Yes, the cyclist inferiority complex is a scientifically psychological condition.
LOL. Got any links from actual psychologists to back that up?
Some explanation is required for the current absurd conditions. Bikeways were invented, designed, promoted, and are funded by motorists with the intent of making motoring more convenient by shoving cyclists aside. Instead of fighting for their rights to operate as drivers of vehicles, a large proportion of cyclists advocate such discriminatory treatment with great emotional fervor, expressing strong belief that such treatment makes cycling much safer, and lower the required skill level, especially for beginners, despite the fact that there has never been any evidence that bikeway systems have either effect. Maybe, Allister, you offer a different explanation than the cyclist inferiority complex for this condition that undoubtedly exists?
My theory is that you're just paranoid.
I see no reason why I should be responsible for teaching bike-path users how to use them both safely and efficiently. That should be the responsibility of those designing and building the paths.
LOL. What an absurd notion.
The minimum design speed for California "bike paths" (the legal name for them) is 40 kph, 25 mph. The issue does not concern the need to limit speed to a safe level; the issue concerns whether it is appropriate to build a facility whose dangers (from whatever causes) are such as to limit the safe speed to considerably below the safe speed on the nearby roadway.
The minimum design speed for a bike path is 40km/h? Are you sure about that?
You ask whether or not I advocate bike paths meeting the safety design standards? I refuse to advocate bike paths that do not meet the standards. Whether or not I advocate building a bike path that is expected to meet the standards depends on the likely use that will be made of it and the source of the funds. If it is expected to provide a useful transportational function, then it is appropriate that transportation funds be used, while if the most likely use is mostly recreational, then recreation funds should be used.
Was that a yes? I guess the question confused you. I didn't ask anything about funding. Let me rephrase it. If a bikepath is mooted to be built, do you try to ensure that it meets the appropriate design standard, or do you argue against building it at all? Whether it's for transportational or recreational purposes is irrelevant - design standards apply equally to each .
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
The most prominent is that motoring provides benefits for people; that's why they choose to use it. It may even be that motoring is more healthful than not motoring; death rates were certainly higher in the pre-motoring age.
:roflmao: Talk about taking a rose-coloured view of things...
buzzman
... the number of locations where bikeways of any type provide a transportation service that is safer and more efficient than that provided by the roadway system is rather small...
I wouldn't dispute this.
Sure the number of miles of bikeways versus the miles of highways will always be a smaller percentage- a much smaller percentage. So what? If 30 miles of bikepaths in an urban environment provides a safe alternative to the hundreds, possibly thousands of miles of roadways that serve that same area it's well worth it in my opinion.
We don't need vast numbers of bikeways just a few well-placed, well-designed facilities that serve as large a number of cyclists as possible.
I-Like-To-Bike
Senility is a sad.
Age has not affected this fellow at all. His vain pomposity and his obtuseness have been consistent for decades.
JRA
It may even be that motoring is more healthful than not motoring; death rates were certainly higher in the pre-motoring age.Priceless! Your insight into the effects of motoring and your understanding of correlation are indeed impressive.
And I've got a new quote for my sig.
You crack me up!
TheWheelman
Sure the number of miles of bikeways versus the miles of highways will always be a smaller percentage- a much smaller percentage. So what? If 30 miles of bikepaths in an urban environment provides a safe alternative to the hundreds, possibly thousands of miles of roadways that serve that same area it's well worth it in my opinion.
Who passed you on third-grade arithmetic? 30 miles of segregationist paths for every thousand miles or thereabouts of roadways is about the proportion that exists in my area, and it checks with the fact that I find these pork-barrel farce-sillities useful for no more than a couple or three percent of my cycling miles.
TheWheelman
Senility is a sad.
Not as bad as advanced atrophy, which is what you obviously must have from being a full-time mouse potato.
TheWheelman
Well if you wish to reduce the large waistlines of the people of a country, reduce the use of limited fossil fuels, and reduce congestion of the hiways... then perhaps a strong devotion to cycling is the answer, and to do that, sidepaths and separated bikeways seem to be better at helping to achieve those end results than vehicular cycling alone... the latter which doesn't seem to encourage cycling at all.
To your second paragraph... I say the same thing regarding cyclists using paths that may also have pedestrians upon them... if such paths are so congested as to limit the cyclist to travel at "normal speed" then "so what." The cyclist only has to simply slow down, then the paths which you seem to detest so much, are indeed quite serviceable to that cyclist.
The answer to your question, "so what", is that your two paragraphs are in total contradiction of each other. But then, what else is new, considering that the pair of statements is coming from the mouth of a cyclist-inferiority advocate (whose incapability of noticing such a thing while proofreading, is just more proof, as if we didn't already have enough of it, of the existence of the malady documented in the book Effective Cycling).
genec
You know for all the naysaying... the fact still remains... the cities cited in the Pucher paper have more active cyclist ridership than any location comparable that depends on "Vehicular Cycling" alone.
Allister
You know for all the naysaying... the fact still remains... the cities cited in the Pucher paper have more active cyclist ridership than any location comparable that depends on "Vehicular Cycling" alone.
I can only conclude from this thread that Forester and his sycophants have no interest in increasing bicycle ridership. Or, if they do, have been singularly unsuccessful using the methods they have chosen, and yet are beligerantly resistant to any suggestions that this is the case, or that a more holistic attitude might be more successful.
That is NOT bicycle advocacy, nor cycling advocacy, nor anything that might help cyclists other than at the very micro level of the individual getting some tools to shoehorn themselves into a system designed and built with motor traffic in mind.
Allister
Not as bad as advanced atrophy, which is what you obviously must have from being a full-time mouse potato.
You sure post a lot for such an anti-technologist.
But your attempt at yet another threadjacking is noted.
I-Like-To-Bike
I can only conclude from this thread that Forester and his sycophants have no interest in increasing bicycle ridership. Or, if they do, have been singularly unsuccessful using the methods they have chosen, and yet are beligerantly resistant to any suggestions that this is the case, or that a more holistic attitude might be more successful.
That is NOT bicycle advocacy, nor cycling advocacy, nor anything that might help cyclists other than at the very micro level of the individual getting some tools to shoehorn themselves into a system designed and built with motor traffic in mind.
A more precise description of Forester brand bicycling advocacy advocacy goals was found in this eight year old chestnut from Chainguard (1999) where Forester discuss a cyclist protection organization. His goal is cycling advocacy for the only cyclists that are worthy in Forester Land. The Blessed "Lawful Competent Cyclists" are AKA cyclists with formal training in Forester's proprietary courses/books, cyclists who have had had an "Effective Cycling' epiphany by reading his books/materials or members of cycling clubs (his kind of people). The goal is focused - more Vehicular Cyclists and screw everybody else.
Quote The Guru: "The analysis must start with consideration of what kind of cyclist is to be supported by the organization. Beginning cyclists, incompetent cyclists, off-road cyclists, people who advocate bicycle riding because bicycle riding is a 'good' thing? Those are not my choices. My choice is the body of lawful, competent cyclists, those called vehicular cyclists. Sure, we can advocate beginning cyclists, but only insofar as we aid them in becoming lawful, competent cyclists. Sure, we can advocate more cycling, but only as it gets done by lawful, competent cyclists. There are many reasons for making this choice, but I won't go into them here.
Having decided that the organization is to protect and encourage lawful, competent cyclists, the next step in the analysis is to determine which characteristics of these cyclists and of the world they operate in are most important to their continued operation. Is an increase in the number of bicycle riders to be advocated? Well, not per se, because most of those who would be attracted by the conventional enticements will be not merely incompetent cyclists but believers in incompetent cycling. Their increase would be bad for the members of the organization. The only desirable grounds for attracting new cyclists is to have more lawful competent cyclists. Therefore, the method of attracting them should select those most likely to become lawful and competent cyclists, and the organization must have a plan for training these new cyclists. How about bikeways? These are not only bad for lawful, competent cyclists, but they give increased power to the prevalent superstition that well-designed roads are too dangerous to cycle upon. Therefore, it is to the strong interest of the organization to oppose bikeways."
Allister
A more precise description of Forester brand bicycling advocacy advocacy goals was found in this eight year old chestnut from Chainguard (1999) where Forester discuss a cyclist protection organization. His goal is cycling advocacy for the only cyclists that are worthy in Forester Land. The Blessed "Lawful Competent Cyclists" are AKA cyclists with formal training in Forester's proprietary courses/books, cyclists who have had had an "Effective Cycling' epiphany by reading his books/materials or members of cycling clubs (his kind of people). The goal is focused - more Vehicular Cyclists and screw everybody else.
Quote The Guru: {elitist blathering snipped}
Funnily enough, all the cyclists I saw in Europe when I was there seemed quite lawful and competent to me, despite them probably never having heard of 'Effective Cycling'. Amazing, eh?
invisiblehand
I can only conclude from this thread that Forester and his sycophants have no interest in increasing bicycle ridership.
I believe you are right.
If my memory is correct, he feels that efforts to increase ridership have a very small return. Ergo, bicycle advocacy efforts are better spent elsewhere.
invisiblehand
The goal is focused - more Vehicular Cyclists and screw everybody else.
Oh ... I forgot that part in my last post.
Personally, I don't see how this vision is going to motivate others to respect and support cyclists' rights. That is, if most cyclists are "very recreational" and have little interest in zipping around--i.e., they rather coast like the Shimano program--then it makes sense to work with it.
TheWheelman
nor anything that might help cyclists other than at the very micro level of the individual getting some tools to shoehorn themselves into a system designed and built with motor traffic in mind.
The individual is indeed where it's at! And there's nothing "micro" about it; it's how it works in most of the world. Get used to it, or move to one of Pucher's beloved micro-distance countries.
Incidentally, Allister, you might consider changing your avatar if you knew how much of a dead ringer your current one is of a certain 30-pack-a-day-drinking neighbor of mine. At least as much of a dead ringer, indeed, as your name is; that too would be exactly the same as his if it had "Mc" in front of it. I had a dream about him last night, in which the jail that he's in gave him more space than it actually does.
TheWheelman
Funnily enough, all the cyclists I saw in Europe when I was there seemed quite lawful and competent to me, despite them probably never having heard of 'Effective Cycling'. Amazing, eh?
It's apparent that you missed I-Like-To-Bike's confession of being a red-light-running scum. You can find it in the 2004-or-thereabouts archives of the BicyclingAdvocacy yahoo group.
Allister
The individual is indeed where it's at! And there's nothing "micro" about it; it's how it works in most of the world. Get used to it, or move to one of Pucher's beloved micro-distance countries.
America, is not 'most of the world'.
Some success can be realised at the individual level, but without macro-level support like infrastructure, financial incentives, more intelligent town planning, balanced laws that are failry enforced etc. etc. etc. it's only ever going to be very limited success, if it's noticeable at all. In other words, society as a whole has to get behind the idea that cycling is a Good Thing that benefits all. When so-called 'cycling advocates' won't even do that, there's no hope.
Incidentally, Allister, you might consider changing your avatar if you knew how much of a dead ringer your current one is of a certain 30-pack-a-day-drinking neighbor of mine. At least as much of a dead ringer, indeed, as your name is; that too would be exactly the same as his if it had "Mc" in front of it. I had a dream about him last night, in which the jail that he's in gave him more space than it actually does.
Yeah. I put that up there just to remind you of him. :rolleyes:
buzzman
Who passed you on third-grade arithmetic? 30 miles of segregationist paths for every thousand miles or thereabouts of roadways is about the proportion that exists in my area, and it checks with the fact that I find these pork-barrel farce-sillities useful for no more than a couple or three percent of my cycling miles.
:roflmao:
Wheelman,
I use a bike path to commute to work daily. I am on the bike path for 18 miles of my 22 mile roundtrip commute. That's over 80% of my average daily mileage on the bike on bike paths. I'll ride about 7,200 miles this year and about 70% of it is commuting miles. Meaning that about 55% of my bike riding this year will have been on a bike path.
That has not always been the case for me but I happen to be working at a place where it is convenient to use a bike path to get to work. I've had jobs with a round trip commute of 42 miles- all road, 72 miles round trip- all road. But right now I'm using a bike path. And I used bike paths and bike lanes all summer in NYC and I liked them. My wife, who also bikes to work, does a 16 mile roundtrip and 14 of the miles she rides daily are on the bike path. It's a larger percentage of her total mileage for the year because she does less overall riding than I do.
I don't think I am the only cyclist in America who commutes like this on a bike path- I think there are quite a few of them. I see them every day on my commute. I read their reports of their commutes every day in BF in "How was your commute today?". I realize that you may not use paths and that's perfectly fine but the world is bigger than just you and bike paths make a fundamental difference for many of us and are anything but "pork-barrel-farce-sillities". The miniscule amount of highway funds spent on bike paths can have a substantial economic return.
As I've pointed out in other threads my current employer reimburses employees for parking costs to the tune of $110/month. I think that money could be better spent on bike facilities that would encourage more staff to commute by bike.
The city of Boston just spent billions and billions and billions of your tax dollars on one of the largest public works projects in history called the "Big Dig"- to make it easier for Bostonians to drive into Boston. In addition to fatal design flaws and shoddy workmanship the amount of waste and lack of oversight on the project is beyond "pork-barrel-farce-sillities" and Boston still ranks as one of the worst cities for time spent in traffic jams.
And even those paths that many discredit as "going no where" can serve communities. The Ashuwilltocook path that runs from Pittsfield to Adams in Massachusetts has positively contributed to the economic revitalization of some severely depressed rural areas and small towns. The path has become a tourist destination for thousands in the summer months and created lots of small businesses that never would have existed without the path.
The community I have chosen to live in has an excellent public school system with a national reputation, we also have a state of the art public library. Those were two of the reasons I live here- and what's strange is- I don't have kids and I seldom have time to use the library but I'm happy that my tax dollars support these things because they improve the quality of life in general. Quality public works projects do that- Central Park in NYC, for example, even if you never use the park it makes the city a better place for all who live there. Well designed bike paths have the same potential- they improve the quality of life in a city even if you never use them.
The Human Car
America, is not 'most of the world'.
Some success can be realised at the individual level, but without macro-level support like infrastructure, financial incentives, more intelligent town planning, balanced laws that are failry enforced etc. etc. etc. it's only ever going to be very limited success, if it's noticeable at all. In other words, society as a whole has to get behind the idea that cycling is a Good Thing that benefits all. When so-called 'cycling advocates' won't even do that, there's no hope.
Yeah. I put that up there just to remind you of him. :rolleyes:
+100
TheWheelman
balanced laws that are failry enforced etc. etc. etc.
Have you ever walked (not barged; I wouldn't be _that_ unrestrained; that would be "suicide by cop") into a state police station, shown them a piece of paper and said, "I'd like to report a speeder - here's the number of the cop car", and get told to leave to avoid arrest for disorderly conduct? I hate to stick a pin in your I-care-more-about-[fair]-enforcement-than-you balloon, but I have.
I-Like-To-Bike
Funnily enough, all the cyclists I saw in Europe when I was there seemed quite lawful and competent to me, despite them probably never having heard of 'Effective Cycling'. Amazing, eh?
Maybe they are considered incompetent, if not lawless, by Forester and his acolytes because those cyclists are not obsessed with the idea of Speed und "Efficiency" über Alles!
genec
Buzzman... +1000... right on the mark!
TheWheelman
:I use a bike path to commute to work daily. I am on the bike path for 18 miles of my 22 mile roundtrip commute. That's over 80% of my average daily mileage on the bike on bike paths. I'll ride about 7,200 miles this year and about 70% of it is commuting miles. Meaning that about 55% of my bike riding this year will have been on a bike path.
That has not always been the case for me
Nor has _not_ using them always been the case for _me_. In 1981 I lived and worked several miles off either end of the Valley Forge Park one, and, 1981 being at about the end of my cyclist-inferiority-cycling years, I usually added several miles to the distance of the homeward leg of my commute just so that I could use the pork-barrel path for over 50% of the miles of that leg. The fact that this was during only a couple percent of the years of my life only underscores my original point, namely, that you're in a la-la land if you think that bikepaths are ever going to accommodate more than a couple or three percent of transportational cycling trips in more than a couple or three percent of the areas of the world.
The miniscule
Not nearly as miniscule as the $20. (for every school kid in America) that it would cost to distribute the book "Effective Cycling".
amount of highway funds spent on bike paths can have a substantial economic return.
Only a couple or three percent as substantial (based on the about-right arithmetic that you brought up in your earlier post) of an economic return (in the form of saved gas and health costs, fewer dead cyclists and fewer bullets in Iraqi children - do we agree that that's the type of "economic return" that we're discussing?) as distributing the book "Effective Cycling" would.
The city of Boston just spent billions and billions and billions of your tax dollars on one of the largest public works projects in history called the "Big Dig"- to make it easier for Bostonians to drive into Boston. In addition to fatal design flaws and shoddy workmanship the amount of waste and lack of oversight on the project is beyond "pork-barrel-farce-sillities" and Boston still ranks as one of the worst cities for time spent in traffic jams.
Being all the way on the inside of a pretty typical rail-trail organization, I'm not going to confess (by identifying the organization) the shoddiness of a certain local trail project's selection of surfacing material, which, on the first try, eroded away almost immediately after it was laid with your tax dollars.
The community I have chosen to live in has an excellent public school system with a national reputation, we also have a state of the art public library. Those were two of the reasons I live here- and what's strange is- I don't have kids and I seldom have time to use the library but I'm happy that my tax dollars support these things because they improve the quality of life in general. Quality public works projects do that- Central Park in NYC, for example, even if you never use the park it makes the city a better place for all who live there. Well designed bike paths have the same potential- they improve the quality of life in a city even if you never use them.
To each his own. I moved _out_ of those snotty types of places (permanently in 1982 - except for occasional visits, which I enjoy), and you can't pay me enough to return.
TheWheelman
Maybe they are considered incompetent, if not lawless, by Forester and his acolytes because those cyclists are not obsessed with the idea of Speed und "Efficiency" über Alles!
My top gear is 69 inches.
invisiblehand
... red-light-running scum ...
Going through a red light earns the title "scum"?
genec
Not nearly as miniscule as the $20. (for every school kid in America) that it would cost to distribute the book "Effective Cycling".
Ever read it? Maybe about 1/4 of it is valid, the rest is very dated info on bike care and a lot of ego stroking for the author... along with some psychological nonsense known as the cyclist inferiority complex.... :rolleyes:
Yeah, you want to keep kids from cycling... give them this book and tell 'em they can't ride until they've read it... :eek:
Meanwhile you plan on taking those kids out to the nearest 50MPH arterial and teaching 'em how to make left turns across many lanes of traffic? Don't forget to bring grandma too... with her bags of groceries. Perhaps you should start by telling motorists that cyclists have rights to the road, first.
BTW that education you think is so unique... they give that to kids in the countries cited in Puchers' article... Here in the US... you're pretty much on your own... heck, drivers don't even get a "book." Could that be the root of the real problem?
TheWheelman
Does http://www.nepa-rail-trails.org/ know that they have a Pentaverate mole in their midst?
_Triad_ mole is the correct term. Your "Pentaverate" doesn't have the consistency that it takes to hit the broad side of a barn, let alone be a successful thorn in an organization's side for 16 years.
TheWheelman
Going through a red light earns the title "scum"?
Yes, unless either you're turning right or you've sat through enough cycles to deduce that the signal has failed to detect you. Read the Triad.
TheWheelman
Ever read it? Maybe about 1/4 of it is valid,
"1/4" sounds like about the proportion that's about how to ride properly; yes.
the rest is very dated info on bike care and a lot of ego stroking for the author...
That's because a handful of whiners such as I.L.T.B. and yourself, have monopolized his time for so many years with all of your whining which he must then keep on wasting time responding to, thereby preventing him from having time to write a new edition.
Allister
That's because a handful of whiners such as I.L.T.B. and yourself, have monopolized his time for so many years with all of your whining which he must then keep on wasting time responding to, thereby preventing him from having time to write a new edition.
LOL. What are you, his mother? How Forester chooses to spend his time has nothing to do with us.
Allister
Maybe they are considered incompetent, if not lawless, by Forester and his acolytes because those cyclists are not obsessed with the idea of Speed und "Efficiency" über Alles!
I think the phrase was 'childish cyclist'. It helps soothe his delicate ego.
Allister
The fact that this was during only a couple percent of the years of my life only underscores my original point, namely, that you're in a la-la land if you think that bikepaths are ever going to accommodate more than a couple or three percent of transportational cycling trips in more than a couple or three percent of the areas of the world.
So your somewhat parochial experience is applicable to the entire world?
How is la-la land this time of year?
Not nearly as miniscule as the $20. (for every school kid in America) that it would cost to distribute the book "Effective Cycling".
Mate, the bits of that book that would be useful to school kiddies could be covered in a 3 page pamphlet. No need to inflict Forester's ego on the youngsters.
Only a couple or three percent as substantial (based on the about-right arithmetic that you brought up in your earlier post) of an economic return (in the form of saved gas and health costs, fewer dead cyclists and fewer bullets in Iraqi children - do we agree that that's the type of "economic return" that we're discussing?) as distributing the book "Effective Cycling" would.
There's more to life than money, Junior. Not everything, especially not public facilities, needs to show 'economic returns' to be considered successful.
Being all the way on the inside of a pretty typical rail-trail organization, I'm not going to confess (by identifying the organization) the shoddiness of a certain local trail project's selection of surfacing material, which, on the first try, eroded away almost immediately after it was laid with your tax dollars.
If you pay peanuts, you're gonna get monkeys. You should've hired a decent engineer/designer. They're worth the money in the end.
To each his own. I moved _out_ of those snotty types of places (permanently in 1982 - except for occasional visits, which I enjoy), and you can't pay me enough to return.
I'm sure the feeling's mutual.
The Human Car
That's because a handful of whiners such as I.L.T.B. and yourself, have monopolized his time for so many years with all of your whining which he must then keep on wasting time responding to, thereby preventing him from having time to write a new edition.
OMG ILTB and genec in cahoots :eek: :roflmao:
Oh dear. Well you have failed as true believer in Foresterite. Nothing has changed to make the book invalid. Roads are still roads, cars are still cars and cyclists are still cyclists. You now need to do 10 miles on a 55mph shoulder-less expressway to prove your worthiness of being called a Foresterite. And remember to always emulate the one who is infallible... educate by insulting everyone who does not immediately agree with you, that is the only way to keep the true faith pure.
FWIW Forester did not join here till 03-14-07 it looks to me like he is the one choosing to waste his time. For the rest of us there is the ignore feature.
TheWheelman
So your somewhat parochial experience is applicable to the entire world?
Yes, and there was nothing "parochial" about my experience until arguing with cyclist-inferiority cyclists such as yourself started cutting into my cycling time.
How is la-la land this time of year?
You mean the internet? You're the one who should know that, as you waste more time on it than me.
Mate, the bits of that book that would be useful to school kiddies could be covered in a 3 page pamphlet. No need to inflict Forester's ego on the youngsters.
_One_ page is all that my proposed version, the Triad, inflicts. The problem is that y'all complain about that too.
There's more to life than money, Junior. Not everything, especially not public facilities, needs to show 'economic returns' to be considered successful.
The rules of courteous cyberepistolary gunfighting require that you study threads more before you attack a post out of the context of the thread that it's in. I'm not the one who brought up the issue of "economic returns" in this thread.
If you pay peanuts, you're gonna get monkeys. You should've hired a decent engineer/designer. They're worth the money in the end.
You mean like the paid-with-caviar ones that bungled the Big Dig?
Oh, I forgot; it's that same problem again of you shooting yourself in the foot by not bothering to read the post that led up to the post that you attack.
Allister
Yes, and there was nothing "parochial" about my experience until arguing with cyclist-inferiority cyclists such as yourself started cutting into my cycling time.
You've got the wrong fellow there, Junior. I think cycling is the superior form of transport by just about any measure you care to name.
So, just how many countries have you cycled in then? What makes you think you're qualified to speak about cycling in the entire world?
You mean the internet? You're the one who should know that, as you waste more time on it than me.
And yet, you're still here.
_One_ page is all that my proposed version, the Triad, inflicts. The problem is that y'all complain about that too.
Then why suggest Forester's book?
The rules of courteous cyberepistolary gunfighting require that you study threads more before you attack a post out of the context of the thread that it's in. I'm not the one who brought up the issue of "economic returns" in this thread.
Attack? Hypersensitive much? I don't see why my point is any less valid just because you didn't bring it up first. You were still arguing about it using those terms.
You mean like the paid-with-caviar ones that bungled the Big Dig?
Is that what you consider a 'decent engineer/designer'? Strange.
Oh, I forgot; it's that same problem again of you shooting yourself in the foot by not bothering to read the post that led up to the post that you attack.
You're funny.
Fissile
This paper came out of Rutgers!? Wow!
When I was a student at Rutgers in the mid 1980's, the New Brunswick area campus was not what anyone could call "bike friendly".
Trying to ride a bike between the New Brunswick and Piscataway campuses would have been suicidal at the time.
TheWheelman
Oh dear. Well you have failed as true believer in Foresterite. Nothing has changed to make the book invalid. Roads are still roads, cars are still cars and cyclists are still cyclists.
That is correct. Re-read my discussion with my opponent; the one point that he didn't deny agreeing with me on was that the parts of Effective Cycling that _aren't_ about how to ride properly, are the only parts that might need to be updated.
FWIW Forester did not join here till 03-14-07 it looks to me like he is the one choosing to waste his time. For the rest of us there is the ignore feature.
_This_ year, perhaps, he "chose" to waste his time. But if you'd spent more time on the lists that are trying to start a vehicular-cycling organization, you'd know that "I.L.T.B." is merely the current I.D. of a certain cyclist-inferiority trolling kingpin who was over there sabatoging that effort for many years.
TheWheelman
You've got the wrong fellow there, Junior. I think cycling is the superior form of transport by just about any measure you care to name.
That's your problem right there. Feeling inferior _or_ superior to motorists is a political strategy that will fail every time, guaranteeing _inferiority_. Why do you think it's called "cyclist-inferiority"?
So, just how many countries have you cycled in then? What makes you think you're qualified to speak about cycling in the entire world?
Four (the u.S., Canada, Mexico and the Bahamas), but so what? It only took cycling in the first one of them, for me to deduce that the vehicular cycling principle applies everywhere and that there are no exceptions to it; only violations.
And yet, you're still here.
And upgraded to a Windows 95 computer, dug out of the junk heap that is my flea market business after the militantly-clueless high-resolution-ad-unleashing buddies of this site and of yahoo caused my Windows 98 one to clunk the rest of the way out last night.
Then why suggest Forester's book?
Because the discussion that my opponents introduced was about how to dump ISTEA dollars. Distributing a $20. book involves _some_ spending; 5 cent photocopies of a proposed one-page Triad, hardly; I've done the latter _without_ the need for any bankrollers, even in my pre-internet days.
[QUOTE=Allister;5717853]Is that what you consider a 'decent engineer/designer'? Strange.
I was making a _negative_ comment! News Flash: Being a Foresterian does not prohibit one from making one about particular roadway-project engineers/designers.
buzzman
Not nearly as miniscule as the $20. (for every school kid in America) that it would cost to distribute the book "Effective Cycling".
55 million
The projected number of students to be enrolled in the nation’s elementary and high schools (grades K-12) this fall {2006-2007}. See Table 204 at <http://www.census.gov/prod/www/statistical-abstract.html>
55 million X $20= 1.1 billion dollars
Federal-Aid Highway Program Funding for Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and Programs for 1,320 projects (2006)= $339 million dollars (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/bipedfund.htm)
1.1 billion for J.F's book in every school kids hands minus 339 million for 1,320 projects in 2006 for bicyclists and pedestrians= $761 million more to hand out the books!:eek:
Talk about 3rd grade arithmetic.:rolleyes:
Kind of makes one wonder why John Forester campaigns so heavily for Effective Cycling to be taught everywhere. Quite the profit margin at stake here. It would be personally profitable for him to oppose bike paths.
I-Like-To-Bike
_This_ year, perhaps, he "chose" to waste his time. But if you'd spent more time on the lists that are trying to start a vehicular-cycling organization, you'd know that "I.L.T.B." is merely the current I.D. of a certain cyclist-inferiority trolling kingpin who was over there sabatoging that effort for many years.
Sabotage Kingpin am I? What a Loony Tune!! If Forester's book isn't taken as gospel the terrorists have won, eh? :eek:
TheWheelman
55 million X $20= 1.1 billion dollars
1.1 billion for J.F's book in every school kids hands minus 339 million for 1,320 projects in 2006 for bicyclists and pedestrians= $761 million more to hand out the books!:eek:
Talk about 3rd grade arithmetic.:rolleyes:
I rest my case that it is you who doesn't know 3rd grade arithmetic and who wants to tax and spend hundreds of millions of dollars. News flash: Foresterianism isn't knee-jerk and wasteful like cyclist-inferiority advocacy is. Therefore, I thought that it would go without saying, that we'd only feel a need to issue _one_ copy, not thirteen, to each student at an appropriate time sometime during the 13-year K-12 period.
buzzman
I rest my case that it is you who doesn't know 3rd grade arithmetic and who wants to tax and spend hundreds of millions of dollars. News flash: Foresterianism isn't knee-jerk and wasteful like cyclist-inferiority advocacy is. Therefore, I thought that it would go without saying, that we'd only feel a need to issue _one_ copy, not thirteen, to each student at an appropriate time sometime during the 13-year K-12 period.
I took your comments at face value because I wouldn't dare to assume you meant anything but what you said- "every school kid in America".
Alright, what grade kids do you give the books to? Let's say 4th grade - okay that's about 4 million kids or about $80 million just to give them the book. And for those of us who've read "Effective Cycling" and for those of us who have taught 4th graders how many of these 4th graders do we think will actually read this book?- talk about a waste of taxpayer money.:rolleyes: And if you think you can force feed a bicycle education to any grade above 4th no matter what book you give them then you are seriously out of touch with classroom curricula.
Mind you not that I'm against education nor educating young people about cycling but to think you can just throw "Effective Cycling" into the laps of 4 million school children a year and expect them to learn anything is ludicrous. Quality education costs money, just like quality designed bike paths.
None of this comes cheap but there are overall cost benefits to some programs and facilities but it's best to look at the true cost effectiveness of each proposal.
urban_assault
Great, just what every student wants...another textbook. :rolleyes:
...and kids think having to wear a helmet is bad, having to read that book would take all the fun out of riding a bike.
urban_assault
I rest my case that it is you who doesn't know 3rd grade arithmetic and who wants to tax and spend hundreds of millions of dollars. News flash: Foresterianism isn't knee-jerk and wasteful like cyclist-inferiority advocacy is. Therefore, I thought that it would go without saying, that we'd only feel a need to issue _one_ copy, not thirteen, to each student at an appropriate time sometime during the 13-year K-12 period.
:lol:
There is that word again. Preach on brother!
JRA
Since the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from endorsing a religion, it would be unconstitutional to use any taxpayer money to distribute The Gospel of The Great One. Granted, approximately 1/4 of Effective Cycling is relatively non-controversial (and may even be good advice). It's the other 75% of the book which is, and has always been, problematic, containing, as it does, Forester's wacky (to patently absurd) social and psychological theories, and the foundations of the "shoot-yourself-in-the-foot" VC-ist crackpotism to which many life-long rules-of-the-road transportational bicyclists like me are opposed.
If you're looking for something to distribute to all school-children, Street Smarts (http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm) by John S. Allen would be a much better choice. It's vehicular cycling without all the VC-ist lunacy.
While I've recommended Street Smarts without qualification to quite a few people, I do not and would not recommend Effective Cycling to anybody without noting that it's both out of date and, more importantly, contains a considerable amount of stuff that is quite controversial and that I, personally, consider horse manure. I also recommend to anyone who wants to read EC that they find a way to do it without buying the book, lest they further inflate Forester's already grossly over-inflated ego. If VC-ist bible-thumpers are so keen on distributing Effective Cycling, let them spend their own money and not taxpayer money to do it.
If somebody wants to read Forester, I recommend they read his website, especially the social section (http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/social.htm), which contains some classic Forester lunacy. One of my personal favorites is Forester's 'proof' of the existance of cyclist inferiority phobia (http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Social/cycinf.htm). Show that to a psychologist near you and ask them what they think. What a hoot!
The cult of the Followers of The Great One amuses me. The leader has a real knack for alienating those that, were it not for the leader's stubborness (not to mention his penchant for personal attacks), might otherwise be their friends. Forester-inspired VC-ism, with all the divisiveness it represents, is a bicyclist advocacy cul-de-sac.
Forester is full of it. Any advocacy group that doesn't realise that is destined to fail - and, for the sake of bicyclists everywhere, should fail.
I-Like-To-Bike
The cult of the Followers of The Great One amuses me. The leader has a real knack for alienating those that, were it not for the leader's stubborness (not to mention his penchant for personal attacks), might otherwise be their friends. Forester-inspired VC-ism, with all the divisiveness it represents, is a bicyclist advocacy cul-de-sac.
And what about the nutcase Followers who proselytize for him on BF and elsewhere on the Internet?:eek: A double Hoot-Hoot! Recent posts on this list provide a prime example of the type of lunatic attracted to the Forester Flame.
I-Like-To-Bike
Great, just what every student wants...another textbook. :rolleyes:
...and kids think having to wear a helmet is bad, having to read that book would take all the fun out of riding a bike.
Any student who believes what he reads in the Forester Good Book and takes the Pledge won't need no stinkin' helmet anymore. The true believers have heads harder than a coconut.
TheWheelman
I also recommend to anyone who wants to read EC that they find a way to do it without buying the book, lest they further inflate Forester's already grossly over-inflated ego.
Additional measure of size of readership, duly noted.
If VC-ist bible-thumpers are so keen on distributing Effective Cycling, let them spend their own money and not taxpayer money to do it.
It's already been established in this thread that the bikeway advocates therein are the ones who want to tax and spend.
The Human Car
That is correct. Re-read my discussion with my opponent; the one point that he didn't deny agreeing with me on was that the parts of Effective Cycling that _aren't_ about how to ride properly, are the only parts that might need to be updated.
There are certainly a lot of opinions on what to do with that other part of the book that’s for sure. :rolleyes:
_This_ year, perhaps, he "chose" to waste his time. But if you'd spent more time on the lists that are trying to start a vehicular-cycling organization, you'd know that "I.L.T.B." is merely the current I.D. of a certain cyclist-inferiority trolling kingpin who was over there sabatoging that effort for many years.
I think most people in BF have a higher opinion of ILTB … just a troll. :p