Originally Posted by sbhikes
Originally Posted by genec
I honestly believe that we are taught the cyclist inferiority phobia in our youth.
I did read that and probably it is true for a lot of people.
Like I said, this is all much ado about nothing. Here, Diane acknowledges regarding the essence of the particular Forester piece that she cited in the OP:
probably [being taught the cyclist inferiority phobia in our youth] is true for a lot of people. That is Forester's only point in that piece: that the cyclist-inferiority phobia does exist. She apparently agrees. So what is all this "debunking" really about? How is it debunking of what Forester said in the piece cited in the OP at all?
Originally Posted by CrosseyedCrickt
A phobia is an irrational fear, not a rational one.
Agreed. And Forester's hypothesis is that many people's fear of being hit from the rear while bicycling is irrational, comparable to the fear many have of, for example, flying in airplanes.
Being involved in an automobile accident, happens how many times a day and in various forms?? Now to have a fear of that is irrational?? Give ME a break!
Being concerned about being involved in a crash, and taking appropriate measures as a result is one thing. But refusing to participate in the activity at all - in this case riding a bike in traffic - given the high unlikelihood of the feared crash occuring, is irrational, just as fearing flying is irrational, despite the non-zero likelihood of any plane falling out of the sky.
But we can argue about criteria that determines whether something is "irrational" or not all day, another semantic argument (much ado about nothing). Forester showed why he believes the fear is a phobia based on DSM criteria. If you have an issue with his reasoning, then address that. Diane already acknowledged it (which goes to show that she's more interesting in vilifying Forester so that his arguments about bike lanes are "debunked" by association rather than debunking this particular piece).
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Words should be evaluated, credited or debunked, not people.
Nobody is posting pictures of John Forester. Or talking about his mother. It is his words that are being debunked; they debunk themselves for anyone who can read and think logically.
But the purpose of the particular words that are posted are not to debunk any particular position of Forester, it is an attempt to vilify Forester, so that the words of his which you cannot debunk are "debunked" by association, just because they happen to come from the same vilified source.
Yes, he is an arrogant curmudgeon. Yes, he uses hyperbole. But no one takes his words as gospel (disgree? then why don't you have any examples of anyone doing
that?), and of course, no one should. There is no need to make that point, over and over. No one's words should be taken as gospel. Heck, many people argue that
gospel should not be taken as gospel. But Forester's words certainly should not be.
Again, the zealous ones think their words, parables and mantras (Oh, The Wages of Sin!) are sacred and choose to take personally all debunking and ridicule of their foolish and outlandish statements.
No one thinks anything that Forester says is "sacred". He, like anyone else who has posted a fraction of what Forester has posted on the internet, has said many foolish and outlandish things. So what? More attempts to vilify again.
And no one here is going to write a 600 page treatise analyzing every phrase and parable of Forester's books to find a phrase or two that makes sense; there is enough word crap available on his web site to repudiate/debunk any thought of taking this character seriously.
There you go again attempting to vilify the person ("this character"), and using hyperbole no less, as if there is only a phrase or two that makes sense in all of his 600 page book.. What you are attempting to do is discredit
everything Forester has ever said, simply because he is an arrogant curmudgeon who has made his fair share of foolish and silly posts, regardless of whether it makes sense or not.
You are and have been a member of several lists he has been on,
for years, and you cherry pick those posts of his (out of thousands of posts) that illustrate his arrogance and curmudgeonness, just so you can whip them out in an attempt to vilify him, because you cannot debunk much of what he has written about the issues with which you disgree most strongly.