View Single Post
Old 11-18-12, 12:32 PM
  #19  
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Daves_Not_Here
John Forester, (and Sixty-Fiver and gcottay) -- thanks for your indulgence in responding directly and sincerely to my question. Here's the answer I've come up with as to why the level of panty waddage is so high when the topic of Vehicular Cycling versus dedicated cycling infrastructure comes up. It's 2-pronged:

1. There are clear and long-standing differences of opinion as to the effectiveness, feasibility, and desirability of these approaches. Forester is seen as the chief proponent for VC and has become its lightning rod.

2. The nature of internet forum debates are such that even trivial differences are argued with high vitriol. As the discussions are of no consequence, participants tend to argue for argument's sake, rather than for any constructive purpose. I am reminded of Henry Kissenger's observation that "University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small".
The claim that the vitriol in these discussions is limited to these discussions is inaccurate. That's understandable; few of you readers pay attention to the professional press in bicycling matters. In the bike-planning press I am frequently described, and derided, as the man who has held up American bike planning for forty years. I rarely do anything about these claims; if that's their view, then that is what it is, whether accurate or inaccurate. However, two years ago a bicycle planner, Bruce Epperson, published a full length paper about my actions in the Transportation Law Journal. The paper contained many inaccuracies and falsities that betrayed Epperson's emotional response to his belief that I had held up American bike planning for forty years. The editors of the Transportation Law Journal felt, upon reading my corrections, that their integrity required them to publish my entire corrections, even though they were about half the length of the original paper. My corrections can be found at:
http://www.johnforester.com/Articles...view%20TLJ.htm
So you see that I have strongly upset all those whose primary interest is in persuading people to switch trips from motor to bicycle transport: the bicycle trade, the bike planners whose only justification for being called a profession is that they earn money doing it, and the bicycle advocates.
John Forester is offline