Google sponsored links
Pages :
[
1]
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Just wondering. Having seen pics of him on Google Video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6082181397382918705&q=john+forester&total=684&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0), I can't help but wonder if the man still "hits the streets."
That is not to say he couldn't. I did a tour in Baja with a guy that was quite large and albeit slow, had great stamina.
JF lives in Lemon Grove, (public knowledge... from his web page) not far from where I used to live (Miller's Ranch in that area) and I just wonder what routes he takes and what roads he prefers.
Oddly enough Lemon Grove added bike lanes all over the place a few years after I moved out. I just road VC style everywhere and never got to use the BL. I wonder if he uses the BL.
John... ya out there?
One of my favorite rides in the area was out old 94 to 54, up Dehesa road past Cottonwood golf course and up to Alpine... then down Harbison Canyon back to 54 and 94.
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
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.
I know some recumbent riders that size. They do fine. I do 30 mile rides with them all the time (although I have to wait a long time at some rest breaks.) But it would be interesting to hear some of his actual cycling adventures, if he has any from this century.
When questioned about his rotundness and whether he rides a bicycle, he has stated that his shape is do to old age.
I don't doubt it... as I stated in the OP, I did a Baja tour (the length of Baja) with a rotund gentleman who was quite able to make the trip. I myself have "changed shape" since my days of youth.
I was just curious as to whether JF still rode, and where in the area.
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.
Maybe someday, you'll gain as much influence as he has over the years.
When questioned about his rotundness and whether he rides a bicycle, he has stated that his shape is do to old age.
Aging makes an otherwise fit person fat? More likely laziness.
Else explain one of our locals, 80 year old John Keston:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Keston
http://www.xro.com/keston/
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18524911.900
https://runningtimes.com/rt/articles/?c=105&id=4831
Aging makes an otherwise fit person fat? More likely laziness.
Else explain one of our locals, 80 year old John Keston:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Keston
http://www.xro.com/keston/
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18524911.900
https://runningtimes.com/rt/articles/?c=105&id=4831
No, aging does not make an otherwise fit person fat... however, with aging comes other issues such as arthritis, gout, tender muscles and joints, and general aches and pains that make what was easy in our youth, much more difficult... after all, you don't see too many 50 year old linebackers or forwards out there, do you?
The body just doesn't recover as well as you get older. In my youth for instance, a 60 mile bike ride was de rigor... these days I do 30 miles and need time to get over the aches and pains.
If you have not reached the ripe old age of 50 yet, I have to tell you, you may be in for some rude awakening. The body just is not as flexible as it was at 25. That some can continue to compete at an older age is their blessing. BTW, the first thing to go is eyesight... small print that was quite readable at age 35 becomes difficult at about age 45.
Even Jack Lalanne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_LaLanne) is not exactly pulling the the same load he once pulled. (and man he pulled some loads).
We all age differently... of course if one has reduced their physical output, obviously one should decrease their intake accordingly... pushing away from the table is probably the best exercise overall. IMHO.
All the young sprouts think they'll always be on top.
One bad crash can end your glory on the bike. Pray your time doesn't come too soon.
On another note:
101st birthday ride:
http://www.woj.com.au/2007/04/30/positive-spin-101-year-old-still-pedaling-bicycle/
2003 birthday ride:
http://www.daytoncyclingclub.org/Photos/2003/2003%20Duck%20Bday%20Ride1.jpg
All the young sprouts think they'll always be on top.
One bad crash can end your glory on the bike. Pray your time doesn't come too soon.
Cheery! :)
How are you defining young?
If that's how you live your life (ride your life) then I truly feel sorry for you. If I had that kind of attitude I wouldn't get to ride my favorite terrain.
The fact of the matter is that JF's enormous paunch is not due to aging, but rather due to too many calories in and not enough calories out.
It's quite simple.
I'm in the presence of genius.
Yawn.
I have been riding a bicycle for many years now and don't I consider myself lazy, but my gaining of weight was from every time I changed professions, the following one a little less physical than the previous one, along with the addition of a slower, older metabolism. It's a good thing that I did get slower pace work, since my body would probably be so torn up by now, that bicycling would not be an option for me today.
And I'm in the presence of a woefully frightened chicken little.
How are you defining young?
There are bold people, and there are old people, but very, very few old bold people. I was bold for many years, but now it's time to work on enjoying the remaining few years I have left at a lifestyle a couple of notches lower. Add me to your "chicken little" list. :D Young, to me it's state of mind, and you are as young as you feel, and right now, I feel like I'm still 30.
And I'm in the presence of a woefully frightened chicken little.
How are you defining young?
It's honestly a good question. The problem with a flat out definition is that that a number does not mean the same thing to each of us... we age differently.
On man's 45 may be another's 55. Perhaps the first real unmistable sign is the change in vision that many of us experience in our mid 40s. It doesn't happen at 42 or 46, but somewhere in the "mid" 40s. You start holding books a bit further away... using a magnifying glass to read fine print, or work on fine objects. My peers all have succumbed in some fashion. It just happens. No change in lifestyle will retain that vision... it is simply a consequence of less flexible lenses in the eyes. (if I understand the issues correctly)
The OP implied that perhaps JF is a bit too large to probably still be riding regularly. I agree.
But lo, a defensive backlash! Overall, I just see a volley of excuses.
No, aging does not make an otherwise fit person fat... however, with aging comes other issues such as arthritis, gout, tender muscles and joints, and general aches and pains that make what was easy in our youth, much more difficult... after all, you don't see too many 50 year old linebackers or forwards out there, do you?
The body just doesn't recover as well as you get older. In my youth for instance, a 60 mile bike ride was de rigor... these days I do 30 miles and need time to get over the aches and pains.
If you have not reached the ripe old age of 50 yet, I have to tell you, you may be in for some rude awakening. The body just is not as flexible as it was at 25. That some can continue to compete at an older age is their blessing.
Not as flexible at age 25? Maybe not, but I'm nowhere near age 25 and I'm just as fit now as I was at that age. Aches, pains? I thought that was normal training when I was younger and it doesn't seem much different now. Honestly, I heard the same warnings about the 30s, then the same about the 40s and the fact remains that, for me, these aging hardships are coming from people that are not that fit, so yes, aging probably sucks for them. I would (and still do) hear, "Oh, it hurts do this this, or that. Oh, my knees/back/joints ache so much now...you'll see when you reach my age!" Well no, I didn't. I doubt I ever will because I work hard now and I'll continue to. A fit, strong body deteriorates much less. I realize you can't prevent everything, but you sure can mitigate much of the trouble if you properly prepare. Yes, the metabolism slows, or jobs become less physically demanding, or injury prevents certain exercise, but that just means a person needs to adapt.
I attribute most of these problems to general laziness - mental and physical. Just as in dental care - I've never experienced a tooth cavity or filling in 40 years because I spend the extra time needed on my teeth. I do the same for the rest of my body - work it or whither.
All the young sprouts think they'll always be on top.
One bad crash can end your glory on the bike. Pray your time doesn't come too soon.
Nice. I'll be praying. But, how bad does it have to be? How about a broken hip, is that bad enough? I was mowed down 2 years ago, which resulted in just that - a fractured acetabulum. Through a bit of pain and hard work I was able to resume cycling to work every day. I was also able to resume marathoning and my best placing so far is 9th this year - I guess not much glory, but it was a PR for me.
And no, I don't imagine I'll always stay on top...heck, I'm not even at the top now. But I'm likely to be at the top of my peers if they fall into this sort of victim mentality.
I brought up the 80+ year old John Keston because he epitomizes what I aspire to. He's not beating 23 year olds. But, he set the mile record world-wide for his age a year ago by about a minute. But, that time was around 6:48 - that's my training pace for a 13 mile run. He also set the world record for a marathon at 71 years of age at 3:00:xx. I can smoke that time. But, this guy is tops for his age - he is lean, fit and brutally fast on his feet for a person his age. I appreciate that performance levels decline, but I don't have to abandon hours of running and cycling because it's too hard on the body and it takes too long to recover. I don't have to accept a fat gut and reduced fitness because people like John Keston and Jack Lalane prove a person doesn't have to succumb to these common misperceptions and notions that advancing age make fitness too difficult. I may get slower as I get older, but I'm going down that road like John...swinging with everything I've got.
Gene, you mention a 30 mile ride requires much more recovery time, while a 71 year old John could pound out a 3 hour, 26 mile marathon on foot. While people may age differently, I would venture that it's more a matter of dialing in the appropriate nutrition and strength/muscle training that would enable you to ride that distance with more ease and post-ride comfort. Training and exercise methods must change as a person ages. I run with a group of guys every week and several are in the 45-50 range. They all train just as hard on that weekend run as I do. However, their recovery and mid-week schedules are much different than mine. I think it's merely a matter of adapting to your particular aging situation and aligning that with your performance goals.
Of course, I could be wrong and when I reach 50 I may spontaneously erode into a sack of blubber. If so, I'll dig up this post and retract. But, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Along these lines, I think there is a mental aspect to it as well. When I was a teenager, I very much doubt that swim practice hurt any less than if I were still participating now. But when I was a teen, I didn't think of the pain, I thought about the results and the pain was incidental. Now, even though I am not out of my 20's yet (though close) I find myself fearing the pain more now. It has a cyclical effect because, the more I fear the pain, the less I ride (I ride more than I swim now) and the less I ride, the more it hurts to train.
There is truth to the expression "to let oneself go". You give up, and when you give up, it becomes harder to get back to your previous level. So what's the solution to less fitness as you age? You don't "let yourself go". If you do it becomes that much harder to get yourself back.
The thing is, the older many of us less gifted get, the less calories it takes to carry out our day, even if we do exercise. In fact, I don't believe riding a bicycle constitutes even as much exercise as walking to the mailbox. It's pretty piss-poor exercise if you want to maintain a good figure. The only decent exercise is walking up mountains, but tell me how you can do that every day and maintain a good salary. So far I haven't figured how to bend time and space enough.
Along these lines, I think there is a mental aspect to it as well. When I was a teenager, I very much doubt that swim practice hurt any less than if I were still participating now. But when I was a teen, I didn't think of the pain, I thought about the results and the pain was incidental. Now, even though I am not out of my 20's yet (though close) I find myself fearing the pain more now. It has a cyclical effect because, the more I fear the pain, the less I ride (I ride more than I swim now) and the less I ride, the more it hurts to train.
There is truth to the expression "to let oneself go". You give up, and when you give up, it becomes harder to get back to your previous level. So what's the solution to less fitness as you age? You don't "let yourself go". If you do it becomes that much harder to get yourself back.
Agreed about the mental aspect. I think that's why I've started running more road races. If run correctly (to your potential), the ending miles of a race suck bad. Things start to hurt, your heart is pounding furiously and it takes a good amount of mental will to keep trying to run fast/faster. I think reaching these points periodically during training and really testing the mentality during a race helps build a person's ability to endure and persevere.
I think when you age, too, old injuries come back to haunt you. And new ones take way longer -- if ever -- to go away. I am finding now that I get new injuries that don't go away and old ones from long ago that come back to bother me.
The OP implied that perhaps JF is a bit too large to probably still be riding regularly. I agree.
But lo, a defensive backlash! Overall, I just see a volley of excuses.
I brought up the 80+ year old John Keston because he epitomizes what I aspire to. He's not beating 23 year olds. But, he set the mile record world-wide for his age a year ago by about a minute. But, that time was around 6:48 - that's my training pace for a 13 mile run. He also set the world record for a marathon at 71 years of age at 3:00:xx. I can smoke that time. But, this guy is tops for his age - he is lean, fit and brutally fast on his feet for a person his age. I appreciate that performance levels decline, but I don't have to abandon hours of running and cycling because it's too hard on the body and it takes too long to recovery. I don't have to accept a fat gut and reduced fitness because people like John Keston and Jack Lalane prove a person doesn't have to succumb to these common misperceptions and notions that advancing age make fitness too difficult. I may get slower as I get older, but I'm going down that road like John...swinging with everything I've got.
Gene, you mention a 30 mile ride requires much more recovery time, while a 71 year old John could pound out a 3 hour, 26 mile marathon on foot. While people may age differenlty, I would venture that it's more a matter of dialing in the appropriate nutrition and strength/muscle training that would enable you to ride that distance with more ease and post-ride comfort. Training and exercise methods must change as a person ages. I run with a group of guys every week and several are in the 45-50 range. They all train just as hard on that weekend run that I do. However, their recovery and mid-week schedules are much different than mine. I think it's merely a matter of adapting to your particular aging situation and aligning that with your performance goals.
Of course, I could be wrong and when I reach 50 I may spontaneously erode into a sack of blubber. If so, I'll dig up this post and retract. But, I wouldn't hold my breath.
You probably will not erode into a sack of blubber... but even the examples you gave, were tendered in an "at his age" caviat.
We all age differently... and while the pounds do not have to pile on, the reality is that you are not likely to perform at age 50 as you did at age 25. (of course there is the flip side too... where someone was in terrible shape at age 25 and worked their butt off to improve at an older age). But the bottom line is that we AGE... We can and should do all we can to keep fit, but the arteries continue to harden, muscle flexabibility does decrease and bones do become brittle.
The other really damaging factor is that lifestyles may not allow us the time to keep fit. Now granted we chose those lifestyles... but part of one's career choice may be such that you spend long hours sitting in an office, vice hours pounding out miles. Back in my car free college days for instance, I did just that... I rode 40 miles to a college that was only 5 miles away.
Later, after graduation, and entering the professional world, I found that it was difficult to find the 2-4+ hours a day to keep up that level of exercise... I am sure this is the situation for many, as they take on mortgage, family and other "obligations" typical of "the American Dream."
I am sure this has as much to do with "aging" us as "father time..." like you say "it's merely a matter of adapting to your particular aging situation and aligning that with your performance goals." These days I am quite satisfied to only swim a mile a day or do 20-30 miles on the bike, vice the old performace levels.
But the harsh reality is that even Jack Lalanne is not pulling boats across SF bay at his ripe old age... and he has done nothing but promote exercise and heathy living all his life.
Father time takes his toll. No matter how hard one one may or may not try.
Now that all said... the real question still remains. Does JF ride a bike... does he still practice what he has preached? Does he still take to the roads, at perhaps a slower pace (speed doesn't matter to a VC practitioner) but in the traffic and on the roads of today?
If not, why not?
Along these lines, I think there is a mental aspect to it as well. When I was a teenager, I very much doubt that swim practice hurt any less than if I were still participating now. But when I was a teen, I didn't think of the pain, I thought about the results and the pain was incidental. Now, even though I am not out of my 20's yet (though close) I find myself fearing the pain more now. It has a cyclical effect because, the more I fear the pain, the less I ride (I ride more than I swim now) and the less I ride, the more it hurts to train.
There is truth to the expression "to let oneself go". You give up, and when you give up, it becomes harder to get back to your previous level. So what's the solution to less fitness as you age? You don't "let yourself go". If you do it becomes that much harder to get yourself back.
On the plus side, as one gets older, I found that it is quite easy to set a reasonable pace for a long term endevour, where those younger tend to simply go out in a blaze of glory.
I attended college at a later age than many (I served many years in the military) but I continued to swim as I had done when I competed in High School... While I could not beat the 20 somethings in sprints in the college pool, I could do long distance swims that left them well behind.
Age does tend to lend perspective and moderation.
There is truth to the expression "to let oneself go". You give up, and when you give up, it becomes harder to get back to your previous level. So what's the solution to less fitness as you age? You don't "let yourself go". If you do it becomes that much harder to get yourself back.
+1, and of course many people get additional responsibilities such as work and family as they get older. Bike commuting is my way to not "let myself go". But, for example, a one or two week long business trip can easily set me back.
Now that all said... the real question still remains. Does JF ride a bike... does he still practice what he has preached? Does he still take to the roads, at perhaps a slower pace (speed doesn't matter to a VC practitioner) but in the traffic and on the roads of today?
If not, why not?
Given that there has been some implication that he is too large to ride regularly, yet also some mention that size doesn't matter, do you think he's really going to answer? If I were him, I wouldn't.
+1, and of course many people get additional responsibilities such as work and family as they get older. Bike commuting is my way to not "let myself go". But, for example, a one or two week long business trip can easily set me back.
Now that I am a professional and not a student living on my own anymore, I am fighting this myself. Not to mention that there isn't a coach at my back forcing me to inflict pain on myself anymore like there was in highschool on the swimteam.
Given that there has been some implication that he is too large to ride regularly, yet also some mention that size doesn't matter, do you think he's really going to answer? If I were him, I wouldn't.
I believe that the point is not to ridicule him as to his size, but to gain some insight about how much John Forester knows of the current road environment from the saddle of a bicycle. His lack of response forces one to consider "other factors" to determine if he is a current transportational cyclist who rides on a regular and frequent basis on modern roads with modern traffic levels and modern driver behavior.
Given that there has been some implication that he is too large to ride regularly, yet also some mention that size doesn't matter, do you think he's really going to answer? If I were him, I wouldn't.
Hmmm, I think the implication was not that he was too large to ride, but that not riding has allowed him to become too large.
But the real question is "does he practice what he preaches?" Is he out there riding in the right lane holding back 50MPH traffic while riding at 10MPH? Or does he only expect the "young and strong" to do that?
There are many cyclists in the 50+ forum that go out and "ride their age." So age has little to do with cycling... at least age is not an impediment. I certainly hope to do a lot more cycling (albeit slower) when I retire.
But everytime I read something he espouses regarding VC practices... I want to know... is it "kitchen tested," or is it theory?
In his beloved UK, where VC is "regularly practiced" vice "unwashed" America who's cyclists apparently "cower" in an "inferiority syndrome," seem to be taking up bike lanes... and I want to know why... if VC is so regularly practiced and esteemed "over there."
By the same token, is he handing us a load of "old memories" with his responses here, or does he practice what he preaches?
I believe that the point is not to ridicule him as to his size, but to gain some insight about how much John Forester knows of the current road environment from the saddle of a bicycle. His lack of response forces one to consider "other factors" to determine if he is a current transportational cyclist who rides on a regular and frequent basis on modern roads with modern traffic levels and modern driver behavior.
BINGO!
+1, and of course many people get additional responsibilities such as work and family as they get older. Bike commuting is my way to not "let myself go". But, for example, a one or two week long business trip can easily set me back.
Sadly I found over time that bike commuting alone wasn't enough to keep me in the once proud shape I was in, as a student (and pedicab driver).
That 14 mile round trip daily didn't hold a candle to the nearly 50mile daily round trip I used to do in college.
I shudder to think what I may have become if I didn't even commute, however. :o
Sadly I found over time that bike commuting alone wasn't enough to keep me in the once proud shape I was in, as a student (and pedicab driver).
That 14 mile round trip daily didn't hold a candle to the nearly 50mile daily round trip I used to do in college.
I shudder to think what I may have become if I didn't even commute, however. :o
I have found this too. Bicycle commuting doesn't hurt enough to build up the body, though it has a maintainance aspect. I am currently in the process of putting together a training program so I might eventually get back into competition, though this time in cycling rather than swimming. (It also means I might treat myself to a new bike as my dedicated road bike is 9 years old and an entry bike at that. But, if I spend money on a new, lighter bike, I need a way to get ride of excess weight on my body; hence the training program.)
To all of you:
In my cycling in San Diego, ranging from downtown to the eastern suburbs, but not to the north or to the south, I have found no need to change my cycling practices. They work just as well as ever.
To all of you:
In my cycling in San Diego, ranging from downtown to the eastern suburbs, but not to the north or to the south, I have found no need to change my cycling practices. They work just as well as ever.
Funny that - they work for me in London too :)
To all of you:
In my cycling in San Diego, ranging from downtown to the eastern suburbs, but not to the north or to the south, I have found no need to change my cycling practices. They work just as well as ever.
So to the north and south, you have to change your cycling practices? :rolleyes:
I believe that the point is not to ridicule him as to his size, but to gain some insight about how much John Forester knows of the current road environment from the saddle of a bicycle. His lack of response forces one to consider "other factors" to determine if he is a current transportational cyclist who rides on a regular and frequent basis on modern roads with modern traffic levels and modern driver behavior.
Sounds reasonable, but who would have guessed with all this discussion about size? Oh yeah, I forgot, this is BikeForums. :rolleyes:
john forester is pathetically out of touch with 21st century cycling.
Wow. I'd always thought that Lemon Grove was a fictional place, kind of like Neptune, Califorinia and Balboa County (which, it seems, are both quite close to Lemon Grove).
Considering John Forester's nutty psychological and social theories, the question I'd expect Veronica Mars to ask JF, should they ever meet in a parking lot on the campus of Hearst College (also fictional), would be her classic, "Where are you from? Brigadoon?" :D
Although maybe the question should be changed to, "Where are you from, Lemon Grove?" and asked of anyone who believes that John Forester has a clue about either psychology or social science.
john forester is pathetically out of touch with 21st century cycling.
Not at all, witness my responses to your fulminations. I strongly disagree with your views of cycling, based on my own experience and my own researches, but the fact that I have concluded that I should openly disagree shows that I am in touch with your mistaken views as well as cycling reality.
Wow. I'd always thought that Lemon Grove was a fictional place, kind of like Neptune, Califorinia and Balboa County (which, it seems, are both quite close to Lemon Grove).
Considering John Forester's nutty psychological and social theories, the question I'd expect Veronica Mars to ask JF, should they ever meet in a parking lot on the campus of Hearst College (also fictional), would be her classic, "Where are you from? Brigadoon?" :D
Although maybe the question should be changed to, "Where are you from, Lemon Grove?" and asked of anyone who believes that John Forester has a clue about either psychology or social science.
My views in the field of social science are quite mainstream, but, of course, one has to admit that social science does comprise a rather wide field of views. You apparently believe a rather different set of opinions about social conditions than I do. I suggest that most of the opinions about social affairs that have been explicitly stated in this forum are those of a minority in social sciences, a minority strongly disapproving of the actual behavior of people and supportive of conspiratorial theories as to why people act in ways abhorrent to the writers of the opinions. As for my psychological hypothesis of the cyclist-inferiority superstition in its various strengths, it explains why bicycle advocates so vehemently advocate the precise system that was designed by motorists to denigrate cycling for their own convenience. That is an absurdity that cries out for explanation, and, so far, my psychological hypothesis is the only one that does so. Like it or lump it, or, if you are convinced that it is incorrect, then offer a better explanation for your own actions, although, to be accurate, I should have written excuse instead of explanation.
your 'psychological hypothesis' regarding bicyclists is hypothetical quackery, john.
I don't dispute you not riding much anymore. I've asked about your utility bicycling, or trips to the store on your bike, and you've statd in this forum you don't do much.
wether because of old age, ill fitness, or urban sprawl making trips to the store necessary for you to use an automobile is what is unclear. However, I don't fault you for being old!
are bicycles not convienent to use for errands in Lemon Grove? is it urban sprawl (which you endorse by your complicity with the American Dream Coalition) that makes you unwilling to ride a bicycle for errands?
do many people bicycle for transportation in Lemon Grove? I suspect actual, transportational, vehicular cyclists, (as opposed to john's hyperbole regarding his bicycling in the 1970's) that understand how to operate according to the rules of the road, take advantage of the bicycling infrastructure there.
Some of the young folks have found this thread a "fun" place to mock the problems of us old folks. You think being "old" is a result of being "lazy"? Nope...it doesn't work that way.
Sadly, the sort of shape and health someone is in at age 60, 70, or 80 has mostly to do with picking the right grandparents. Riding a bike is NOT a cure for getting old. Where are the guys who won the Tour de France fifty years ago? Well, most of them are dead. They picked really bad grandparents.
But, I do find riding a bike makes being old a bit more enjoyable. A ten mile walk would leave me sore and tired...a ten mile bike ride makes me feel like Truman is president again.
your 'psychological hypothesis' regarding bicyclists is hypothetical quackery, john.
please explain why?
It's irrelevant whether JF still rides a bike or not-- or whether he's as thin as he used to be. You young whippersnappers may get the chance to be old geezers if you're lucky. When (if) any of you live to be 80, then you can talk.
I used to have a 32 inch waist (and a resting heart rate below 40). Stuff happens (and I'm nowhere near 80). I have my disagreements with JF but it has nothing to do with what he weighs.
As for my psychological hypothesis of the cyclist-inferiority superstition in its various strengths, it explains why bicycle advocates so vehemently advocate the precise system that was designed by motorists to denigrate cycling for their own convenience. That is an absurdity that cries out for explanation, and, so far, my psychological hypothesis is the only one that does so.Oh, horse hockey! You're so full of it! You have no credentials in the field of psychology and you know it-- no credentials, as in zip, nada-- not even a degree from Hearst College.
I don't buy your "system that was designed by motorists to denigrate cycling for their own convenience" load of bs, either. It's bicyclists who support facilities and motorists who oppose them, your crackpot fantasies about 'historical facts' and your fanciful conspiracy theories notwithstanding.
The major absurdity that crys out for understanding is why you have a following at all.
But, then, human gullibility is an historical fact.
Many explanations have been given over the years as to why many cyclists favor the facilities John Forester has made a career of opposing, but JF quite obviously is deaf to the truth.
I will give a personal opinion, nonetheless.
A major reason that some disagreements with John Forester's ideas seem to be so emotional is, quite simply, that John Forester is such an arrogant, insulting, condescending know-it-all-- and always has been. The apparent emotionalism is due less to an imagined phobia (which John Forester invented because he is so conceited that he can't believe that any rational person would have the audacity to disagree with his crackpot ideas) and more to the abrasive style of which John Forester seems so proud.
Like it or lump it, or, if you are convinced that it is incorrect, then offer a better explanation for your own actions, although, to be accurate, I should have written excuse instead of explanation.I'm sure I have no idea what you mean when you allude to my own actions. Perhaps what you mean is your fantasies about what my beliefs are and what my actions have been. For the record, I have been a rules of the road traffic cyclist as a primary means of transportation for decades. I am neither a bike lane advocate nor what you call an anti-motorist and never have been. And I wouldn't call myself a facilities advocate, either. But I'm sure, in your world apparently ruled by pananoia, that you can somehow find a way to place me in one of the many groups (which seems to include just about everybody) that you consider the enemies of vehicular cycling.
I can spot a crackpot a mile away. As the discoverer of cyclist inferiority phobia, the closest peer you have in the field of psychology is Wilhelm Reich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich), the discoverer of Orgonne Energy, but you can't be his peer because Reich actually had some credentials in the field of psychology and you have none.
So, like it or lump it, it's my belief that the worst thing that has happened to rules of the road traffic cycling in my lifetime is it's association with your lunatic social and psychological theories.
You crack me up.
Seriously, dude, your theories are a joke.
----
BTW, the main reason I read this forum is my fascination with cultism. While VC-ism is, by no stretch of the imagination, a cult, it is certainly cult-like in many ways. Witness VC-ism's fascination with an abrasive and arrogant, yet charismatic, 'founder of the faith.'
It's textbook.
Hey, I'll pit the "VC-ism is a cult" hypothesis against JF's "cyclist inferiority phobia explains why people diagree with John Forester" line of horse hockey any day. We could get a few people who actually have degrees in psychology and let them decide. :D
It's irrelevant whether JF still rides a bike or not-- or whether he's as thin as he used to be. You young whippersnappers may get the chance to be old geezers if you're lucky. When (if) any of you live to be 80, then you can talk.
I used to have a 32 inch waist (and a resting heart rate below 40). Stuff happens (and I'm nowhere near 80). I have my disagreements with JF but it has nothing to do with what he weighs.
Oh, horse hockey! You're so full of it! You have no credentials in the field of psychology and you know it-- no credentials, as in zip, nada-- not even a degree from Hearst College.
I don't buy your "system that was designed by motorists to denigrate cycling for their own convenience" load of bs, either. It's bicyclists who support facilities and motorists who oppose them, your crackpot fantasies about 'historical facts' and your fanciful conspiracy theories notwithstanding.
The major absurdity that crys out for understanding is why you have a following at all.
But, then, human gullibility is an historical fact.
Many explanations have been given over the years as to why many cyclists favor the facilities John Forester has made a career of opposing, but JF quite obviously is deaf to the truth.
I will give a personal opinion, nonetheless.
A major reason that some disagreements with John Forester's ideas seem to be so emotional is, quite simply, that John Forester is such an arrogant, insulting, condescending know-it-all-- and always has been. The apparent emotionalism is due less to an imagined phobia (which John Forester invented because he is so conceited that he can't believe that any rational person would have the audacity to disagree with his crackpot ideas) and more to the abrasive style of which John Forester seems so proud.
I'm sure I have no idea what you mean when you allude to my own actions. Perhaps what you mean is your fantasies about what my beliefs are and what my actions have been. For the record, I have been a rules of the road traffic cyclist as a primary means of transportation for decades. I am neither a bike lane advocate nor what you call an anti-motorist and never have been. And I wouldn't call myself a facilities advocate, either. But I'm sure, in your world apparently ruled by pananoia, that you can somehow find a way to place me in one of the many groups (which seems to include just about everybody) that you consider the enemies of vehicular cycling.
I can spot a crackpot a mile away. As the discoverer of cyclist inferiority phobia, the closest peer you have in the field of psychology is William Reich (http%3a//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich), the discoverer of Orgonne Energy, but you can't be his peer because Reich actually had some credentials in the field of psychology and you have none.
So, like it or lump it, it's my belief that the worst thing that has happened to rules of the road traffic cycling in my lifetime is it's association with your lunatic social and psychological theories.
You crack me up.
Seriously, dude, your theories are a joke.
----
BTW, the main reason I read this forum is my fascination with cultism. While VC-ism is, by no stretch of the imagination, a cult, it is certainly cult-like in many ways. Witness VC-ism's fascination with an abrasive and arrogant, yet charismatic, 'founder of the faith.'
It's textbook.
Hey, I'll pit the "VC-ism is a cult" hypothesis against JF's "cyclist inferiority phobia explains why people diagree with John Forester" line of horse hockey any day. We could get a few people who actually have degrees in psychology and let them decide. :D
instead of the personal attack on JF's ideas (they can be a little strange but ultimately they make sense and fit the problem) please explain an alternative theory/hypothesis/reason and/or why he's wrong
And I'm in the presence of a woefully frightened chicken little.
How are you defining young?
By your speech.
john's wacky theories do not make sense. There are MANY bicyclists- that know full well how to ride 'according to the rules of the road' that understand bicycling infrastructure can be a benefit to bicycling in communities.
I hypothise john foresters' claims of 'competant or incompetant' bicyclists is flawed and does NOT accurately represent the bicycling public.
There are many, many bicyclists that 'understand how to bicycle according to the rules of the road'
that will not ride all roads all the time.
'inferiority complexes' have little to do with personal choice regarding safety while on a bicycle.
vehicular bicycling is smart, aware bicycling, including use of bicycling infrastructure when appropriate without judgment or political analysis.
remember, bicyclists like john can ride in bike lanes in cities like lemon grove as a vehicular bicyclist, riding according to the rules of the road for vehicles. slower traffic keep right....
forestorite VCism- cult of personality, a politically polarizing ideologue that attempts to find fault with those that disagree with the foresterite POV.
BTW, the main reason I read this forum is my fascination with cultism. While VC-ism is, by no stretch of the imagination, a cult, it is certainly cult-like in many ways. Witness VC-ism's fascination with an abrasive and arrogant, yet charismatic, 'founder of the faith.'
It's textbook.
I have been tempted to make analogies between JF and L. Ron Hubbard, cyclist inferiority complex and engrams, evangelizing through books, intensive classes and specialized practitioners. And all the ills you suffer are because you are not a VC purist or clear.
Summery of JF arguments:
JF-Everyone suffers from cyclist inferiority complex.
Others-But we disagree.
JF-That’s only because you suffer from cyclist inferiority complex.
JF-See I am right and you are wrong.
Summery of how kids argue:
K1-If you step on a crack you’ll break your mothers back.
K2-That’s not true.
K1-You only say that because you don’t care about your mother and you are a doo-doo head.
K1-See I am right and you are wrong.
john, you no longer ride for transportational purposes, is that correct? and I'm not putting you down for your age, I hope to be around as long as you have.
but you no longer ride daily for transportation or utility bicycling, no longer ride to the store, is that correct? You've been seduced by the ease and conveinence of the automobile for how long now?
when did you stop riding to the grocery store? 30 years ago? did you EVER ride to the grocery store?
john forester is pathetically out of touch with 21st century cycling.
"21st century cycling?"
Dang, we're only in the first decade of the 21st century. Already you make it sound like a space odyssey or something.
Say, aren't we supposed to have vacation homes on the moon by now?
As far as I know, my legs still do all the work.
I stand by my statement.
jf is out of touch, and he merits pity for his delusions.
They sent him sacking from the League, dontchyaknow??? His delusions were interfering with advancing bicycling in America.
snips
Oh, horse hockey! You're so full of it! You have no credentials in the field of psychology and you know it-- no credentials, as in zip, nada-- not even a degree from Hearst College.
I don't buy your "system that was designed by motorists to denigrate cycling for their own convenience" load of bs, either. It's bicyclists who support facilities and motorists who oppose them, your crackpot fantasies about 'historical facts' and your fanciful conspiracy theories notwithstanding.
The major absurdity that crys out for understanding is why you have a following at all.
But, then, human gullibility is an historical fact.
Many explanations have been given over the years as to why many cyclists favor the facilities John Forester has made a career of opposing, but JF quite obviously is deaf to the truth.
I will give a personal opinion, nonetheless.
A major reason that some disagreements with John Forester's ideas seem to be so emotional is, quite simply, that John Forester is such an arrogant, insulting, condescending know-it-all-- and always has been. The apparent emotionalism is due less to an imagined phobia (which John Forester invented because he is so conceited that he can't believe that any rational person would have the audacity to disagree with his crackpot ideas) and more to the abrasive style of which John Forester seems so proud.
I'm sure I have no idea what you mean when you allude to my own actions. Perhaps what you mean is your fantasies about what my beliefs are and what my actions have been. For the record, I have been a rules of the road traffic cyclist as a primary means of transportation for decades. I am neither a bike lane advocate nor what you call an anti-motorist and never have been. And I wouldn't call myself a facilities advocate, either. But I'm sure, in your world apparently ruled by pananoia, that you can somehow find a way to place me in one of the many groups (which seems to include just about everybody) that you consider the enemies of vehicular cycling.
I can spot a crackpot a mile away. As the discoverer of cyclist inferiority phobia, the closest peer you have in the field of psychology is Wilhelm Reich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich), the discoverer of Orgonne Energy, but you can't be his peer because Reich actually had some credentials in the field of psychology and you have none.
So, like it or lump it, it's my belief that the worst thing that has happened to rules of the road traffic cycling in my lifetime is it's association with your lunatic social and psychological theories.
You crack me up.
Seriously, dude, your theories are a joke.
----
BTW, the main reason I read this forum is my fascination with cultism. While VC-ism is, by no stretch of the imagination, a cult, it is certainly cult-like in many ways. Witness VC-ism's fascination with an abrasive and arrogant, yet charismatic, 'founder of the faith.'
It's textbook.
Hey, I'll pit the "VC-ism is a cult" hypothesis against JF's "cyclist inferiority phobia explains why people diagree with John Forester" line of horse hockey any day. We could get a few people who actually have degrees in psychology and let them decide. :D
You say, JRA, that you are a vehicular cyclist, that you are neither a bikeway advocate nor an anti-motorist. However, you specifically say that you support bikeways, which rather denies your denial. If I have read more into your writing than you think you have put into it, I think that error is understandable considering your actual writings.
You claim that my historical account, based primarily on my own personal experience but supported by that of many cycling organizations over the years, of the origins of bikeways is false: "I don't buy your "system that was designed by motorists to denigrate cycling for their own convenience" load of bs, either. ... your crackpot fantasies about 'historical facts' and your fanciful conspiracy theories notwithstanding" You advance no facts written at the time or about that time to support your claim. Without facts, your denial is worthless. You claim to be able to detect cultism; but your only evidence for that ability is the above denial, which is contrary to the historical record.
The fact that you do advance is the present fact that many cyclists believe that bikeways were designed for their benefit. "It's bicyclists who support facilities and motorists who oppose them, your crackpot fantasies about 'historical facts' and your fanciful conspiracy theories notwithstanding." Certainly, it is the bicycle advocates who advocate bikeways; there's no doubt about that. However, there is every doubt about the claim that motorists oppose bikeways. The motoring interests largely enact the periodic national highway finance laws, that include money and requirements for bikeways. Motorists are willing to pay the bill because they see advantage in doing so. Some is public relations, of course, giving in to environmentalist demands, but other is just plain convenience for motorists. Where motorists oppose bikeways is where those bikeways reduce the convenience of motoring, which is not in many places.
You criticize my psychological hypothesis because I do not have a degree in psychology. By the same standard, I presume that all of your opinions about cycling are completely illegitimate because you have no certificate in bicycle transportation? Opinions need to be evaluated on their content, not on the degrees held by their creators.
While you base your argument on your claim that many cyclists support bikeways, you have not advanced any explanation of why they do so. Why should cyclists support the precise system which was designed to keep them under control as incompetent road users? You have not advanced any such reason, and those that others have advanced have been found insufficient. Why not apply your vaunted ability at detecting cults to cyclists' support of bikeways when there is no other reason than psychological for that support?
...While you base your argument on your claim that many cyclists support bikeways, you have not advanced any explanation of why they do so...
Yes, even I think JF is abrasive and verbose but the man has a point, at least in this thread, I see no reasons why bike lanes should play a part in VC. So far JF's reasoning that people are either sh*t scared of cars and cycling in traffic or car drivers don't believe cyclists could cope with traffic safely therefore shouldn't be there, which seem the only reasonable explanation.
So, if cyclists feel inferior and drivers feel they are inferior, it's a lose/lose situation and by "mutual inferiority" :rolleyes:, the push towards bike lanes and off street cycling is made - as I see it anyway.
The only responses so far were that he doesn't cycle enough, he's fat and you don't agree with him. There's not been a good counter argument. So, while I might expect too much of this thread, surely someone can either summarise or link a summary argument for bike lanes and off street cycling facilities.
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.