Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > > >

Vehicular Cycling (VC) No other subject has polarized the A&S members like VC has. Here's a place to share, debate, and educate.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-13-07, 09:30 AM   #1
genec
genec
Thread Starter
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,967
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 852 Post(s)
Rutgers paper on promoting cycling...

So while the policies in the UK have promoted VC, cycling has declined; whereas in other EU countries, pro people and pro cycling policies have increased cycling.

Take a look at this Rutgers paper: http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/facult...resistible.pdf
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-07, 10:06 AM   #2
twobikes
Healthy and active
 
twobikes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Caldwell, Idaho USA
Bikes: mid-60's Dunelt 10-speed, Specialized Allez Sport Tripple, Trek 7.2 FX
Posts: 887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks for the link. Rutgers does some interesting things. They also have a bunch of papers for download from their Marriage Project. The one on why it is a bad idea to live together before or without marriage is very good. http://marriage.rutgers.edu/
twobikes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-07, 02:58 PM   #3
genec
genec
Thread Starter
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,967
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 852 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by twobikes View Post
Thanks for the link. Rutgers does some interesting things. They also have a bunch of papers for download from their Marriage Project. The one on why it is a bad idea to live together before or without marriage is very good. http://marriage.rutgers.edu/
And this has what to do with cycling? Their papers look well researched, including this one on marriage... if anything that tends to tell me that Rutgers does a thorough job. BTW the paper is not about why it is "bad to live together before marriage," but is instead a paper dealing with marriage in the US and the current trends.
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-07, 03:11 PM   #4
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Bikes:
Posts: 12,321
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 425 Post(s)
Why the second thread on the same paper?
CB HI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-07, 03:27 PM   #5
genec
genec
Thread Starter
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,967
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 852 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CB HI View Post
Why the second thread on the same paper?
Due to the second forum that deals with VC and cyclists faring better.

I think the thread on the Advocacy forum is more suited for increasing ridership... which everyone acknowledges will improve safety due to motorist familiarization with cyclists.

But here in "VC land" the thrust has always been that cyclists fare better... etc. Yet in the countries listed in the paper, cyclists seem to be faring far better using other methods.
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-07, 03:48 PM   #6
twobikes
Healthy and active
 
twobikes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Caldwell, Idaho USA
Bikes: mid-60's Dunelt 10-speed, Specialized Allez Sport Tripple, Trek 7.2 FX
Posts: 887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec View Post
And this has what to do with cycling?
It surprised me that Rutgers is publishing something about cycling. I was familiar with their Marriage Project and commented that they are involved in it, too. My familiarity comes through their study of built in problems related to living together outside marriage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by genec View Post
BTW the paper is not about why it is "bad to live together before marriage," but is instead a paper dealing with marriage in the US and the current trends.
To the contrary, click on the link for "Publications" in the upper left of the screen and you will be taken to a complete list of their studies related to marriage. The one familiar to me is listed there. It is: "Should We Live Together?"
twobikes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-07, 04:02 PM   #7
genec
genec
Thread Starter
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,967
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 852 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by twobikes View Post

To the contrary, click on the link for "Publications" in the upper left of the screen and you will be taken to a complete list of their studies related to marriage. The one familiar to me is listed there. It is: "Should We Live Together?"
I did... and I noted, just as you did, a complete list of studies related to marriage... not just "Should we Live Together."
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-07, 05:08 PM   #8
twobikes
Healthy and active
 
twobikes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Caldwell, Idaho USA
Bikes: mid-60's Dunelt 10-speed, Specialized Allez Sport Tripple, Trek 7.2 FX
Posts: 887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I just finished reading the Rutgers paper promoting cycling. An interesting point is that cycling in the UK, Denmark, and Germany declined strongly from 1952 through 1975. I probably assumed cycling was always a widespread activity in those countries. It has rebounded because those countries intentionally took measures to get people riding bikes for routine trips and other things. That has meant spending a lot of money on bike lanes, publicity and training, and parking facilities for bikes. People in these three countries rarely wear bicycle helmets, yet the rate or injury and fatality is a fraction of what it is in the USA. Many people in the USA do not ride bikes for routine trips because they would not feel safe in traffic. People in these three European countries can assume they are safe on a bike and hardly give it a thought. In most situations, a motorist who is involved with a cyclist is assumed to be at fault and held liable, unless it is very evident the cyclist intended a collision with an automobile. If you downloaded the paper and noticed it is 57 pages long, do not let that hold you back. The last 20 pages are documentation of various kinds.
twobikes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-07, 07:33 PM   #9
genec
genec
Thread Starter
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,967
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 852 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by twobikes View Post
I just finished reading the Rutgers paper promoting cycling. An interesting point is that cycling in the UK, Denmark, and Germany declined strongly from 1952 through 1975. I probably assumed cycling was always a widespread activity in those countries. It has rebounded because those countries intentionally took measures to get people riding bikes for routine trips and other things. That has meant spending a lot of money on bike lanes, publicity and training, and parking facilities for bikes. People in these three countries rarely wear bicycle helmets, yet the rate or injury and fatality is a fraction of what it is in the USA. Many people in the USA do not ride bikes for routine trips because they would not feel safe in traffic. People in these three European countries can assume they are safe on a bike and hardly give it a thought. In most situations, a motorist who is involved with a cyclist is assumed to be at fault and held liable, unless it is very evident the cyclist intended a collision with an automobile. If you downloaded the paper and noticed it is 57 pages long, do not let that hold you back. The last 20 pages are documentation of various kinds.

So the question of "Cyclists fare best?" seems to be answered not by "vehicular cycling methods..." which have yet to increase ridership any where, and do not promote a feeling of good will for cyclists, but in fact: Cyclists fare best when cycling is promoted and encouraged by a government et. al. that believes cycling is a viable transport means for all people. (not just a carefully selected few)
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-07, 11:50 PM   #10
buzzman
----
 
buzzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Newton, MA
Bikes:
Posts: 4,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
genec

thanks so much for the link to this study.

a must read.
buzzman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-07, 10:01 PM   #11
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Rutgers paper on promoting cycling

I have just read Pucher's latest paper as given on his part of the Rutgers website, months before publication.

For a professor of planning, Pucher is less than competent, because he has failed to take notice, or has deliberately ignored, some of the most important planning aspects of his subject. He keeps harping on the fact that, in his favored cities, bicycle transportation dropped markedly when motoring became widely available, and then recovered as anti-motoring and pro-bicycling policies were introduced. These cities grew up without motoring, meaning their urban pattern with all of its commercial, governmental, and social characteristics grew so that all these characteristics worked together in the absence of motoring. There had always been a little motoring since the dawn of the automotive era, but not enough to seriously upset matters. Then, after WW2, motoring became widely available. It is worth noting that in Germany, one of the richer of these nations, Hitler's People's Car was not sold to the public until about 1948. (I had a 1947 one, but that was probably one of those purchased by the British government.)

Once motoring became widely available, there was first a rapid increase in it. Only later did it become obvious that these Obsolete Pre-Automotive Cities were unsuited for motoring. Then it was decided to take measures, some of which involved clearing the way for cars, others of which involved making motoring more costly and difficult, and still others of which involved making special facilities for bicycles. As one would expect from the essentially short-term impulse caused by the addition of motoring to conditions that had existed for at least a century, many centuries for some conditions, the system returned to a system not so far different from what it had been before.

The profession of urban planning ought to be able to consider cities in a systematic way, such as I have just outlined, but Pucher fails to do so. I hear from others in the planning profession that Pucher is considered to be a distant outlier with an axe to grind. I don't know whether his failure is because of ignorance or deliberate choice, but I suspect that this is a matter of ideology.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-07, 10:23 PM   #12
Allister
Devilmaycare Cycling Fool
 
Allister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wynnum, Australia
Bikes: 1998 Cannondale F700
Posts: 3,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Whoa. Deja vu.
Allister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-07, 10:40 PM   #13
buzzman
----
 
buzzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Newton, MA
Bikes:
Posts: 4,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
I have just read Pucher's latest paper as given on his part of the Rutgers website, months before publication.

For a professor of planning, Pucher is less than competent, because he has failed to take notice, or has deliberately ignored, some of the most important planning aspects of his subject. He keeps harping on the fact that, in his favored cities, bicycle transportation dropped markedly when motoring became widely available, and then recovered as anti-motoring and pro-bicycling policies were introduced. These cities grew up without motoring, meaning their urban pattern with all of its commercial, governmental, and social characteristics grew so that all these characteristics worked together in the absence of motoring. There had always been a little motoring since the dawn of the automotive era, but not enough to seriously upset matters. Then, after WW2, motoring became widely available. It is worth noting that in Germany, one of the richer of these nations, Hitler's People's Car was not sold to the public until about 1948. (I had a 1947 one, but that was probably one of those purchased by the British government.)

Once motoring became widely available, there was first a rapid increase in it. Only later did it become obvious that these Obsolete Pre-Automotive Cities were unsuited for motoring. Then it was decided to take measures, some of which involved clearing the way for cars, others of which involved making motoring more costly and difficult, and still others of which involved making special facilities for bicycles. As one would expect from the essentially short-term impulse caused by the addition of motoring to conditions that had existed for at least a century, many centuries for some conditions, the system returned to a system not so far different from what it had been before.

The profession of urban planning ought to be able to consider cities in a systematic way, such as I have just outlined, but Pucher fails to do so. I hear from others in the planning profession that Pucher is considered to be a distant outlier with an axe to grind. I don't know whether his failure is because of ignorance or deliberate choice, but I suspect that this is a matter of ideology.
You managed to cram far more ideology and seem to have a much bigger axe to grind in your 4 paragraphs than I saw in more than 50 pages of the Pucher/Buehler paper. Their study is comprehensive, clear and objectively presented. Your post is rambling, pedantic and highly subjective. Hitler's "people's car" and the fact that you had one in 1947 purchased by the British Government is tangential to say the least.

As a spokesperson and self-proclaimed cycling expert I would think you would craft a more well reasoned argument in response to such a well researched paper.

I would be inclined to not to be so pointed in my response but your opposition, and the opposition of those who are influenced by your notions, to bike lanes, bike paths and progressive change of existing transportation infrastructure affects all of us.

If you have some actual facts to refute the study then by all means have a go. But hearsay ("I hear from others in the planning profession...") and suspicions ("I suspect that this is a matter of ideology.")make your post more of a gossiping rant than a convincing argument.
buzzman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-07, 06:13 AM   #14
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 24,099
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
...considered to be a distant outlier with an axe to grind. I don't know whether his failure is because of ignorance or deliberate choice, but I suspect that this is a matter of ideology.
SAY WHAT!! What Obtuseness! What Hypocrisy!
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-07, 07:24 AM   #15
genec
genec
Thread Starter
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,967
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 852 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
I have just read Pucher's latest paper as given on his part of the Rutgers website, months before publication.

For a professor of planning, Pucher is less than competent, because he has failed to take notice, or has deliberately ignored, some of the most important planning aspects of his subject. He keeps harping on the fact that, in his favored cities, bicycle transportation dropped markedly when motoring became widely available, and then recovered as anti-motoring and pro-bicycling policies were introduced. These cities grew up without motoring, meaning their urban pattern with all of its commercial, governmental, and social characteristics grew so that all these characteristics worked together in the absence of motoring. There had always been a little motoring since the dawn of the automotive era, but not enough to seriously upset matters. Then, after WW2, motoring became widely available. It is worth noting that in Germany, one of the richer of these nations, Hitler's People's Car was not sold to the public until about 1948. (I had a 1947 one, but that was probably one of those purchased by the British government.)

Once motoring became widely available, there was first a rapid increase in it. Only later did it become obvious that these Obsolete Pre-Automotive Cities were unsuited for motoring. Then it was decided to take measures, some of which involved clearing the way for cars, others of which involved making motoring more costly and difficult, and still others of which involved making special facilities for bicycles. As one would expect from the essentially short-term impulse caused by the addition of motoring to conditions that had existed for at least a century, many centuries for some conditions, the system returned to a system not so far different from what it had been before.

The profession of urban planning ought to be able to consider cities in a systematic way, such as I have just outlined, but Pucher fails to do so. I hear from others in the planning profession that Pucher is considered to be a distant outlier with an axe to grind. I don't know whether his failure is because of ignorance or deliberate choice, but I suspect that this is a matter of ideology.
John, England is about as old as Germany... why is it that they too did not "suffer" the same fate and also end up with high bicycle ridership?
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-07, 07:34 AM   #16
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 24,099
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec View Post
John, England is about as old as Germany... why is it that they too did not "suffer" the same fate and also end up with high bicycle ridership?
I hear Italy and Greece have quite a history too. What's the reason for their relatively low (compared to the Northern European countries) bicycle ridership?
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-07, 07:48 AM   #17
genec
genec
Thread Starter
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,967
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 852 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
I hear Italy and Greece have quite a history too. What's the reason for their relatively low (compared to the Northern European countries) bicycle ridership?
Good question... according to John, older cities have a difficult time supporting the motorcar, so one would think that older cities of the world would tend to have proportionally more cyclists than newer cities of the world.
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-07, 09:17 AM   #18
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
You managed to cram far more ideology and seem to have a much bigger axe to grind in your 4 paragraphs than I saw in more than 50 pages of the Pucher/Buehler paper. Their study is comprehensive, clear and objectively presented. Your post is rambling, pedantic and highly subjective. Hitler's "people's car" and the fact that you had one in 1947 purchased by the British Government is tangential to say the least.

As a spokesperson and self-proclaimed cycling expert I would think you would craft a more well reasoned argument in response to such a well researched paper.

I would be inclined to not to be so pointed in my response but your opposition, and the opposition of those who are influenced by your notions, to bike lanes, bike paths and progressive change of existing transportation infrastructure affects all of us.

If you have some actual facts to refute the study then by all means have a go. But hearsay ("I hear from others in the planning profession...") and suspicions ("I suspect that this is a matter of ideology.")make your post more of a gossiping rant than a convincing argument.
The problem is that Pucher's paper is not a well-researched paper, clear and objectively presented. I don't dispute the facts that he has presented, because it is just a collection of facts presented to suit an ideology. I have considered what he has left out, the reasons that his collection of facts might make sense, and that he avoided presenting, to suit a motivation about which he is silent.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-07, 09:27 AM   #19
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 24,099
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
The problem is that Pucher's paper is not a well-researched paper, clear and objectively presented. I don't dispute the facts that he has presented, because it is just a collection of facts presented to suit an ideology. I have considered what he has left out, the reasons that his collection of facts might make sense, and that he avoided presenting, to suit a motivation about which he is silent.
Rutgers paper on promoting cycling...
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-07, 09:42 AM   #20
Allister
Devilmaycare Cycling Fool
 
Allister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wynnum, Australia
Bikes: 1998 Cannondale F700
Posts: 3,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
The problem is that Pucher's paper is not a well-researched paper, clear and objectively presented.
I'm surprised you, of all people, have a problem with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
I don't dispute the facts that he has presented, because it is just a collection of facts presented to suit an ideology.
Translation: I can't argue with his actual words...

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
I have considered what he has left out, the reasons that his collection of facts might make sense, and that he avoided presenting, to suit a motivation about which he is silent.
Translation:... so I'll make a bunch of ***** up, and argue with that.
Allister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-07, 09:47 AM   #21
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec View Post
Good question... according to John, older cities have a difficult time supporting the motorcar, so one would think that older cities of the world would tend to have proportionally more cyclists than newer cities of the world.
When I read the first of these questions, regarding England, I was prepared to offer France as equally relevant; now many more are offered, and there are many more besides, in several continents. The question is important and worth considering. In the great cities of India and China, and elsewhere in Southeast Asia, which are old cities, we see just the large proportion of bicycle traffic that the hypothesis suggests, and which has long existed (but is changing). But in some cases offered, such as Athens, there was never widespread cycling. It didn't start, for whatever reason, so that there was nothing to rejuvenate in the automotive era. This means that there are other factors than just the age of the urban pattern.

The most relevant contrasting examples are France and Britain, which were both prime cycling nations that have changed largely to motoring. However, note this. In those nations which have preserved cycling in their old urban cores, the new developments are in the modern style, more suited to motoring and in which motoring has overtaken cycling. I think that France and Britain show the combined effects of both social histories and urban patterns (one leading to the other) that differ from those of north-central Europe. Both nations had early wealth and national stability, leading to more open cities that were more suited to motoring than the more cramped cities of north-central Europe. They also started widely-available motoring earlier, so that they have had longer to adjust. But I am sure that other factors are also relevant, but as yet unidentified.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-07, 11:22 AM   #22
buzzman
----
 
buzzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Newton, MA
Bikes:
Posts: 4,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
The problem is that Pucher's paper is not a well-researched paper, clear and objectively presented... it is just a collection of facts ... I have considered what he has left out...
wow.

there's a solid foundation for a rebuttal to the study.
buzzman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-07, 12:04 PM   #23
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 24,099
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
wow.

there's a solid foundation for a rebuttal to the study.
But the response answered the question of another thread, "What Happened to John Forester?" That is: Nothing, he's the same ol' generator of JF Brand "Analysis" and JF Brand "Logic/Science" on cycling subjects. Hasn't changed or altered a word in 30 years. He was 100% right on everything then and remains so today, and anyone with a different opinion/conclusion is 100% wrong. Also applies to any data or report that does not meet his dogmatic standard.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-07, 12:39 PM   #24
buzzman
----
 
buzzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Newton, MA
Bikes:
Posts: 4,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-to-Bike
But the response answered the question of another thread, "What Happened to John Forester?" That is: Nothing, he's the same ol' generator of JF Brand "Analysis" and JF Brand "Logic/Science" on cycling subjects. Hasn't changed or altered a word in 30 years. He was 100% right on everything then and remains so today, and anyone with a different opinion/conclusion is 100% wrong. Also applies to any data or report that does not meet his dogmatic standard.
Unfortunately, I think you may be right here. At least that's what I get from his posts on this subject.

to further highlight John's comments in terms of a legitimate dispute of the study:


Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
...facts presented to suit an ideology... to suit a motivation about which he is silent.


Wouldn't it makes sense that even if a researcher had a particular ideology or even a motivation a study should be devoid of such opinions and contain only facts?

Ideological arguments can be endless (as evidenced by much of the discourse here in A&S) factual presentation can be disputed until the facts are determined to be legitimate or not. Then the ideologues can keep on sputtering around those conclusions till they're blue in the face but those of us interested only in logical solutions to definable problems and unafraid of occasionally being wrong can get some work done.

And are we to take John's word that such an ideology exists? Or does he draw these conclusions because of something "he heard from others in the planning profession" And I suspect those others may simply be others who agree with John's notions about cycling and advocacy. And round and round it goes. Let's keep the spinning wheels on our bikes at least when we put them to the ground they get us somewhere.
buzzman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-07, 04:23 PM   #25
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
Unfortunately, I think you may be right here. At least that's what I get from his posts on this subject.

to further highlight John's comments in terms of a legitimate dispute of the study:

Wouldn't it makes sense that even if a researcher had a particular ideology or even a motivation a study should be devoid of such opinions and contain only facts?

Ideological arguments can be endless (as evidenced by much of the discourse here in A&S) factual presentation can be disputed until the facts are determined to be legitimate or not. Then the ideologues can keep on sputtering around those conclusions till they're blue in the face but those of us interested only in logical solutions to definable problems and unafraid of occasionally being wrong can get some work done.

And are we to take John's word that such an ideology exists? Or does he draw these conclusions because of something "he heard from others in the planning profession" And I suspect those others may simply be others who agree with John's notions about cycling and advocacy. And round and round it goes. Let's keep the spinning wheels on our bikes at least when we put them to the ground they get us somewhere.
It is quite acceptable for a scientific paper to present only newly observed data. As Bernard K. Forscher wrote in "Rules for Referees", Science; 150: 319-321, 1965: "When it is serving as a medium of communication, what, specifically, does the journal communicate? Three important types of message constitute its raison d'etre: (I) new facts or data, (ii) new ideas, and (iii) intelligent reviews of old facts and ideas."

However, while Pucher's latest paper presents many "facts or data", they are not new; all this has been known for years, and Pucher has published such stuff before this. Pucher presents no new ideas, indeed no ideas at all. Neither does Pucher provide an intelligent review of old facts and ideas.

Given these defects in Pucher's paper, it is most reasonable to inquire as to why so many participants in this group have chosen to think so highly of it?

Therefore, I ask all of you who think well of Pucher's "Irresistible" paper, please tell the rest of us why you think well of it?
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:18 AM.