Buzzman, thank you for the clarification. To put that in context, allow me to quote invisiblehand:
Originally Posted by
invisiblehand
...this applies to both sides of the aisle -- I think that many a reader fails to put in any effort to understand the writer. Moreover, I would argue that some purposely distort the meaning for their own purpose.
With that in mind, particularly the bold part...
Originally Posted by
buzzman
HH, please allow me to take responsibility for any errors in communication you seem to have from what I posted.
I lifted JF's statement because it was illustrative of a point that I, and dare I say several others, have continuously made in these forums. And the point is that JF's tendency towards denigration of cyclists makes it difficult to understand for whom or what he is advocating. The use of the word "stupid" is nothing I recall seeing in instructions of that time. The word and it's use in that context is solely JF's interpretation of what is being implied in cycling instructions that he may or may not necessarily agree with. My sense is that JF advocates for his distinct version of what he coined as "Vehicular Cycling". He does not advocate for cyclists, he does not advocate for "safer streets" and he holds those who do not follow the strict dogmatic and ideological interpretation of his particular brand of VC as gospel with great contempt and disdain.
My questions about what he implies were actually meant, therefore, to be interpreted with a touch of irony- since I know quite well that JF encourages cyclists to signal their intentions, to look back and confirm that their intentions have been communicated and to only make their turns when they are certain they can safely proceed. But I also know that JF thinks cyclists that do not fall in lock step with his methodologies are referred to as phobic, stupid, children.
And that, my dear reader, was the point I was attempting to make.
Ah, so you purposely distorted the meaning of Forester's words in order to further your own purpose (discredit Forester because you object to what you think he thinks).
Consider Forester's words again in the entire paragraph from which you lifted the one statement:
Originally Posted by
John Forester
Note the import of the instructions. Stopping at stop signs protects the motorists who have right of way. Signalling your turns alerts motorists that the cyclist is going to do something stupid, like turn in front of them.
Is it really so outlandish to suggest a motorist perspective that considers a cyclist turning in front of him to be doing something stupid? Of course the word "stupid" was not used in the instructions, and Forester wrote nothing that implied that it was. What he is saying is that the instructions are written from an implied motorist perspective that anticipates cyclists to act stupidly, doesn't even try to address that, but does try to encourage cyclist behavior that would make it easier for motorists to avoid hitting cyclists despite their stupid behavior. That's why they teach them to stop at stop signs, but not mention anything about yielding to other traffic before proceeding. That's why they teach cyclists to signal turns, but nothing about looking back (which is not as easy as it sounds - and that's per Robert Hurst as well as Forester et al.) and again nothing about yielding.
You say you object to him pointing this out because your "sense is that JF advocates for his distinct version of what he coined as 'Vehicular Cycling'". This seems to amount to some kind of emotional objection to nothing more than JF giving a name to what he advocates, because in this case all he is talking about is the importance of yielding as well as stopping at stop signs, and looking back and yielding as well as signaling when turning, unless you're disagreeing with him on that. Are you? If not, what is the
substance of your objection to what Forester posted and to which you responded with admitted irony and pretty blatant derision?
Originally Posted by
John Forester
And now to another point somewhat related. Why single out JF's statement, style, his posts in particular? I do so because he, whether I or anyone else in these forums or elsewhere agree with him, is still seen as having a strong influence on cycling advocacy. Basically he is in a leadership position and I feel that not only are many of his ideas out of touch his manner and tone is alienating to many cyclists. When I have made this point directly in response to his posts I received this reply.
Fine. So be it. But if he,or you, wonders why people want to put him on ignore or call so many of his statements into question then he may want to tone down that rhetoric- to me it's a responsibility that goes hand in hand with true leadership.
Every human being has room for improvement in his behavior and treatment for others, and that applies to behavior in online mediums. Certainly I do, and Forester is no exception. That he would probably be more effective in advocating what he is advocating if he adjusted his style/tone is widely shared, even within the VC advocacy community. But trying to convey an objection to his style/approach by feigning an objection with the fundamental merits of what he is saying is not very effective either. It's certainly not very productive.