randya

This thread's way to long to search for a precise quote, but we were told by John earlier that it was 'immoral' to allow cyclists on the roads without 'proper' training, e.g. completion of a VC-approved Effective Cyling course.

galen_52657

Phobia..... PHOBIA....Phobia....PHOBIA....phobia....

I-Like-To-Bike

I don't doubt identifying that threshold is all but impossible... Maybe you can identify the locations where the local cyclists' rights to travel have not been preserved. Please no speculation about locations where you think a traveling VC Troubadour might not be able to take the VC preferred slice of highway real estate. Let's hear about real examples of real cyclists who are prohibited from cycling to a destination because of the existence of bike facilities in the vicinity.

chipcom 

Bart Starr was winning football championships long before many players in today's NFL were born, so therefore he knows more about football than any player active today. Nice, Alan.

galen_52657

Maybe not but there are plenty of coaches that do

Helmet Head

I believe your own words provide a good example of what Forester means by, "bicycle traffic skills are something exotic, practicable only for those with exceptional abilities":

The reason most reasonable adults that are inclined towards bicycling simply don't find this appealing is because they have been taught that bicycle traffic skills are something exotic, practicable only for those with exceptional abilities.

In this case "been taught" I liken to the way white folk "been taught" in the south to have racist attitudes in the not too distant past. That is, they didn't have classes on it, it's just what they learned by osmosis from living in a racist culture/society. Similarly, we live in a culture that doesn't consider vehicular cycling -- the way Dan and Brian are riding in those video clips -- to be normal or acceptable. So most people learn by osmosis that bikes are supposed to stay out of the way of cars, period. That's why they don't find vehicular cycling to be appealing.

By enabling the very notion that causes them to believe what they believe -- whether it's providing racially segregated faciliites in the racist south, or providing segregated cycling facilities in the anti-VC bigoted U.S. culture -- we are accepting and even perpetuating the situation, not changing it.

The reason VC advocates are VC advocates is because we don't want to accept and perpetuate the anti-VC bigoted culture, we want to change it, or, at a bare minimum, at least not lose what relatively little acceptance and repsect we currently have in our society for VC (that is, preserve the status quo).

Bruce Rosar

I would like to point out that we can have our cake (transportation facilities and infrastruture that cycling is permitted on but which motoring is not) and eat it too (using classification of individuals to limit access).

John Forester

Not all of these items are required, although riding in comfortable cycling clothing is highly desirable. The plain fact is that you will not choose to ride for transportation to any significant extent. Another plain fact is that it is impractical for society to provide for you to practice your chosen variety of bicycle transportation to any significant extent. There it is.

randya

You're making a real contribution here, aqualung.

kalliergo 

I think John means something broader than an individual phobia, in the psychological sense, and I''m afraid his use of the term (along with "superstition") has resulted in no end of confusion, bickering and defensiveness over the years.

Because it is much more (and much more importantly) a societal phenomenon than a personal one, I much prefer "cyclist inferiority taboo," as used in the excellent treatment to which Bruce posted a link earlier. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for John to change his usage, however.

zeytoun

In a paper of John's, which is linked from the American Dream Coalition, it seems that John's positions is that bicycle exclusive infrastructure should not be part of transportation development, but parks and recreation:

Of course, a lot of people, who consider themselves "transportational", since they do errands or commute on bicycle, might be surprised that JF doesn't consider them "transportational".

That's pretty circular. A cyclist who prefers to ride with less traffic is paranoid... (you can see where this might head - the paranoid cyclist's opinion is of less worth then those who agree with me).

You know, like the 3 speeds of Amsterdam (which he mentions later). Those are only for recreational cyclists. A person, cruising to work at 12mph on a 3 speed is not "transportational".

Because that's where the money is, folks...

randya

More circular logic and strawmen.

I-Like-To-Bike

Get used to it. It is the standard M.O. of this crew for defending the indefensible.

chipcom 

Ha, I like to think that too...I'm a firm believer that the advanced offenses, defenses and special teams of today still rely on basics...but when it comes right down to it, the game has changed, so even a great coach like Lombardi or Halas would not be successful today without adapting to the game as it is, rather than as it was. The same applies here.

A wise man realizes that there is something new to be learned each and every day and does not rest on what he learned yesterday.

kalliergo 

Please remember that e.g. does not have the same meaning as i.e. EDIT: That is, an EC course is merely an "example" of the ways one might learn vehicular cycling. Nowhere does Forester claim it is the only way.

I'll just say it rather than perpetuate the back-and-forth: I am virtually certain that John Forester has never said that "bicycle traffic skills are something exotic" or that they are "practicable only by those who have taken an Effective Cycling course."

Nor do I believe he has said anything in this thread that logically leads to that interpretation.

Helmet Head

I was present on this stretch of PCH when the temporary ban was in effect during construction last year. This is the story of how the plan for the permanent ban was reversed:


https://cabobike.org/pchban.htm

chipcom 

I think it's more the perception that the roads are dangerous...which is a taboo, phobia or whatever you want to call it that is shared by most, if not all of the population, motorists and cyclists included.

Helmet Head

I agree. Ultimately what's important is whether the phenomena exists and how it manifests itself, and to what extent, not whether it's called a phobia or a superstition or a taboo or whatever.

I-Like-To-Bike

Ohio State coaches learned there was something else besides 3 yards and a cloud of dust. That old stuff was good enuff in Woody's day. But I doubt if Ohio State fans are ready to go back to the old ways now that they have discovered the preferred alternative - like beating up relentlessly on Wolverines year after year. Learning and adapting to the new day and age is exactly how Coach Joe (Greatness Personified) has been succesful for so many years too.

I-Like-To-Bike

Is that it? You make me laugh!

bigpedaler

>>because full acceptance of cyclists on the road IS a pipe dream in this autocentric society.
>>i agree that setting the bar unreachably high is no excuse not to try; i and others simply oppose the exclusion of all else.
>>his primary message IS that, and that is good; but he saddles it with the baggage of "this & nothing else" -- THAT is the problem that defines the "antiForester" front.
>>when someone represents himself as an authority who has done research and testing, he obligates himself to be true to his research; THIS is why he cannot 'stretch' it and still be credible.
>>there's not a bit of misunderstanding -- JF, in his own words, states that bikeways are not in the best interests of cyclists. there are cities around the country and the world whose track record proves him wrong, yet he continues to espouse it.

now, my points:
i have yet to see anything to lend weight to the notion of 'rear-collision phobia' (his words). particularly when HIS OWN statements indicate that 3/4 of bike-involved collisions are 'blind-side' types of encounters.
JF states that 'bicycle advocates' are anti-car -- then says that they got the idea from motorists! -- and repeatedly condemns the 'b-a' faction (i wonder -- if you condemn anti-car, does that make you pro-car?)
JF also says that the bicycle is the only threat to the supremacy of the auto on the road (aside -- what about the motorcycle, itself an object of very similar advocacy?); this means there are 2 competitors, and then he tells another poster that the statement of bicycles being second-place to cars "has no meaning, is not even English".

i could list repeated posts by skank, chip, sbhikes, Bek, and randya that give a ot of weight to the logic that opposes JF -- i have them written down. but i will not waste mt time, as i know you will still not be convinced.

Helmet Head

I don't get it. I spent a lot of time on that, and dismissing it as "More circular logic and strawmen", without explanation, is not fair. If I realized it was circular logic and/or a strawman, i would not have bothered posting it. So either I'm missing something, or you're misinterpreting something. Your help in figuring out which it is would be greatly appreciated.

Specifically, what is the logic to which you refer, and how is it circular? That is, what I am concluding based on an assumption that is a conclusion?

A strawman? That implies I'm misrepresenting your argument, and refuting the misrepresentation.
I assure you I did not intend to misrepresent your argument in any way. If I misunderstood something, i would like to what what it is. What do you think I represented as your argument, that wasn't your argument?

Helmet Head

That was off the top of my head.

Laugh all you want. It was a lot of work to reverse that ban.

John Forester

You exaggerate for effect, and it's not useful. I never said completion of a VC approved Effective Cycling course. I did say, repeatedly, with proper skill, however that is attained. I am not proprietary about this; I would rather see 20 good programs than just 1. But, they have to teach vehicular cycling so that the graduates, or just those tested, have the skills to ride anywhere in town in reasonable safety.

bigpedaler

so those with greater knowledge are always right by virtue of that, and lesser knowledge is always wrong? what about the expression, 'out of the mouths of babes'....