2manybikes

He hit me first ! He hit me first !

joejack951

So how were you able to come to the conclusion that "aggressively taking the lane" (I would prefer "assertively" but that's just good ol' non-aggressive me) when sharing the road with high speed traffic is a sensible thing to do at times? Many cyclists/non-cyclists cannot see to understand that putting yourself directly in front of traffic can often be the best way to avoid a collision.

LittleBigMan

I'm amazed you are amazed.

At this point, I need to humbly admit to needing instruction/encouragement, and suffer the ridicule I'm due. I must be a poor cyclist, indeed, to need any help.

Roody

Hell, you've forgotten more about cycling than most of us will ever know! And that goes for internet posting too.

Bekologist

john forester is disqualified from the bicycling beauty contest because he panders to the gashuffers and encourages autocentric sprawl.

DISQUALIFIED. cavorting with the opposition is much more eggregious than miss america having a drug problem.

LittleBigMan

Would you also call me a "gashuffer" that "encourages autocentric sprawl" because I live in suburbia and drive a car?

What has that got to do with bicycling?

Who here rides a bike and also drives a car? I do.

So what?

N_C

Thanks for posting a pic of my bike in this thread. Now all can see it is not a low racer. You saved me the trouble. I appreciate it. Just keep up with the stereotyping if it makes you feel better. I couldn't care less. Is that better? Since you like correcting people's grammar, captain perfect.

Bekologist

littlebigman,

john forester has proven connections to a group that encourages autocentric sprawl, and is available to give speeches supporting that community vision- a far cry from being an unwitting participant in the suburbanization of america, john forester is fostering that sprawl.

DISQUALIFIED. john Forester has to pass muster as an 'expert' with views he espouses to civic planners that are distinctly anti-cyclist; your personal lifestyle, little big man, does not.

LittleBigMan

If I haven't read all the posts, it's my fault. I just haven't read the ones that show exactly what John Forester said when he spoke "to a group that encourages autocentric sprawl."

But I'm not sure what he actually said matters to those of us who are content that by speaking to them at all, he is guilty of "fostering suburban sprawl."

As for being an unwitting participant in suburban sprawl, I plead not-guilty. You see, I can't afford to live anywhere else right now, and my wife has rheumatoid arthritis, which makes bike commuting a little on the difficult side, since she works 20 miles from home.

Maybe if I were "independently wealthy," as my sociology teacher in high school used to say...

But those half-million dollar condos downtown are looking pretty nice.

Roody

Too bad you're stuck down there in Atlanta. Lots of cities have nice affordable housing in downtown areas that are better for carfree living. Unfortunately, some cities, such as Atlanta, evidently do not.

Like you, I don't know what Forester says about sprawl, nor do I care much, even though I'm a dedicated carfree person myself. I have read his book about vehicular cycling, and I find it's the best book on the subject that I've read, and by now I think I've read them all.

Roody

I almost never find that one person is "the great guru who knows everything." Most teachers and writers are good on one or two subjects and that's all.

I would read Einstein if I wanted information about relativity theory, but I'd look elsewhere for an apple pie recipe. But just because Einstein can't make pie, I'm not going to say he's stupid about physics too. It's intellectually immature to believe that when a writer disappoints you in one subject, you must shun him in other topics.

I would read Forester for vehicular cycling--he really is best on that narrow topic. But evidently, according to you, he doesn't know much about automobiles and urban sprawl. For that subject, you might want to check out Kunstler or Crawford.

LittleBigMan

I admire that. My grandmother lived in Lansing. She walked to the grocery store and had no car. She died in her late 80's in her living room after coming home from there. She always said she wanted to go that way, still active. She got her wish. She never had to spend a day dependent on anyone, or wasting away in a bed. Full of pep all the way. I remember when she stubbornly mowed our lawn once when she visited, which embarrassed my dad terribly.

But I'm not complaining about Atlanta. It's really beautiful, here. Everything's blooming right now, what a wonderful sight to see. I love it here.

The point I wanted to make was that moving is not always practical option for people.

Tom Stormcrowe

For someone self described as "Sophomoric", this is an excellent posy! Good points!

I-Like-To-Bike

+1

chipcom 

+2

Bekologist

Gentlemen,

john forester has proven connections to a group that encourages autocentric sprawl, and is available to give speeches supporting that community vision- a far cry from being an unwitting participant in the suburbanization of america, john forester is fostering that sprawl.

Roody

It's so off-the-wall to foster sprawl that I can't even fathom it. But don't let his deplorable political views lead you to ignore the good things he's done. Wagner was a proto-fascist but he still wrote great music. Likewise Nietzshe in philosophy.

Bek, you're up early this morning. Got a big ride planned?

Bekologist

yes- packing for an overnight blitzkrieg tour monday-tuesday- weather is going better mon-tues. a little riding today. it isn't early, i get up early everyday, roody!

plus, I'm packing a bike for shipment back to michigan for my dad to enjoy. he laments getting rid of his road bike a few years ago, so I'm sending him one of mine.

john forester should be held to a higher standard than us proletariat bikers. he fails the beauty pageant litmus test. dude advocates for auto sprawl. sad he stoops so low.

I-Like-To-Bike

On the other hand, I don't let Forester's political views lead me to ignore the main issue: the nonsense he passes off as the Scientific Basis for his major conclusions and recommendations about cycling safety or effective cycling.

invisiblehand

Is that not the truth? Somebody is always unhappy.

invisiblehand

Hmmmm, even if it is the case that sprawl is "bad", I disagree that a cycling advocate need to avoid associating him or herself with an organization that probably has a lot on their agenda.

Roody

Well, that's not the main issue for me. Riding safely and effectively is my issue, not pseudoscientific ideology, as I don't think enough good data exists for anybody to make "scientific" conclusions about cycling safety.

So I just go with what works for me. About 70 % of the riding I do is on public roadways. The VC system espoused by Forester works great for me then.

For the 30 % of cycling I do off-road, no system is even required.

Roody

I either could or couldn't care less, and really I don't care at all. It's just a shame when somebody makes an interesting point, then follows it with a snideass comment that is designed to make him look better than somebody else, but actually makes him look like a damn fool. The reader totally forgets the good point and focuses on the bitter taste left in his mouth.

Here's a funny coincidence. The above paragraph was written with Pete Fagerlin in mind, but it's apropos to the topic here -- John Forester. IMO, John and Pete both have a knack for making very good points (as well as some that are not so good), then insulting the audience and leaving a bad taste in their mouths. So while John and Pete don't have to win any beauty contests, it would be helpful to their own cause if they'd become more aware of the impact they habitually have on their audiences, and try to reduce the bile. The audience probably should be able to focus on the actual arguments while ignoring the bitter taste of the bile, but that almost never happens.

Roody

Thanks. Your (inaccurate) "car-phobic" dig reminded me of the good point you made before I had to go gargle. Here it is, from your earlier post:

I totally agree with this. I've seen cagers deliberately not hit cyclists who were careening diagonally across six lanes of traffic, going the wrong way in three of those lanes. And this when they were dressed in black clothes with no lights or even reflectors! Of course, I think it's a good idea to make it easier for cagers to not hit me by being conspicuous and predictable, and following the rules of the road. (Of course these are points made by Forester many years ago. So that's one score for John!)

Pete, I can expand a little on your comments by saying that, when merging for a left turn, I look back to see the beginning of an opening in traffic, then communicate my intention (through hand signal, eye contact and/or lane positioning) to the driver[s] behind me, and finally, assertively make my move into the next lane. I often perform this maneuver and it works well most of the time.

Of course this has all been described on the forum a thousand times. That's where I first learned about it, and you probably did too, Pete. The only reason I repeat it here is to remind everybody that it was John Forester who had popularized this maneuver years ago, although he possibly didn't invent it either. So that's one more for John! It's really amazing how much good he's done for those of us who cycle in traffic, even if he often gets nothing but grief on this forum.

I-Like-To-Bike

Whatz dat you say? Forester popularized this maneuver? Even though he possibly didn't invent it? Good Golly Roody, you really have swallowed a whole pitcher full of Forester Brand Kool Aid haven't you?