Hah! You beat me to it. If you have anything to add to my later post, I am still interested in reading your response.

Read this: https://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Social/aaas94.htm

He uses the studies cited over and over to reach conclusions that none of the original researchers made. Note the lack of any definition or even recording of accident severity. The Cross Studies give no indication of the exposure rates. That is, if a large number of accidents occur on the far right of the roadway, what is the percentage of time cyclists ride in that exposure area. If few cyclists are cycling down the middle of busy high speed arterials, Forester would discover how safe that location is because of the relatively few accidents recorded. Better yet he ignores the difference in expected severities of bike-car collisions when comparing to the scrapped knees of 8 year olds riding on the playground.

For a belly whopper analysis of another color, read: https://www.johnforester.com/Articles...l/natattit.htm

All about National Attitudes as determined by Forester the Scientist.


Another Forester funny is his description of his self described death defying ride on the bike path of Palo Alto. I know it is on his web site somewhere. If anyone knows the URL please post; I need a refresh of my laughing cells. It's hilarious because he is serious!

Hilarious... completely misses the concept.

It is unfortunate that John Forester's approach can be so insulting.
It is also unfortunate that because of his approach, many people don't pay attention to what he's saying.

People like invisiblehand are capable of discerning:
Others...
Not so much...

I too would be interested in seeing it.

So? It is common scientific practice to compare, combine and contrast the results of multiple studies to synthesize new conclusions. It is the practice of assembling evidence that supports a conclusion.

What you fail to do is identify a single specific conclusion of Forester's, summarize the evidence he cites to support that conclusion, and explain why you believe that specific conclusion is not supported. Absent that, your vague criticisms amount to accomplishing nothing other than being an expression of your negative feelings about the man.

So? Note the lack of you citing any conclusions that Forester has reached for which accident severity is relevant.

Thanks for the link Diane,

I trawled through a few of the articles on JF's website. He does like to go on, and on.... "The Existence of the cyclist-inferiority phobia" is an absurd piece of conjecture.

I think what he really means (in relation to easily discouraged cycle beginners) is:

1. The new cyclist finds them self on the road without a big comfy box around them...
2. Wow! that car was going faster than me, this isn't like driving at all, I'd better keep right out of the way or I might get hurt.
3. My legs are tired, I'm out of breath and I havent made it to the shops yet.
4. F*(k this for a game of soldiers, where's me car?

OR....
1. I tried it, liked it (but felt tired and a bit out of place at first).
2. Got into it, got fitter, rode further and gained experience and confidence on the road.
3. Never looked back! (except before turns )


Ed

Got some questions about JF. Is it possible because he wants people to convert to his way of thinking he deluges his opponents with huge amounts of data, something that would rival the library of congress, they either say well with this much info. to sift through he must be right or they give up & ignore him? Why can't this stuff be simploy stated with out taking a novelistic approach? Maybe a paragraph at best. I don't have the time or the patience to sift through all that crap to see whether or not I believe what he is trying to allegedly improve upon.

I am not sure if he is ofr or against BL's, for or against MUP's, for or against better drivers education to teach how to behave around a cyclist or for or against Complete Streets. Hell JF may not even know about the Complete Streets campaign.

Can someone clear this up for me in the simplest terms possible? Please keep it to one paragraph. I just need to know the basics here.

Thank you.

No, it's not possible that he deluges his opponents with huge amounts of data for any reason, because it's not very much data.

Why would he or anyone else want people to convert to "his way of thinking"? What would that accomplish?

He's generally opposed to BLs and a strong proponent of well-designed and properly maintained bike paths. I'm pretty sure he supports improved driver education with request to treating cyclists, though I don't think he believes it to be a high priority. He knows about Complete Streets. He's well informed on cycling issues, and I've seen posts from him where he wrote about Complete Streets.

Hope this helps.

Take a look at organized religeon.

[edit]

Dot #1
American cycling opinion is reduced to having a single source: a fear of motor traffic from behind. There is no other consideration for the rest of the article for what American cycling opinion (whatever the heck that really is) actually might be.

Dot #2
Now these poor souls are victims of an illness.

Dot #3
Basically here he is saying that bicycle advocates, the victims above, are just sick phobics and their advocacy is just an anxiety response.

Diane,

The fear of humans being hit or attacked from behind comes from our natural human instincts from thousands of years ago when it was a more serious matter then it is is now. There is nothing wrong with this instinct it is part of our nature as humans to have this. There is also nothing we can do about it. Some think it is part of our genetic code. Being called a victim because of this is way out of line, even for JF to say. Unless he does not count himself as a human with similar genetic codeing as everyone else. Or is he trying to make excuses & accusations to make up for his weakness as a human because he too has these natural fears from thousands of years ago? Humans used to be attacked by the wild beasts of the field when we were hunters & gatherers, so our fear of being attacked from behind & how to react to it was ingrained into us & is still with us to this day.

Over 3/4 of collisions with motor vehicles are not from the rear. They are merging & intersecting collisions. In a lot of these cases the cyclist saw the vehicle right before the impact happened but there nothing that could be done to avoid it. Humans were probably rarely if ever attacked from the wild beasts fo the field from the side, head on or as an intersecting attack. This would have given us more of an advantage because we would see the attacking animal and have a better chance at avoiding it or defending ourselves. Because of this it was never ingrained into our genetic makeup to have instincts on how to deal with this. Yet over 3/4 of collisions with motor vehicles happen in this manner.

Maybe JF ought to focus his energies on that fact rather call us victims because of our natural instincts with getting hit from behind.

Nuff said about the relevance of any risk assessment from this gang.

didn't you just start a thread (recently closed) but saying, "as cycling advocates we should all be disappointed, if not outraged" over a statement that you introduced by saying, "I don't have the exact quote, but he said something like..." where you then proceeded to interpret his comments to mean that the person you were attempting to vilify, ".. is promoting the notion that cyclists don't belong on roads with lanes too narrow to be safely shared."

The thread then continued for some time and the exact quote never appeared and was never offered but instead it continued in this fashion:

"The implication of his statement (and I hope someone has it on Tivo and will give us the exact words)..."

and it turns out you were not even accurate about the route in question and when someone pointed this out you continued...

" Thanks for the clarification. I'm not sufficiently familar with the area/route to recognize where they turned off PCH and detoured along some rural side road. But, it looked very bikable."

Talk about feeding an emotionally based response (outraged?) without presenting sufficient supporting evidence for such a public vilification.

I think in the OP's case there is sufficient information for most of us to draw our own conclusions with a little bit of research.

Maybe this post will be deleted by moderators- I hope it is on topic enough to remain.

But personally I don't put much stock in John Forester's opinions myself. I find them counter productive and divisive of the cycling community and feel that it's a waste of words and time to be constantly bickering about his outdated opinions. I predict this thread, too, will close- and have probably unintentionally contributed to it's demise. Sorry.

Buzzman, I did not attempt to vilify anyone, certainly not Phil Liggett! I'm a big Phil Liggett fan!
While I could not remember the exact words, no one that heard the broadcast questioned whether the essence of what Liggett said was that cyclists should not normally ride on the road depicted when motor traffic is on it because it was too narrow.

On the other hand, the stated purpose of this thread is to vilify Forester. No one can or would deny that. I think it's safe to say that those participating would not call themselves fans of Forester. And their stated impressions of what Forester has said and written are often questioned.

Who the heck is this Phil Liggett person and why does he matter?

Paul

Doesn't quoting JF's written words count as quoting what he actually said? I am not interested in JF the human being, the guy someone would go out for coffee or bowling with. I'm interested in JF the author/authority. His written words are important in that regard, as well as fair game for debunking.

Certainly. But there has been very little of that in this thread. As far as I can tell, only in your post #35.

However, it is not clear, at least to me, what exactly you think these quotes show.

In Dot #1, Forester does not assert anything, so there is nothing to debunk.
Dot #2 is really a semantic complaint, that it's inappropriate to refer to cyclists who are overly concerned about potential hazards from the rears as "victims". That is not debunking.
Dot #3 is an assertion from Forester. Your comment about it is your opinion, implying at most that you seem to disgree, but it's hardly a debunking.

So I'm not sure what you think this shows.

Phil Liggett is the so-called "voice of cycling" (the most famous English speaking bike race announcer).

Buzzman brought up something from another thread (which involved Phil Liggett), and I responded to his accusations of my alleged inappropriate behavior. Sorry for the diversion. It's irrelevant to this thread.

Okay, Diane, I think maybe I understand your point. Let me know if I get this right, or if I missed something.

Forester is trying to show that the cyclist-inferiority phobia exists.
As part of doing this, he explains how phobia is defined and assessed in the DSM. I don't think you have a problem with that part of his essay. As part of this, he cites the diagnostic criteria for Simple Phobia, including:

B: During some phase of the disturbance, exposure to the specific phobic stimulus (or stimuli) almost invariably provokes an immediate anxiety response.

Then he takes you through each criterium. For B, he states:

Consider Diagnostic Criterion B:

Does exposure to motor traffic from behind, while riding a bicycle, almost invariably provoke an immediate anxiety response. Certainly it does, and even contemplating the exposure of others to the stimulus causes anxiety response, as when people organize political committees to obtain protection from the condition that they fear.

If I understand your position, it is that he simply asserts, "Certainly it [exposure to motor traffic from behind] does [almost invariably provoke an immediate anxiety response]", without explaining why, or how he knows that it does, or even how the anxiety manifests itself. Apparently, he thinks it's so obvious that exposure to motor traffic from behind provokes anxiety that it is self-evident, and not requiring any further explanation or evidence.

If that's what you're trying to say, okay, that's a fair criticism, but it's hardly a debunking. In order to debunk it, you have have to go further and show that exposure to motor traffic from behind does not almost invariably provoke an immediate anxiety response. Without showing this, the most you can say is that there is insufficient evidence to be persuaded either way.

"American cycling opinion is reduced to having a single source: a fear of motor traffic from behind. There is no other consideration for the rest of the article for what American cycling opinion (whatever the heck that really is) actually might be.

Dot #2
Quote:Is fear of motor traffic from behind a "persistent fear of a circumscribed stimulus?" Yes, it is. The victim fears a specific situation, motor traffic from behind while riding a bicycle.

Now these poor souls are victims of an illness.


Dot #3
Quoteoes exposure to motor traffic from behind, while riding a bicycle, almost invariably provoke an immediate anxiety response. Certainly it does, and even contemplating the exposure of others to the stimulus causes anxiety response, as when people organize political committees to obtain protection from the condition that they fear.

Basically here he is saying that bicycle advocates, the victims above, are just sick phobics and their advocacy is just an anxiety response."



Hey man, I'm not afraid of just traffic from behind. I'm afraid of dying because some jerk isn't paying attention. front, side, back, wherever. I use less-travelled roads to increase my chances of not getting smushed. you think I'm phobic, so what. I do what I feel is right for my personal safety. I like riding but I am not dying for it.

No doubt all those hostile, speeding drivers are suffering from paranoid schizophrenia & an inferiority complex, compensating for the smallness of their organs with the large size of their pickups, SUVs, & car engines....

Thing is, I don't buy the "cyclist-inferiority phobia". It is more accurately "a human being's natural fear of anything new". EVERYONE who is not acclimated to operating a vehicle in traffic, whether that vehicle is a bike, car, truck or tank, is not comfortable doing so and has a fear of having a whoopsie.

Take my mother as an example. When she learned to drive in the early seventies, she was scared to death of driving on anything but a deserted road and even then she was slow, tentative, hugged the curb and was over cautious. That fear continued for the first few years she drove...she wouldn't drive anywhere unless she absolutely had to. Yet, at the same time, she was perfectly comfortable riding her bike on the same roads she didn't want to drive on. She didn't ride a bike as a kid, she learned to ride at the same time my Dad was teaching me...a good 5 or 6 years before she learned to drive.

The phobia, if you prefer to call it that (I don't agree) is not limited to cyclists, which is where Forester's theory falls flat and comes off as merely twisting something to his own ends. It's simply human nature to be uncomfortable doing something new.

As do those who refuse to get on airplanes due to their fear of flying.
As do those who refuse to walk into caves due to their fear of closed spaces.
Etc., etc.

So what, you ask? Forester's point is that if the reason someone does not do something is because of a phobia (an irrational fear that is inconsistent with reasonable risk analysis), then only a certain course of action (repeated successful exposure to the feared something) can help them. The relevance to cycling advocacy is that if the reason someone does not ride his bicycle much, or as much, is because of the "cyclist inferiority phobia", then only a certain course of action (repeated successful exposure to riding in traffic) can help them.

This is why the issue of whether the cyclist inferiority phobia exists is relevant to cycling advocacy.

one of my problems with Forester is he seems to feel the same way about bicycling as Bill Clinton did about abortion:

"It should be safe, legal and rare."

But don't you think it goes beyond being merely uncomfortable doing something new? Uncomfortable doing it is one thing, refusal to consider doing it is quite another. It's the latter to which Forester is referring, I believe.