Originally Posted by
buzzman
I agree.
But without regurgitating the same old arguments his contributions, while substantial, have not been 100% positive in my opinion. His tone, which was and has been adapted by many of those who have embraced his notions, has been divisive within the cycling community. It continues to divide many of us. It could not be more clearly demonstrated than in these forums, which are stalemated in the virtual world of the internet far more than they are in the real world. The real world will change of it's own accord and no amount of petty, sophistic bantering will prevent it. I think many of those changes will be in direct opposition to what JF has proposed in his books and his posts on-line and will ultimately favor cyclists and safer cycling.
It is not only his tone. The fact is, the whole facilities debate is as
inherently divisive within the cycling community as are the abortion debate, the gun control debate, the universal health care debate, the death penalty debate, and the Iraq war debate in the broader community.
I don't think it's possible to determine how much of the divisiveness is due to Forester's tone, and how much is inevitable due to the inherent controversy in the issues at hand. We human beings have a tendency to try to find a scapegoat for our problems, and in this case Forester, VC advocates, and their tone, are all obvious explanations for the divisiveness in the cycling advocacy community, but, I think, as is often the case, that that is being overly simplistic.
By the way, if I share my opinion that bike lanes bring far more harm to cyclists than benefits, is that done in an appropriate tone?