Originally Posted by Bekologist
my biggest objection is foresters' insistence that only 'serious' cyclists have any business riding a bike.
Does he actually say this?
I am about 2/3s through a first pass at Effective Cycling. I read a handful of his other articles. Although I agree that his writing style is not to be admired, (he and I can form a club!) roughly speaking, I understand his beliefs to be that anyone could be taught how to ride safely in a relatively short time.
Well ... before I misinterpret you, what do you mean by serious?
Like others, he is headstrong in his writing. And I can see how people describe his writing as condescending; but with regards to his description of who can cycle and what it takes to ride safely, I don't think that the ideas nor the material content is elitist.
I have not read the article that SBHIKES (Diane) references. So it is hard for me to understand and critique her post. And I am too far behind in my queue to read yet another article. But with that in mind, could you connect the dots to the following paragraph which I found surprising?
Originally Posted by SBHIKES
His first fault is to believe that all people who wish to see better conditions for cyclists have a fear of being hit from behind. Then he decides to call these people with a fear of being hit behind "victims", setting up his whole silly exercise.