Originally Posted by John Forester
It is easy to observe and to measure the traffic behavior of cyclists on the roadways. Beginning in the late 1970s, I have observed and measured the behavior of some hundreds of cyclists. My criterion for rating is shown on the Forester Cycling Proficiency Score Sheet, shown on my website and in the Effective Cyclist Instructor's Manual. The traffic criteria are all concerned with obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Those cyclists range from randomly selected general population cyclists in various "bike friendly" cities to club cyclists in much the same cities. The average performance for the cycling populations of those cities was uniformly flunking.
There is zero correlation between any rating on the Forester Cycling Proficiency Score Sheet with any other cycling metric, be it safety, efficiency, fun, or anything else. Forester does not gather or provide an iota of evidence or data about these "rated" individuals' safety record or anything else related to their cycling. The cyclists' experiences, safety record, or daily cycling environment/experiences, (i.e. where, when, or how often any of these randomly selected cyclists cycle) was never measured yet Forester makes all sorts of conjured
Reasonable Assumptions about his sample population.
All that the above observations and measurements amount to are just Forester's arbitrary rating scheme, period. A rating scheme which when included with a quarter is worth exactly 25 cents, given its correlation with nothing. Except maybe Forester's definition of cycling skill which is also correlated with nothing except Forester Brand
Reasonable Assumptions.