Old 05-10-07, 10:15 PM
  #24  
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by buzzman
#1. As someone who has been involved in cycling advocacy (and remains active) since 1970. I respectfully disagree. The discussions in the A&S forum and in this sub-forum in particular are not representative of most contemporary urban planning and advocacy, which is more accurately represented by groups like "Livable Streets" and "Transportation Alternatives". These groups are far more wholistic in their approach to the integration of bicycles as part of a broad spectrum of solutions to the flaws of our transportation infrastructure with particular attention to congested urban areas.
They are far less narrow minded, remarkably resourceful, open minded and accepting of new ideas and approaches than anything I have seen in this sub-forum. I very occasionally lurk here and very seldom post in this sub-forum because it is usually a waste of valuable time spent either biking, involved in real advocacy, doing my laundry, watching a movie or reading a good book.

#2.see the above. I think anyone posting, lurking or obsessing over the VC sub-forums is deluding themselves if they think they are actually providing useful information, promoting cycling or safe cycling practices. This sub-forum seems devoted to those who love to argue. The fact that in the year and a half I've been reading and posting in BF the same arguments have been spinning their wheels with no forward momentum at all is all the evidence I need that it is for entertainment value at best. I liken it to putting your bike on a trainer, riding it for 5 hours and claiming to have ridden a challenging century. It's not the same thing. Sure it's a workout but it's a virtual workout- you haven't really gone anywhere.

#3. Again, I respectfully disagree. If the same 2 dozen people who post here regularly spent a like number of hours riding their bikes, talking with other cyclists, attending advocacy meetings, writing to legislators it would be infinitely more valuable. And open minds and civil discourse would be evident in these threads, which in my opinion is sorely lacking.
Ah, yes, Livable Streets and Transportation Alternatives, two of the big noises in the anti-motoring sphere, reasonably "representative of most contemporary urban planning and advocacy," which is precisely what's wrong with them. Anyone who thinks that "contemporary urban planning and advocacy" will do anything significant for the welfare of cyclists is deluded. That field is primarily opposed to motoring, with, unfortunately, the side effect of being harmful to cyclists. And, in fact, not able to do much good for cyclists by producing new cities that are suited to bicycle transportation.
John Forester is offline