Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Baloney! I understand PERFECTLY what Forester is saying and has written. I don't need to search though the works of a notorious and habitual fabricator of safety data and nonsensical risk analyses to search for a few pearls of wisdom.
At least you're acknowledging that Forester's work includes pearls of wisdom for which I, for one, am very appreciative.
Forester has earned the complete disrespect he gets for any and all his quantitaive claims about cycling safety, especially as it relates to his totally fabricated fantastic safety recod of Vehicular Cyclists. Forester's track record for bending the truth to fit his agenda goes back 30 years. You want to believe a habitual fabricator and distorter of the facts (in relation to bicycling safety), be my guest and continue to have problems with "misunderstandings."
You're just trying to vilify Forester and discredit his complete body of work again.
I don't want to "believe" a habitual fabricator and distorter of the facts.
I don't want to "believe"
anybody on such critical matters as my safety in traffic, and I don't.
I don't "believe" you, Bekologist, Chipcom, Diane, Gene, Al, Daily Commute, Robert Hurst, Geof, Jeffrey Hiles, Stephen Goodridge, Brian Ratliff, John Ratliff, John Eldon, John Franklin, John Allen
or John Forester on these matters. Do you? Does anybody? Do you know anybody who does?
But just because I don't "believe" what anyone says, doesn't mean I won't listen to it, try to understand, give it careful consideration, and critically evaluate. After all that, I may walk away with something that I will try to use. Most likely I will. I think I've probably learned something valuable from every person in that list, but yet I did not "believe" any one of them.