If JF psychological theories are correct shouldn’t we also be against …

[The Human Car]

Using JF’s logic on why we should be against BL shouldn’t we also be against:

Marriage; it was designed by men under the women-inferiority superstition.

Mass Transit; it was designed by people with a vehicle under the walking inferiority superstition.

Laws; designed by government under the general public inferiority superstition.

(Any other similar parallels?)

My point is all this psychobabble is just a red herring and has nothing to contribute about anything.

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.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Using JF’s logic on why we should be against BL shouldn’t we also be against:

Marriage; it was designed by men under the women-inferiority superstition.

Mass Transit; it was designed by people with a vehicle under the walking inferiority superstition.

Laws; designed by government under the general public inferiority superstition.

(Any other similar parallels?)

My point is all this psychobabble is just a red herring and has nothing to contribute about anything.

Psychobabble red herrings are created by Sophists with a credible evidence inferiority superstition.

[markhr]

What part of "I'm a cyclist and don't belong in traffic, I'm a driver and that cyclist doesn't belong in traffic" don't you two get please? Yes, JF's verbose and often abrasive writing style can be a little dense to read but so far he's not wrong.

How any of that relates to the OP's post remains a mystery to me. I can only assume that it's trolling due to a purely personal dislike of JF and has absolutely nothing to do with his theories. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

...but so far he's not wrong.
Ya think so, huh?:rolleyes: The newest Forester acolyte has arrived to the list and may be just as obsequious as the recently semi-retired HH.

[-=£em in Pa=-]

What part of "I'm a cyclist and don't belong in traffic, I'm a driver and that cyclist doesn't belong in traffic" don't you two get please? Yes, JF's verbose and often abrasive writing style can be a little dense to read but so far he's not wrong.

How any of that relates to the OP's post remains a mystery to me. I can only assume that it's trolling due to a purely personal dislike of JF and has absolutely nothing to do with his theories. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


You might not be 'wrong', but also thinking Forrester is cyclings version of Xanu
isnt wrong either. The 'Cyclist inferiority Syndrome' is beyond ludicris.
Maybe he can lend his name to a medication to cure it like that 'restless leg syndrome'
stuff......

[The Human Car]

What part of I am an experienced and educated cyclists and I ride the safest way possible wither there are bike lanes or not don’t you understand? Some sort of bike lane superstition perhaps? The law cannot require you to ride in an unsafe manner, which to me is a critical point to all this fear mongering around bike lanes. It is only because cyclists have an inferiority complex and feel they are totally helpless around badly designed bike lanes does a lot of this junk exist in the first place.

In short the worst case scenario bike lanes are no skin off my nose and make no difference to my current riding conditions and at best I like riding in them and they make bike riding more pleasant.

Edit: A badly designed bike lane is a lot like a pot hole, if you get involved you can get these things fixed, don’t put up with junk.

[rando]

Bike Forums is just another way for government to hold us down and force us off of other internet boards. If we're not careful and don't exercise our rights, we will be banned from other internet sites and forced to be exclusively on bike forums.

[The Human Car]

Bike Forums is just another way for government to hold us down and force us off of other internet boards. If we're not careful and don't exercise our rights, we will be banned from other internet sites and forced to be exclusively on bike forums.

+1 :beer: So we are suffering from other internet board are inferior superstition.

Any others?

[The Human Car]

I can only assume that it's trolling due ... Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I’m “trolling” to make a point on what consist of a logical argument and what does not. Just because some other group created something to control or subjugate another group does not in itself imply that it is evil.

[CB HI]

... Just because some other group created something to control or subjugate another group does not in itself imply that it is evil.
It is interesting how your statement applies to motorist creating bike lanes to control and subjugate cyclist.

[Bekologist]

i think john forester has sadly turned into an automobile & congestion advocate.

and he thinks most cyclists should not be riding on the streets. what an elitist.

[genec]

i think john forester has sadly turned into an automobile & congestion advocate.

and he thinks most cyclists should not be riding on the streets. what an elitist.

Sadly most cyclists do not ride in the streets. Most ride in parks, on paths and on sidewalks.

A rare few actually ride in the streets.

[Bekologist]

???

what? here in Seattle, most riders are riding the streets. despite them riding the roadways, john would consider most of them 'incompetant' and unfit to ride roads. he's an elitist, pontificating prig.

[JRA]

As far as I can tell, according to John Forester, we should be opposed to a lot of things, including mass transit, urban planning and urban planners, motorists and anti-motorists, perhaps even utility cycling but, most importantly, we should oppose anyone who doesn't bow to John Forester's infinite wisdom (and, possibly, any cyclist who isn't a "high mileage road cyclist", a.k.a. a club cyclist) -- ideally, we should belittle and ridicule such infidels. Of course, anyone with the audacity to disagree with The Great One is scum.

Who gives a rat's behind about John Forester's nutcase social and psychological theories? Forester is the clown prince of cycling advocacy, an arrogant and insulting egomaniac and an embarassment to rules of the road cyclists everywhere.

Apologists for John Forester notwithstanding, the biggest obstacle to rational discussion is John Forester, who has made a conscious choice to be devisive. Forester has made a career of being insulting, calling people liars and implying that anyone who disagrees with him is mentally deficient. Belittling people is the very basis of JF's philosophy.

If you want to start an argument among cyclists, just mention Forester's name -- but be prepared for some laughter and ridicule.

Forester's social and psychological theories are a joke (no matter how many times he repeats them). It amuses me no end that anyone takes Forester's wacko theories seriously. The guy knows a lot about cycling and yet he still manages to be very wrong in some very fundamental ways. He's a classic case of what my father used to call a know-it-all who knows a lot of things that aren't true.

[genec]

???

what? here in Seattle, most riders are riding the streets. despite them riding the roadways, john would consider most of them 'incompetant' and unfit to ride roads. he's an elitist, pontificating prig.

Most cyclists are not the folks you might see at your local shop Bek. Most cyclists are the Walmart riding park riders and the weekend riders.

Those on the streets actually represent a small proportion of all cyclists... now they may be the higher milage cyclists, but they do not represent a majority of "cyclists."

Just looking at the people numbers here... not the actual miles ridden, nor the days ridden. This fact is why so many motorists consider bikes, "toys;" for them, that is what a bike is. This is also why bike paths are typically geared for 8-10 MPH.

[Bekologist]

no, gene, most bicyclists in seattle are riding in the streets. not the ones i talk to at the shop, MOST bicyclists seen in the city. riding in the streets.

despite that, jonh thinks most are likely incompetant and should be banned from riding a bicycle.

[Bekologist]

is a cyclist a person who owns a bicycle and rides it once a year? or is a cyclist a person that rides a bike, regularily?


Gene, most cyclists in seattle ride the roads.

[Tom Stormcrowe]

+1 :beer: So we are suffering from other internet board are inferior superstition.

Any others?

That's not a superstition! BF is Superior!:D:D:D:beer:

OK Everyone, it's starting to get personal in here, let's dial it back a bit on personal references, thanks!

[JRA]

OK Everyone, it's starting to get personal in here, let's dial it back a bit on personal references, thanks!Huh?

So it's OK for John Forester to personally attact virtually everyone who disagrees with him for over 40 years (even to the point of "love this country or leave it" comments), but it's not OK to point out what an arrogant and insuting egomanical SOB John Forester has been for over 40 years? Gimme a break!

If it's OK for John Forester to be an insuting SOB, it should be acceptable for others to respond in kind.

[The Human Car]

That's not a superstition! BF is Superior!:D:D:D:beer:

OK Everyone, it's starting to get personal in here, let's dial it back a bit on personal references, thanks!

BF is pretty cool. I started this thread to be a logic puzzle not a personality bashing contest. So maybe if I was more focused in my question.

So does Government (group #1) creating laws to subjugate citizens (group #2) mean that laws are inherently bad for citizens (group #2)?

So what do you think, yes, no? Can you explain your answer?

[Tom Stormcrowe]

BF is pretty cool. I started this thread to be a logic puzzle not a personality bashing contest. So maybe if I was more focused in my question.

So does Government (group #1) creating laws to subjugate citizens (group #2) mean that laws are inherently bad for citizens (group #2)?

So what do you think, yes, no? Can you explain your answer?

No, and no, with the following qualification: No group can vote themselves into tyranny faster than scared free citizens;)

Another aspect is that a law voted in for perfectly valid reasons can have unintended consequences, unforeseen because of a faulty cause/effect analysis.:(

[The Human Car]

So it's OK for John Forester to personally attact virtually everyone who disagrees with him ...

I agree that the mods should come down on John when he gets insulting but that still is not a license for open insult season on John. My general rule of thumb is only insult when insulted and then I am done and I think it would be helpful if others at least followed this practice (but better yet would be not to allow the insults in the first place.)

[patc]

I agree that the mods should come down on John when he gets insulting but that still is not a license for open insult season on John. My general rule of thumb is only insult when insulted and then I am done and I think it would be helpful if others at least followed this practice (but better yet would be not to allow the insults in the first place.)

The site has a history of problem posters who do not get disciplined. As far as I can tell, the VC sub-forum is to be pretty much a free-for-all.

[The Human Car]

The site has a history of problem posters who do not get disciplined. As far as I can tell, the VC sub-forum is to be pretty much a free-for-all.

When I first came here a few members would take jabs at each other and it seemed more like watching a Don Rickles competition or something, not exactly inappropriate but not constructive either. But now insulting has gotten really out of hand and I think a lot of people here should realize that when you initiate an insult it is a sign of a weak argument.

Anyway it is really hard on the mods to draw a line on what is appropriate and what is not so it is up to us to give them feed back.

[donnamb]

I agree that the mods should come down on John when he gets insulting but that still is not a license for open insult season on John. My general rule of thumb is only insult when insulted and then I am done and I think it would be helpful if others at least followed this practice (but better yet would be not to allow the insults in the first place.)

The site has a history of problem posters who do not get disciplined. As far as I can tell, the VC sub-forum is to be pretty much a free-for-all.
Where are the reports of personal insults? I check the moderator's board every day, and I'm not seeing them. You'd be surprised at how few reported posts we receive from this subforum. It makes us think participants are comfortable with the tone in here. There are over 80,000 members now, and we cannot be monitoring every single forum all the time, even if we tried. If you're not comfortable, and you're not reporting posts, we can't help. Help us help you. :)

[invisiblehand]

When I first came here a few members would take jabs at each other and it seemed more like watching a Don Rickles competition or something, not exactly inappropriate but not constructive either. But now insulting has gotten really out of hand ...

I thought that this was the whole point of the VC subforum's creation.

... and I think a lot of people here should realize that when you initiate an insult it is a sign of a weak argument.

Anyway it is really hard on the mods to draw a line on what is appropriate and what is not so it is up to us to give them feed back.

[The Human Car]

I thought that this was the whole point of the VC subforum's creation.

To be a comedic act? You may be on to something. :p

[patc]

Where are the reports of personal insults? I check the moderator's board every day, and I'm not seeing them. You'd be surprised at how few reported posts we receive from this subforum. It makes us think participants are comfortable with the tone in here. There are over 80,000 members now, and we cannot be monitoring every single forum all the time, even if we tried. If you're not comfortable, and you're not reporting posts, we can't help. Help us help you. :)

We were told that this sub-forum would basically be a free-for-all, so why should we report posts? I'm not trying to be an ass about this, I am just confused.

I've also never felt it was all that clear on BF.net where the line is. I realize its always somewhat subjective, of course, but I see plenty of personal insults here and rarely see anything done about them, or the people posting them.

I just get along better on heavily moderated professional/technical forums.

[Tom Stormcrowe]

We were told that this sub-forum would basically be a free-for-all, so why should we report posts? I'm not trying to be an ass about this, I am just confused.

I've also never felt it was all that clear on BF.net where the line is. I realize its always somewhat subjective, of course, but I see plenty of personal insults here and rarely see anything done about them, or the people posting them.

I just get along better on heavily moderated professional/technical forums.
That's mainly because of the posting volume. If you do report a post, we'll look at it and if it violates the guidelines, we will deal with it fairly. We don't play favorites, or at least try not to as much as that is possible for a human being.

The other thing is, as Donna mentioned above, if no one complains, then it can be reasonably safely presumed that all are comfortable with the tone. The last thing we want is to become stiflers of free conversation, but if you do get some offensive stuff going, please do report it.

[The Human Car]

BF is pretty cool. I started this thread to be a logic puzzle not a personality bashing contest. So maybe if I was more focused in my question.

So does Government (group #1) creating laws to subjugate citizens (group #2) mean that laws are inherently bad for citizens (group #2)?

So what do you think, yes, no? Can you explain your answer?No, and no, with the following qualification: No group can vote themselves into tyranny faster than scared free citizens;)

Another aspect is that a law voted in for perfectly valid reasons can have unintended consequences, unforeseen because of a faulty cause/effect analysis.:(

So if I can attempt to get this thread back on track.

So while we do have some bad laws, the law making processes is mostly useful.

I am looking to see if anyone can articulate why one separate group would look out for the benefit of another group. Why are not all laws for the sole benefit of those who created them (with the possible exception of the current federal administration.)

[Bekologist]

oh, if jf's wacky theories held water, we'd collectively be against speed limits for automobiles. the desire to limit ones' travel is an inferiority complex against travelling as fast as the roads can carry a smart, capable driver.

we'd also be against automoble insurance, because all drivers are competant and capable and need no underwriting to operate on the roads as drivers of vehicles.

[Tom Stormcrowe]

So if I can attempt to get this thread back on track.

So while we do have some bad laws, the law making processes is mostly useful.

I am looking to see if anyone can articulate why one separate group would look out for the benefit of another group. Why are not all laws for the sole benefit of those who created them (with the possible exception of the current federal administration.)

The best reason of all for one group to look out for the interests of the other is "Enlightened Self Interest". Another might be to work together toward the realization of where their respective goals meet, on the theory that better half than none.

[John Forester]

i think john forester has sadly turned into an automobile & congestion advocate.

and he thinks most cyclists should not be riding on the streets. what an elitist.

Bekologist, both of your statements are self-contradictory, another demonstration of what can reasonably be described as the intellectual problems of bicycle advocacy.

If I were an automobile advocate, I would oppose congestion. Those who advocate congestion are the anti-motorists such as your bicycle advocating self.

You have complained at great length that I advocate cycling on roads rather than cycling on bikeways. Now you choose to complain that I think that most cyclists should not be cycling on the streets.

I understand that a person with the deep insight necessary to produce such seemingly paradoxical statements ought to be considered a near genius, but that level of genius does not become observable by we of lower intellects until it is explained to us in words of no more than five syllables.

[sbhikes]

Tell us, dear Worshipful Ones, what on earth do John Forester's psychological theories have to do with the safe and legal aspect of riding one's bicycle according to the rules of the road, the part of vehicular cycling that most of us have no quarrel with at all? Why do you keep tossing back this part of vehicular cycling when JF's silly pseudo-psycho-babble comes up? Why not take a look at his psychological theories and discuss them straight up? Or are you afraid to look at it?

And to the OP, the problem with your analogy is that while patriarchal culture is a real thing, John Forester's silly theories have no basis in reality so you can't make an accurate comparison. We could choose to oppose or support marriage because of its basis in patriarchal culture but we cannot argue that patriarchal culture isn't real, because it is.

But JF's psychological theories? C'mon? This is utter nonsense. It's just a silly little insult wrapped in a tidy argument and wielded as a weapon against people he feels wronged him in the past. It's nothing but an expression of his grudge, and one that makes him look like a crackpot.

[The Human Car]

I understand that a person with the deep insight necessary to produce such seemingly paradoxical statements ought to be considered a near genius, but that level of genius does not become observable by we of lower intellects until it is explained to us in words of no more than five syllables.

+1/2 At least this is an entertaining insult. (But don’t read this as support for your points, that’s for you and Bek to work out.)

[Cyclaholic]

That's not a superstition! BF is Superior!:D:D:D:beer:

OK Everyone, it's starting to get personal in here, let's dial it back a bit on personal references, thanks!

I agree, I think we should definitely focus on the positives of John Forester, I'll make a start...

The best about JF is that he isn't over here :D

[bmike]

If I were an automobile advocate, I would oppose congestion.



You are an automobile advocate, no?

You are a speaker for the ADC, who very much think that the automobile is the greatest invention ever.*

http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/greatestmed.jpg



*edit - note the speaker's bureau is comprised of a highly diverse group of 12 old white men and 1 white woman, not really in keeping with the 'american dream' of all races, all creeds, and all classes intermingling in a melting pot to form a nation and live side by side in peace

[SingingSabre]

They're not psychological evaluations.

They're psychoillogical evaluations.

That is all.

[nova]

Most cyclists are not the folks you might see at your local shop Bek. Most cyclists are the Walmart riding park riders and the weekend riders.

Those on the streets actually represent a small proportion of all cyclists... now they may be the higher milage cyclists, but they do not represent a majority of "cyclists."

Just looking at the people numbers here... not the actual miles ridden, nor the days ridden. This fact is why so many motorists consider bikes, "toys;" for them, that is what a bike is. This is also why bike paths are typically geared for 8-10 MPH.
At 8 or 10 mph id feel like i was in a perpetual track stand. I keep a 17mph average on the ohio erie towpath trail which is very crowded most times. I get passed by as many people as i pass on a typical day. JF is a idiot in alot of ways his ideals are based off of his personal experience where he has road. For him it is 100% accurate truth for his area its 100% correct for his general area he is the leading expert. His ideas would likely get him killed where i lived before moving to clinton.

[JRA]

They're not psychological evaluations.

They're psychoillogical evaluations.
Exactly. John Forester knows about as much about psychology as I know about particle physics.

Forester couldn't understand how anyone could possibly disagree with his nutcase theories, so he invented a phobia to 'explain' it.

See for yourself. Read Forester's 'proof' of the existance of cyclist inferiority complex. Show it to your neighborhood psychologist and see what they think.

http://johnforester.com/Articles/Social/cycinf.htm

Read Forester's other social theories.

http://johnforester.com/Articles/social.htm

Then come back and tell us all what a great social scientist Forester is.

What a hoot! Crackpotism lives!

Despite all his knowledge of cycling (which is extensive), Forester went off the deep end and entered a world of true lunacy.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Forester went off the deep end and entered a world of true lunacy.
IMO, surreal lunacy.

[Helmet Head]

When I first came here a few members would take jabs at each other and it seemed more like watching a Don Rickles competition or something, not exactly inappropriate but not constructive either. But now insulting has gotten really out of hand and I think a lot of people here should realize that when you initiate an insult it is a sign of a weak argument.

Anyway it is really hard on the mods to draw a line on what is appropriate and what is not so it is up to us to give them feed back.
So you don't get Don Rickles either? Charlie Rose had an outstanding interview with him last week. One of his lines was, "if I was just slinging insults [as people who don't get him tend to think about him] I wouldn't be headlining in Vegas" (paraphrased from memory).

There is a new book out about him, and a documentary coming out soon.

The great comedians are great because they have something of substance to say or share. Certainly this is true of Rickles (and Carlin, Cosby, Robin Williams, Pryor, Carson, Lewis Black, etc.). Some have philosophic things to say, while others mostly comment on the humanity that we all share.

[Helmet Head]

I’m “trolling” to make a point on what consist of a logical argument and what does not. Just because some other group created something to control or subjugate another group does not in itself imply that it is evil.
Your argument is the quintessential strawman.

Forester has never argued that just because some other group created something to control or subjugate another group does in itself imply that it is evil.

There are many individual arguments about bike lanes that, when combined, give reason to oppose them, but probably none of which is sufficient on its own.

Developing a rational position with regard to a particular issue involves looking at all the pros and cons related to that issue, not just one of the cons, dismissing it as insufficient, and settling on the pro side by default.

[Allister]

Despite all his knowledge of cycling (which is extensive), Forester went off the deep end and entered a world of true lunacy.

Oh the irony!