Originally Posted by Helmet Head
So you meant, "surprised that anyone could take any of Forester's ideas seriously"? If so, my point stands. I, for one, do take his ideas seriously.
Here's the thing, in order to understand his ideas, you have to take those ideas seriously in the first place. If you don't do that, then you will not understand what the idea is. If you don't understand his ideas, then it's easy to say you can't believe anyone would take them seriously, because you don't know what you're talking about.
Don't agree? It should be easy to prove me wrong, by answering these two questions:
- What is one of Forester's ideas - going by what he actually said, and making a genuine effort to understand what he meant - that you cannot take seriously?
- Why are you unable to take this idea seriously?
Are you telling me that because I don't take Forester seriously, I don't understand what he's saying? In other words, if I were intelligent enough to read his article, I would see the light, but since I don't see the light, I must not be able to understand what he means.... Hmm.
At any rate, here's one idea that I cannot take seriously: That people who advocate for accomodations for bikes in our infrastructure are motivated by a mass clinical phobia about getting hit from behind by a motor vehicle. Their fear of this unlikely event is so deep-seated that they fear for others as well as themselves, and advocate for a complete separation of bikes and cars. He couches this ridiculous idea in academic language, but it's still goofy as all get-out, and that's why I'm laughing at him.