Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Do you think you can list in your own words 2 or 3 of what you think are some of John Forester's "long-held assumptions about bicycling, bike lanes, etc." that you think he should consider changing? For each one, please specify the reasons that you do not accept the assumptions.
First, Helmet Head, I have already challenged one of John Forester's long-held assumptions concerning bicycle paths, on a different thread which you can look for if you wish. I have also challenged his words from his book on mirrors. Again, its up to you to look this up. That's two. Right now, I have final exams in biostatistics and radiological health, and so will be laying low for a couple of weeks. I've already spent much too much time on this. I would recommend that you listen to what Dr. Massey has to say above; it could be enlightening to you too.
John
PS--I have also challenged his assumptions on recumbant bicycles, so that's three. Now we are discussing bike lanes, which I feel have a place, and apparently John Forester does not. That's four. There is a propensity to "blame the cyclist in both you, Helmet Head, and John Forester, which is not totally true. That's five. There is much in his book that I like, but the discussion on mirrors...well, I've talked about that already. There is also the discussions I've presented here and on other threads about the concepts of time, distance and shielding for bicycling, which John F. apparently feels are irrelevant. And there is the discussion of highway fatalities, drunken, distracted and impared drivers, which John F. apparently feels is not relavent to bicycling safety as there is not much cyclists can do about it. Finally, there was the discussion of engineering controls verses administrative controls (bicyclist behavior, and vehicular cycling, is an administrative control, whereas roundabouts are an engineering control--one which John F. apparently agrees with--but in general he made fun of my discussion of engineering controls). If you want all the reasons I don't accept his assumptions, I suggest you do a search on my name and do some reading. If in a few weeks, you still need them, I'll work on it.
John,
I've read all your posts. I don't know what you're talking about when you say you've challenged Forester's assumptions. I do believe you believe you've challenged his assumptions. I don't think you actually have, because I don't think you understand them well enough to challenge them. That was my point.
It's interesting that you mention mirrors, because that is an area where Mr. Forester's position has evolved (based on what I've seen him write on other forums as compared to the position stated in his book). But that's a peripheral issue, as are 'bents.
But the more interesting/controversial issue is bike lanes. Within the realm of bike lanes, what is
one specific assumption that you challenge, and for what reasons? I'm not asking for a vague reference. For clarity, please complete these sentences:
One of John Forester's assumption about bike lanes is _____________________.
I know this is one of his assumptions because ________________________.
The reasons he accepts this assumption are _____________________.
The reasons I don't accept it are ___________________________.
In other words,
show us that you're really thinking about these issues, including Mr. Forester's positions, rather than just claiming that you are.