yawn...

Still waiting for your own analysis on Forester's writings. Cummon, I'm trying to learn stuff here and you're not presenting your counter-analysis.

Brian, the context was that others were arguing that sidepaths are so much safer than the road, that cyclists should be banned from riding on the road. That's the assertion he was trying to prove was false.

This is all ignoring the context in which the test was made, and what Forester was trying to prove to be wrong.

I have no inclination to do that, and it would be off topic anyway.

(ask the same question again, and you'll get the same answer again)

So put up your own thread. Or put up stuff which counters the ill-repute Forester has on this forum. Do SOMETHING besides complain.

(and I've seen good stuff from ILTB, Chipcom, sbhikes, as well as invisiblehand and Speedo - and others, of course. Just because you don't agree doesn't make it invalid. You're just some guy...)

HH: per your last reply RE the sidepath. I agree with you on the context (and I even put some words to that effect). But he is still making the implicit assumption that roadway procedures represent the safest way to operate a bicycle in any environment to make the link between his analysis of relative safety with his actual test procedure and results.

Then really, what are you here for?

Yeah, I know, but I played all my jokers already.

Forester has discussed, in many communications, what kind(s) of cycling and cyclists a bicyclist advocacy organization should advocate for. Bicyclist advocacy organizations advocate on behalf of bicyclists; in most cases those doing the work in such organizations enjoy cycling and do it voluntarily, be it for transportation, recreation, or both. Forester has raised the question as to whether such a cyclist advocacy organization should target its efforts to improve conditions for cyclists who resemble its members, or instead target efforts to increase cycling by novices, presumably by changing the physical infrastructure and rules of the road to be oriented more toward novice cycling.

Forester points out that the danger of designing the bicycle transportation system for novice cyclists is that it may degrade its performance for the types of skilled cyclists who typically belong to bicyclist organications. An example of such degradation is that a sidepath cannot be used at the same speed as a roadway with the same level of safety. So, if novices demand sidepaths, or some other facility type that may reduce performance for most of the members of the bicyclist organization, should the bicyclist advocacy organization promote such facilities? Forester argues no. I agree with him there, first for the practical reason because the core membership of the bicyclist organization must be served if the organization is to survive as a bicyclist organization. But secondly, I believe that it is possible to provide a well-engineered vehicular cycling transportation system that performs very well for both skilled and beginner cyclists, and that educating novices to use such a well-engineered system is more appropriate and cost-effective than letting novices dictate the design of the system. And as Forester (who has dedicated much of his life to traffic cycling education) has pointed out, if novices really take up cycling, they won't stay novices for long.

Depending on the audience, and how one words this point of view, this conclusion can sound quite reasonable, or terribly elitist. You can guess how facilities advocates who want to increase novice cycling interpret Forester's words to this end.

-Steve Goodridge (who personally takes novices out on bike rides on pleasant streets and tries to turn them into non-novices)

I've got 75 miles of riding on one bike path in the last 5 weeks under my belt. (I've ridden it over the years, but these last 75 miles have been since my new job started). I have had zero incidents of unsafe things happen to me. The closest to unsafe things happening was the icy bridge one morning (but I saw the ice in time), the bollards on some of the skinny bridges (but I've made it through every time without running into any of them), and the guy who followed me home because he had no lights on his bike (he turned out not to be an axe murderer.)

Can I extrapolate that all bike paths allow one to ride as fast as they possibly can at all time with 100% safety and zero accidents or problems?

As for my statement that JF only supports high-mileage recreational cyclists, I had that wrong. He only supports voluntary transportational cyclists (which isn't really all that different if you think about it.)

As far as wanting to see the number of cyclists reduced, I believe that can be deduced from the following:
- his long list of enemies (I'm sure he doesn't want to increase the numbers of those people cycling),
- his work speaking for the American Dream Coalition (in which he came to my town to provide support for groups that work against the aims of our local bicycle and alternative transportation organizations which seek to increase bicycling)
- from the short list of cyclists he does support (if he only supports voluntary cyclists he only supports people who have already made the choice to ride bicycles)

Plus I believe I've read somewhere where he basically just says he doesn't give a darn if cycling becomes more popular or not. It's not important to him.

Oh dear, I think I've come down with a nasty case of John Forrester Debunkers' inferiority phobia


....hot sweet tea, hot sweet tea....

Is it any coincidence that this page on "equinophobia" was created on February 19, 2007?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...action=history

John

Lie down on my couch here and relax. Now do you feel this more in the UK, or in Californy? Why do you lust after your father and hate your mother? I think you need some good miracle drugs. That'll be a 50 bucks, have a nice day, come back soon and repeatedly....I'll give you a discount!

Ooooh that's better

Apparantly just makes it "personal" for the true believers, when their sacred cow is tipped.

Please identify the post numbers of, or better yet copy/paste, the "good stuff" from ILTB, Chipcom or sbhikes in this thread that you consider to be critical analysis of something that Forester has actually written, that reflects a genuine attempt to understand what Forester meant, and you believe qualifies as a debunking of a Forester position on an issue of significance to bicycling advocacy or safety.

You're looking at the last time that page was updated.
This is the version that was created on February 7th.

Frankly, I never heard of the term equinophobia until I googled for phobias yesterday.
But, yes, the recent creation of that Wikipedia article is a coincidence. But now that you mention it, there are less than 1,000 references to the term on the entire internet. That's pretty light. On the other hand, googling for "fear of horses" results in over 18,000 hits.

And, when you google for "fear of Forester", you get...

I already did do a lot besides complain in this thread. Take #44 for example.

Here is a slight rewrite of it, structured as a (simple and not meant to be thorough) critical analysis of The Existence of the Cyclist-Inferiority Phobia, the piece originally cited in the OP of this thread as being debunked.


In The Existence of the Cyclist-Inferiority Phobia, John Forester attempts to show that the cyclist-inferiority phobia exists. The meaning of Cyclist-Inferiority Phobia is implied in the first paragraph as being an overexaggeration of the fear of motor traffic from behind. The purpose of the paper is to show that this phobia exists.

In order to show that the phobia exists, Forester chooses to explain how Simple Phobia is defined and assessed in the DSM, and how the fear of motor traffic from behind fits the criteria. He cites the diagnostic criteria for Simple Phobia, and for each criterium, explains why he believes it applies to many of those who fear motor traffic from behind. For example:

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

For the key assertion, "Certainly it [exposure to motor traffic from behind] does [almost invariably provoke an immediate anxiety response]", there is no explanation for how he knows it to be true, 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.

The piece would be improved, and more compelling and persuasive, if Forester explained this in more detail.

And that pretty much sums up the modus operandi behind many of the anti-Forester posts in this thread, on this forum, and all over the internet.

I don't think this this is a recognized "phobia" by the mental health professionals. What John Forester has done is to create his own little category, and is making a living off his own definition of it. Cyclist-inferiority complex exists in your and JF's heads, and not necessarily in others.

It is not a phobia to figure out safety measures to use to stay away from autos on the road, just as it is not a phobia to figure out ways of swiming with sharks without getting bitten. The fact that sharks bite, or that autos do hit bicyclists, is not a phobia, it is documented, especially by you, HH, that bicycliists do get hit by cars. To say then that this causes a phobia which doesn't exist with mental health professionals is to try to carve out your own little territory, and then defend it to make a point, or a living.

John

Just for the record, this is a statement of opinion. It is not a critical analysis of anything Forester, I or anyone else has written. That doesn't mean it has no place here, but a statement of opinion that only addresses the conclusion of a work, and none of its content, cannot possibly debunk that work.

Whose heads the phobia exists in is irrelevant. I never said I even agreed with Forester on this. And whether I do or not is not relevant to whether anyone in this thread has debunked what Forester says in that paper.

And whether or not the phobia is recognized by mental health professionals is also irrelevant. Every phobia listed in the DSM existed long before it was ever recognized by mental health professionals.

By the way, an excessive fear of sharks also exists, and it is called galeophobia.

Note that cyclist-inferiority phobia is not simply a fear of traffic. It is excessive fear of the threat to cyclists of from-behind traffic.

Let's try this. Regardless of whether it is a "phobia" or not (a much ado about nothing semantic argument), do you (or anyone else) agree or disagree that there exists, at least in some people, the excessive fear of the threat to cyclists of from-behind traffic?

Must be all those "enemies."

You guys are taking "enemies" out of context (making this yet another much ado about nothing semantic criticism of Forester, at most, not a debunking).

At the start of the piece in question, which ILTB has provided here, Forester makes clear that he is refering to "VC enemies". Obviously, he is using the term to refer to groups of people who favor things which are contrary to the interests of furthering vehicular cycling -- cyclists acting in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road when traveling on roads -- in our culture.

You can argue about whether "enemies" is an appropriate term to use to refer to such people, and you can make fun of it, but that hardly debunks what he has to say about it. The groups of people he refers to as "enemies" are simply those he considers to be opposed to the interests of furthering VC. What's the big deal?

What's your big deal about the debunking of Forester? Is the goring of your Sacred Cow too personal?

If it only exists in a very limited number of people, why do you even bring it up?