of the trip: too much time, too much to carry, formal clothes, non-cyclists involved, no secure bicycle parking, and the like.

The need for this kind of discussion shows just how very different are my cycling thoughts from yours.

[John Forester]

John, I never said enjoyment was a prerequisite. I said that being a transportational cyclist ought to be, which is something I understand you have said you have never been.

Now you say you have been a transportational cyclist? You are either a liar or seriously befuddled.

You seem to have serious thinking problems whenever I say anything in these forums. You go into serious conniptions. Perhaps there is a pill for that. You should ask your doctor.

You asserted that I could not have learned much about cycling because I rode for enjoyment with just a bit of transportation between episodes of enjoying my pastime.

I have never said that I have never been a transportational cyclist. I said that I have never been a dedicated transportational cyclist, by which I think Bekologist meant a person dedicated to the idea that transportation by bicycle has great ineffable value and must be advocated at all costs. As I said, I cycle because I enjoy cycling, and I find that this allows transportational use as another benefit.

Diane, if you read and thought more accurately, there would be no need for this kind of pedagogical criticism.

Of course, Bekologist has not, to this time, either described what he means by "dedicated transportational cyclist" or what special skill and knowledge can be obtained only through being one. I challenge him again to provide these answers.

[genec]

Your assumption that I care as much about roads that are "accommodating" as you do is just plain false. That's the cyclist-inferiority phobia showing through. I never cared about whether a road was "accommodating to cyclists" or not. I knew that all roads accommodated cyclists, so I cycled wherever I chose. My criteria concerned the practicality of the trip: too much time, too much to carry, formal clothes, non-cyclists involved, no secure bicycle parking, and the like.

The need for this kind of discussion shows just how very different are my cycling thoughts from yours.

Your use of the phrase "I cycled wherever I chose" is key.

I, on the otherhand, cycled wherever I needed to go. I got to my destinations, but it was quite clear to me that some roads were not designed to accomodate anything but motor vehicles. Regular use of such roads was akin to cycling in a hostile environment.

Interestingly enough... there are roads that are well accomodated to motor vehicles... wherein the motor vehicle has exclusive rights. These are known as freeways. That same design mentality is being pushed to the only roads that cyclists may use... surface streets. The fact that you chose your routes and times to ride, means that you are able to avoid certain issues that may effect other cyclists with limited choices.

The only roads that are available to cyclists (surface streets) are becoming less accomodating to cyclists due to road posted speed, lane designations and use, and volume of traffic. The fact that you do not understand this, highlights that you have carefully selected your cycling situations.

[genec]

You are telling us, Human Car, that you believe that safety, efficiency, and convenience are not engineering criteria? These, with cost as well, are the standard criteria for transportation engineering. I can't help it if you think that Steve includes engineering and I don't. That's your problem, not mine.

Furthermore, do you not know that for decades I have been campaigning for sufficient width of roadways to accommodate cycle traffic? The first edition of what is now Bicycle Transportation, then called Bicycle Transportation Engineering Handbook, published in 1977, argued for wide outside lanes.

How about reduced speeds?

[The Human Car]

You are telling us, Human Car, that you believe that safety, efficiency, and convenience are not engineering criteria? These, with cost as well, are the standard criteria for transportation engineering.
You are telling us, John Forester, that you believe that cyclists comfort should play no part in road engineering for safety, efficiency, and convenience? If you think your quote is better then or equal to Steve’s quote then that is your problem not mine.

Furthermore cyclists comfort is measurable, and manageable. As far as cyclists comfort being more important then education, that could be debated but still it is important.

[Bekologist]

Your assumption that I care as much about roads that are "accommodating" as you do is just plain false.... I never cared about whether a road was "accommodating to cyclists" or not. I knew that all roads accommodated cyclists, so I cycled wherever I chose. My criteria concerned the practicality of the trip: too much time, too much to carry, formal clothes, non-cyclists involved, no secure bicycle parking, and the like.

The need for this kind of discussion shows just how very different are my cycling thoughts from
yours.

Yes, john, your cycling thoughts ARE a lot different from those of us that ride daily. Bosh, I'd bet thousands of transportational bicyclists carry 'formal clothes' in bike bags and make the time to make their commutes by bike. john admittedly found it more convenient to drive.

paraphrased:

john doesn't care about roads being designed well for bicyclists;

John did NOT cycle whenever it was easier for him to drive.

[larryfeltonj]

Yes, john, your cycling thoughts ARE a lot different from those of us that ride daily. Bosh, I'd bet thousands of transportational bicyclists carry 'formal clothes' in bike bags and make the time to make their commutes by bike. john admittedly found it more convenient to drive.

paraphrased:

john doesn't care about roads being designed well for bicyclists;

John did NOT cycle whenever it was easier for him to drive.

Bekologist,

I've never met Forester. I've encountered him quite a few times since he's been posting on the internet, and in many respects Forester is sufficiently different from me that our interactions in this venue have exhibited a bit less than camaraderie.

On the other hand I've been cycling for fifty years, and started cycling in a more-or-less vehicular fashion about thirty years ago. I've read his primary output carefully (Effective Cycling and Bicycle Transportation) and in those areas of cycling where I'd developed a strong opinion it was obvious to me that he'd done a phenomenal amount of cycling and study on the subject, and his writings resonated as accurate descriptions of good practice, and in those areas in which I was weak, following the lead of his writings often improved my cycling skills considerably.

I fully realize that aspects of Forester's social skills and to some limited extent his opinions about urban design policy have done some unnecessary damage to the cause of vehicular and transportational cycling policy in the US.

But at the same time I'm offended by the lack of respect for his deep knowledge of the cycling tradition a number of people on this forum, including you, exhibit. Your signature line practically screams tantrum due to personal insult.

[LittleBigMan]

Bekologist,

I've never met Forester. I've encountered him quite a few times since he's been posting on the internet, and in many respect Forester is sufficiently different from me that our interactions in this venue have exhibited a bit less than camaraderie.

On the other hand I've been cycling for fifty years, and started cycling in a more-or-less vehicular fashion about thirty years ago. I've read his primary output carefully (Effective Cycling and Bicycle Transportation) and in those areas of cycling where I'd developed a strong opinion it was obvious to me that he'd done a phenomenal amount of cycling, and his writings resonated as accurate descriptions of good practice, and in those areas in which I was weak, following the lead of his writings often improved my cycling skills considerably.

I fully realize that aspects of Forester's social skills and to some limited extent his opinions about urban design policy have done some unnecessary damage to the cause of vehicular and transportational cycling policy in the US.

But at the same time I'm offended by the lack of respect for his deep knowledge of the cycling tradition a number of people on this forum, including you, exhibit. Your signature line practically screams tantrum due to personal insult.
I wanna see Bek at 70...

...curmudgeon? :D (Maybe already at 30? :eek: )

[Bekologist]

a quote is construed as an insult? interesting.....

[LittleBigMan]

It's late on the east coast....

[larryfeltonj]

a quote is construed as an insult? interesting.....

Pay attention and exercise the degree of reading comprehension elementary schools seek to impart.
I wasn't referring to your neurotic signature line as an insult.

[Bekologist]

no tantrum, larry-

I'm calling john out as being a guy that has viewed cycling as a 'thru the windshield' type of occasional bicyclist. a SOCAL driver that is convinced he knows best what is needed for bicyclists, and all else is (in his mind) incompetency.

The fact he's never been a dedicated transportational bicyclist speaks volumes.
I don't like the cut of his jib.

[larryfeltonj]

no tantrum, larry-

I'm calling john out as being a guy that has viewed cycling as a 'thru the windshield' type of occasional bicyclist.

I suspect that other people who have been on this forum longer than I have addressed this assertion before (at least I hope they have), but I give up. I invite the moderators to evaluate my statement and sanction me for ad hominem attack if they so desire, but you are either ignorant or dishonest.

[Bekologist]

naw, john drove when cycling was inconvenient for him.

the fact he's admitted he never was a dedicated transportational bicyclist speaks volumes to me. despite johns' "good work" writing a diatribe about bicycling.

[larryfeltonj]

I wanna see Bek at 70...

...curmudgeon? :D (Maybe already at 30? :eek: )

I have no idea how old Bekologist is, but I do know he has very little respect for experience. That means he's either younger than 40 and within range of the attitudes of that generation, or above the age of 40 and immature for his age.

He obviously has a great deal of energy and enthusiasm. I can only hope that eventually that develops into knowledge, understanding, and perspective.

[Bekologist]

very little respect for experience? :roflmao: maybe you mean, little respect for john forester.

I'm calling john out for never having been a dedicated transportational bicyclist.... which he admits. I'd call that a LACK of experience.


too much time, too much to carry, formal clothes, non-cyclists involved, no secure bicycle parking, and the like.


at least that explains why he never grocery shopped by bike, but many of us DO shop by bike, DO carry a lot, DO ride to places with no secure bike parking.....

Question: how far WAS 'too far' for john to bicycle someplace, and did he ever include carrying a more formal change of clothes on his bike? How much was 'too much to carry?'

[larryfeltonj]

very little respect for experience? :roflmao:

I'm calling john out for never having been a dedicated transportational bicyclist.... which he admits. at least that explains why he never grocery shopped by bike, but many of us do shop by bike, do carry a lot, ride to places with no secure bike parking.....

how far was too far for john to bicycle someplace, and did it ever include carry a more formal change of clothes on his bike?

I'd call that a LACK of experience.

I do like the little laughing emoticon, Bekologist. I'm an old Unix sysadmin guy, so doddering fool that I am, I remember all the various ascii versions of the softening smilies, and appreciate the more expressive animated GUI smilies you young folks have at your disposal to show what you really think.

I'm really relieved to discover that your impressions of Forester are due to ignorance rather than dishonesty. It's easier to correct a misconception than a character flaw. And I really like to think that the energy you exhibit can be channeled into a positive direction. I suspect (based on reading Effective Cycling) that Forester must have made at least a few shopping trips by bicycle, and that he may have also made various accommodations for clothing requirements on commutes or evening trips to meetings.

Have you read the sections of Effective Cycling that might shed light on the assertions you've made above? Or are you speaking from some section of your gastrointestinal tract?

[Bekologist]

why you calling me a 'young folk?' I remember doing data entry on punch cards, Commodores and phosphor green.

I 've read enough of john's published works to consider him opinionated, intolerable and posessing expansive amounts of flawed logic. he's a man with a diatribe.

His admittances in this forum have led me to discover his part time, fair weather cycling habits. looking at bicycling 'thru the windshield' so to speak.

this forum led me to discover his allegiance with a group dedicated to the supremacy of the automobile and urban sprawl www.americandream.org

[larryfeltonj]

why you calling me a 'young folk?' I remember doing data entry on punch cards, Commodores and phosphor green.

I 've read enough of john's published works to consider him opinionated, intolerable and posessing expansive amounts of flawed logic. he's a man with a diatribe.

His admittances in this forum have led me to discover his part time, fair weather cycling habits. looking at bicycling 'thru the windshield' so to speak.

this forum led me to discover his allegiance with a group dedicated to the supremacy of the automobile and urban sprawl www.americandream.org

I was merely inferring that you were young based on the content of your messages. Did you really do data entry to punch cards on a Commodore? I did keypunch entry on mainframes in the late 60s, but my limited experience with Commodores was a bit more terminal based and interactive. But then again I'm an old Unix hand... On to cycling.

You've stated that Forester never went grocery shopping on a bicycle, and that he never had to deal with the issue of work clothing and cycling. I've actually gotten useful tips from Forester in both respects. Did he just get randomly lucky, and give advice which I found useful but which he'd never personally tested, or are you babbling from somewhere south of your duodenum?

[Bekologist]

I didn't do data entry on punch cards to commodores. duh.

and just stop with the thinly veiled insults. he's stated himself in this forum he's only picked up 'sundries' by bike, because, for some reason or other, shopping by bike wasn't convenient for him.

I'm not going to go back and search his intolerable posts about him not shopping by bike, but, judging by his comments made on this forum, sounds like he's never hauled a couple panniers full of groceries.

don't infer I'm speaking out of my ass, even politely.

can't stand the sacred cow getting gored, eh?