Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety > Vehicular Cycling (VC)
Reload this Page >

Someone convince me not to put John Forester on ignore

Notices
Vehicular Cycling (VC) No other subject has polarized the A&S members like VC has. Here's a place to share, debate, and educate.

Someone convince me not to put John Forester on ignore

Old 04-25-07, 10:07 PM
  #26  
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Raiyn
I got nothing. To me John Forester = L. Ron Hubbard , Helmet Head = Tom Cruise
I choose not to be a member of either wacked out cult.
How many times must I repeat myself. What I write is in accordance with traffic-engineering knowledge, with the accident statistics, with the laws. What you people believe is contrary to all of these, and you believe it with such extreme passion. You are where the cult is, not on the vehicular-cycling side.

Besides, I recognized L. Ron Hubbard for the idiot he has been in 1949, or whenever he made his first publication in Amazing. I didn't predict, though, that he would become a world-wide cult leader; he was just too absurd. But then, as I have been pointing out to you all, absurdity doesn't prevent a cult from forming, it just makes it a cult rather than an engineering discipline.
John Forester is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 10:10 PM
  #27  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 28,551

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked 595 Times in 385 Posts
Originally Posted by invisiblehand
Because a bunch of posts will no longer make any sense.
You are one of the few who finds sense in the posts of Forester and his acolytes. Either out of a misplaced mission to be seen as an even-handed mediator; or you really believe in the sophistry.

Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 04-25-07 at 10:36 PM.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 10:11 PM
  #28  
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by sbhikes
How much do I have to pay to be "clear?"

I've been considering putting him on ignore, too. Despite ridiculing others for being "emotional" he oozes emotion with every word. In fact, his phony logic is a compensatory tool he uses to try to mask his emotion. But it doesn't work.

He has nothing to say for cycling. He advocates for autocentric transportation planning and assumes you can just shoehorn everybody into it, despite all the empirical evidence to the contrary. Despite the studies showing that autocentric road design is hindering economic growth and is having a negative effect on our communities. Despite the fact that many communities want something different, build something different and are happy with the outcome. He's an anachronism.

I might just put this whole forum on ignore. Let the John Forester VCers have a big group hug here where they can be sequestered from normal society. Have you noticed that there have actually been some interesting topics in the A&S main forum lately?

False. I do not advocate autocentric transportation planning. I never have, and I have opposed the motoring establishment when it has tried that.

Your environmentalism, Diane, may be useful, but it also makes you lie about whatever it is that you think might oppose it. This is the kind of emotionalism that I have been opposing with facts and reason, because it ends up being harmful to cyclists.
John Forester is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 10:23 PM
  #29  
ken cummings
Senior Member
 
ken cummings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: northern California
Posts: 5,603

Bikes: Bruce Gordon BLT, Cannondale parts bike, Ecodyne recumbent trike, Counterpoint Opus 2, miyata 1000

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Post

Folks, It is my understanding that Hubbard distanced himself from the Scientologists a number of years ago. And he has backed off from most if not all of the tenants of that Cult. It seems that Hubbard, as a good science fiction writer, had enough science in him to overcome some of the odder beliefs. Tarring Hubbard with the Scientology brush then attacking Forester by comparing him with Hubbard may be logically inconsistant. Helmet Head and Mr. Forester may be hard reads and challenge some of your belief systems but it does not make them lunies.

Go ahead and put JF on ignore. At least he will not put rattlesnakes in your mailbox. Oops, sorry, wrong cult.
ken cummings is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 10:32 PM
  #30  
randya
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696

Bikes: who cares?

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by John Forester
Surely, the fact that I write on this list demonstrates that I pay attention to what is being written. Am I immune to logic and reason? Well, I am immune to logic and reason that is based on your inaccurate view of traffic cycling. That's because your ideology is so far from reality that you cannot think reasonably about the real world. The subject has come up repeatedly, and I repeat it again because it is so relevant to your situation. You praise a system in which a stream of cyclists is directed across a stream of motorists. Any traffic engineer knows that this is the wrong way to design the intersection. You have been unable, despite the continuous references, to provide any explanation, let alone an explanation that attempts to be based on reality and reason.

Yes, I am immune to your illogical arguments; present some arguments that are based on facts and reason and I will consider agreeing with them.
....the meter is moving closer to the 'ignore' side.

The only other beneficial improvement to this intersection would be to eliminate the slip lane entirely, which would just shift the bike-right turning motorist conflict down the road to the next intersection...so you would still have to train both cyclists and motorists to merge or otherwise interact somewhere along the road. The next most logical solution would be to tear the whole damn viaduct down and return to the surface street grid, which was the situation until the 1950s or 60s.

Last edited by randya; 04-25-07 at 10:39 PM.
randya is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 10:33 PM
  #31  
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
old mossy thinks cyclists that appreciate planning for bikes in the transportation mix with bike specific infrastructure a cult? pluease.

Mossy- I ride 150-350 miles a week- more if I'm riding a vacation- vehicularily, and I advocate for bicycle specific infrastructure in communities.

riding vehicularily and the desire for bike infrastructure ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

a rider that rides vehicularily can ride in a bike lane and appreciate that space.

a rider that rides vehicularily can use a bike path safely and competantly for transportation; thousands do it every day just here in the Northwest.

riding with cognizance of the laws of traffic and the desire for community enhancements for bicyclists like bike lanes are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

his insistence in that fallacy makes old mossy out to be ludicrously misguided.

Last edited by Bekologist; 04-25-07 at 11:30 PM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 10:38 PM
  #32  
old and new
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
I wouldn't put anyone on ignore, much less someone who has his knowledge,it may suit the likes of you though.
old and new is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 10:38 PM
  #33  
old and new
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
do what you want ,you will anyway
old and new is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 10:42 PM
  #34  
randya
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696

Bikes: who cares?

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by old and new
I wouldn't put anyone on ignore, much less someone who has his knowledge,it may suit the likes of you though.
I see the VC reinforcements have arrived. Another geriatric martyr cycling for motorists' rights to use the full roadway.
randya is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 11:22 PM
  #35  
Brian Ratliff
Senior Member
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Posts: 10,122

Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
It sounds like you've already made up your mind, JF. You accept certain logic, and you reject other logical arguments as "illogical". There really is no discussing anything with you. You, like HH, have your answer and you will defend it to the death, come hell or high water.

You've called a lot of people names as well. You being a noob here on this forum, this is impolite. I might've learned something talking to the author of the book who got me seriously into traffic cycling, but you choose to insult me and my father instead. Shame on you. I, for one, will put you on ignore and never recommend your book to anyone ever again.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline  
Old 04-26-07, 01:45 AM
  #36  
SingingSabre 
BF's Level 12 Wizard
 
SingingSabre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Secret mobile lair
Posts: 1,425

Bikes: Diamondback Sorrento turned Xtracycle commuter

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by John Forester
I am immune to logic and reason that is based on your inaccurate view of traffic cycling.
"Hi Kettle. I'm Pot."
"Um, hi, Pot."
"Hey, you're black!."
"Yeah, I am."

Get it?
__________________
Shameless plugs:
Work
Photography
Vanity
Originally Posted by Bklyn
Obviously, the guy's like a 12th level white wizard or something. His mere presence is a danger to mortals.
SingingSabre is offline  
Old 04-26-07, 08:01 AM
  #37  
sbhikes
Dominatrikes
 
sbhikes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Still in Santa Barbara
Posts: 4,920

Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Oozing, dripping with emotion. Pot meet kettle.
sbhikes is offline  
Old 04-26-07, 08:29 AM
  #38  
LittleBigMan
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
You are one of the few who finds sense in the posts of Forester and his acolytes. Either out of a misplaced mission to be seen as an even-handed mediator; or you really believe in the sophistry.
...I'm just sittin' on the dock of the bay
Watchin' the tide roll away
Sittin' on the dock of the bay, wastin' time

Looks like nothin's gonna change
Everything, everything remains the same
I can't do what ten people tell me to do
So I guess I'll just remain the same...
__________________
No worries
LittleBigMan is offline  
Old 04-26-07, 09:41 AM
  #39  
invisiblehand
Part-time epistemologist
 
invisiblehand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 5,862

Bikes: Jamis Nova, Bike Friday NWT, STRIDA, Austro Daimler Vent Noir, Haluzak Horizon, Salsa La Raza, Hollands Tourer, Bike Friday tikit

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 120 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
You are one of the few who finds sense in the posts of Forester and his acolytes. Either out of a misplaced mission to be seen as an even-handed mediator; or you really believe in the sophistry.
You must be fun at parties.

Since you broke the purpose of the thread, I will write a quick response. I think John has some good points. I feel he is wrong on some points as well. My opinions vary according to subject groups. However, I am comfortable being around people with different opinions.

Since we are writing about each other, I actually think that you and John share an interesting attribute. Both of you can be pretty abrasive and potentially a lot more convincing with a more patient and diplomatic approach. You brought up many good points that John never addressed. Then again, you asked questions in a manner that would lead people to ignore you or simply spew abrasive words back. I would have really liked to read John's defense to your questions about skill and experience (particularly about experienced cyclists that use non-VC techniques).
invisiblehand is offline  
Old 04-26-07, 11:01 AM
  #40  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 28,551

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked 595 Times in 385 Posts
Originally Posted by invisiblehand
I would have really liked to read John's defense to your questions about skill and experience (particularly about experienced cyclists that use non-VC techniques).
Don't hold your breath. Forester has yet to even define the terms or metrics for skilled cyclists, let alone indicate that he has any source for his "data" about "skilled cyclists" other than his so-called "Reasonable Assumptions."

Note: there is no effective "diplomatic approach" to getting Forester to answer for honest criticism of his risk analyses methods, sophist claims of fantastic risk reduction for "trained" cyclists; glaring errors/distortions in his statistical manipulations, nor the validity of conclusions based on such bogus methods. It’s been tried by many, and the response is invariably more repetition of the same mantra, or insults or both. Forester only responds diplomatically to praise and flattery of his work.

You can try fawning and obsequiousness to see if you can get a responsive answer to any criticism of his methods or conclusions and see if it works better.

Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 04-26-07 at 11:32 AM.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 04-26-07, 11:07 AM
  #41  
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by randya
....the meter is moving closer to the 'ignore' side.

The only other beneficial improvement to this intersection would be to eliminate the slip lane entirely, which would just shift the bike-right turning motorist conflict down the road to the next intersection...so you would still have to train both cyclists and motorists to merge or otherwise interact somewhere along the road. The next most logical solution would be to tear the whole damn viaduct down and return to the surface street grid, which was the situation until the 1950s or 60s.
Well, of course, the proper way to handle a situation in which streams of traffic must cross each other is to have them merge. That is the standard way, no reason to substitute for the merge a direct crossing, which is much more dangerous.
John Forester is offline  
Old 04-26-07, 11:14 AM
  #42  
randya
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696

Bikes: who cares?

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
If and when you slow the motorists down to 15 mph, it might be possible. I can assure you that the merge that used to be necessary at this location was neither pleasant, nor safe. The current situation is most like a normal intersection where the motorists are required by law to yield to cyclists. It gives cyclists priority. It is safer and easier than requiring through cyclists to perform interweaving merges with two directions of 40 mph + traffic. Why do you have a problem with that?
randya is offline  
Old 04-26-07, 11:27 AM
  #43  
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
old mossy thinks cyclists that appreciate planning for bikes in the transportation mix with bike specific infrastructure a cult? pluease.

Mossy- I ride 150-350 miles a week- more if I'm riding a vacation- vehicularily, and I advocate for bicycle specific infrastructure in communities.

riding vehicularily and the desire for bike infrastructure ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

a rider that rides vehicularily can ride in a bike lane and appreciate that space.

a rider that rides vehicularily can use a bike path safely and competantly for transportation; thousands do it every day just here in the Northwest.

riding with cognizance of the laws of traffic and the desire for community enhancements for bicyclists like bike lanes are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

his insistence in that fallacy makes old mossy out to be ludicrously misguided.
But I have never made that fallacy. That fallacy is of your own creation, to suit your own ideology. What I have always written is that the views on which vehicular cycling and bikeways are based are opposite and contradictory, and thereby mutually exclusive. Certainly, unless society and government get so emotional about bikeways that they openly oppose vehicular cycling, vehicular cyclists can put up with, mostly ignore, the bikeway system, including using the few such paths as are useful and safe. However, the bikeway view, embraced by bicycle advocates, actively encourages incompetent cycling and denigrates, often opposes, vehicular cycling. Just as we have seen so much of on this list, where people appear to be trying to think about cycling. The situation is far worse for the general public, who don't bother to think about cycling but just follow their superstitions. This is the situation that is bad for cyclists and therefore bad for bicycle transportation, and that is the reason that I oppose the bikeway view and the programs for which it is the excuse.
John Forester is offline  
Old 04-26-07, 11:29 AM
  #44  
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by randya
If and when you slow the motorists down to 15 mph, it might be possible. I can assure you that the merge that used to be necessary at this location was neither pleasant, nor safe. The current situation is most like a normal intersection where the motorists are required by law to yield to cyclists. It gives cyclists priority. It is safer and easier than requiring through cyclists to perform interweaving merges with two directions of 40 mph + traffic. Why do you have a problem with that?
Is there a yield sign for motorists, and do motorists actually perform the yielding movement as is required for a yielding situation. I haven't seen evidence of these.
John Forester is offline  
Old 04-26-07, 11:44 AM
  #45  
randya
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696

Bikes: who cares?

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Yes and yes. Two yield signs w/ explicit instructions to yield to bikes plus two yellow flashing lights. Of course, you still need to be cautious, but it works fine for cyclists. You see no evidence because you don't ride it daily.
randya is offline  
Old 04-26-07, 11:45 AM
  #46  
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Invisible Hand asked:"I would have really liked to read John's defense to your questions about skill and experience (particularly about experienced cyclists that use non-VC techniques)."

To which ILTB commented:

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Don't hold your breath. Forester has yet to even define the terms or metrics for skilled cyclists, let alone indicate that he has any source for his "data" about "skilled cyclists" other than his so-called "Reasonable Assumptions."

Note: there is no effective "diplomatic approach" to getting Forester to answer for honest criticism of his risk analyses methods, sophist claims of fantastic risk reduction for "trained" cyclists; glaring errors/distortions in his statistical manipulations, nor the validity of conclusions based on such bogus methods. It’s been tried by many, and the response is invariably more repetition of the same mantra, or insults or both. Forester only responds diplomatically to praise and flattery of his work.

You can try fawning and obsequiousness to see if you can get a responsive answer to any criticism of his methods or conclusions and see if it works better.
Just more of ILTB's offensive propaganda to suit his ideology, most nearly, as far as I can discern from his myriad writings, that of the bicycle advocate.

It is easy to observe and to measure the traffic behavior of cyclists on the roadways. Beginning in the late 1970s, I have observed and measured the behavior of some hundreds of cyclists. My criterion for rating is shown on the Forester Cycling Proficiency Score Sheet, shown on my website and in the Effective Cyclist Instructor's Manual. The traffic criteria are all concerned with obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Those cyclists range from randomly selected general population cyclists in various "bike friendly" cities to club cyclists in much the same cities. The average performance for the cycling populations of those cities was uniformly flunking. I have also had a long history of experience with club cyclists, starting in 1946, and, though I did not measure their performance, it was so much more vehicular than that of the general cycling public that the difference was easily noticeable, and this was born out in conversation, because those who led in traffic-cycling knowledge had, nearly all of them, learned from experience of cycling in Europe, where cyclists were expected to obey the rules of the road. Reports of these measurements are also on my website. You can easily compare ILTB's tirades to what is written there.
John Forester is offline  
Old 04-26-07, 11:55 AM
  #47  
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
It sounds like you've already made up your mind, JF. You accept certain logic, and you reject other logical arguments as "illogical". There really is no discussing anything with you. You, like HH, have your answer and you will defend it to the death, come hell or high water.

You've called a lot of people names as well. You being a noob here on this forum, this is impolite. I might've learned something talking to the author of the book who got me seriously into traffic cycling, but you choose to insult me and my father instead. Shame on you. I, for one, will put you on ignore and never recommend your book to anyone ever again.
Well, you know, you should be able to accept criticism of your ideas that are silly, and, equally, of your insistence in persisting in silly ideas.

We agree that we disagree, and, you at least, consider that your facts and reasoning are equal to mine. However, consider that I have repeatedly shown that your facts and reasoning are incorrect, while you have not shown the same for mine. You have repeatedly asserted your point of view, but you have never advanced facts and reasoning that logically provide the support that your assertions require.

I can't help that; only you are in a position to advance reasonable arguments to support your view, and since you have not done so it is reasonable to conclude that you cannot. Therefore, my view is more reasonable than yours.
John Forester is offline  
Old 04-26-07, 12:09 PM
  #48  
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by John Forester
Well, you know, you should be able to accept criticism of your ideas that are silly, and, equally, of your insistence in persisting in silly ideas.

We agree that we disagree, and, you at least, consider that your facts and reasoning are equal to mine. However, consider that I have repeatedly shown that your facts and reasoning are incorrect, while you have not shown the same for mine. You have repeatedly asserted your point of view, but you have never advanced facts and reasoning that logically provide the support that your assertions require.

I can't help that; only you are in a position to advance reasonable arguments to support your view, and since you have not done so it is reasonable to conclude that you cannot. Therefore, my view is more reasonable than yours.


This is the crux for me.

I read and respect both what Forester has to say, and what Brian has to say (his Dad too, and all other forum members). The difference is not that I just happen to agree with most of Forester's opinions, and not with Brian's (in fact, Brian and I probably agree on much more than we disagree).

It is on the specific issues that involve bike lanes, the existence and negative effects of the cyclist inferiority taboo, and the value of promoting vehicular cycling where I tend to agree with Forester and disagree with the Ratliffs.

But even on this issues, is not merely a matter of happening to agree with the Forester opinions and not with the Ratliff's opinions. There are reasons that I agree with Foresters, and reasons that I disagree with the Ratliffs. The primary reason is that Forester's positions in these areas are based on reason, and the Ratliffs' are not.

If I'm wrong, which is certainly possible, then it should be easy to show it. Pick any issue, identify the positions, and the arguments on each side.

By the way, I know that if someone could present an argument based in reason showing that cyclists in general benefit more from bike lanes as compared to the harm that bike lanes cause for cyclists and cycling in general, I would change my mind. And I believe John Forester would too. The reason we have not changed our minds is because no such argument has been presented. Not from the Ratliffs, and not from anyone else. This is how people of reason make their decisions.
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 04-26-07, 12:15 PM
  #49  
LittleBigMan
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
You can try fawning and obsequiousness to see if you can get a responsive answer to any criticism of his methods or conclusions and see if it works better.
Fawning and obsequious are very accurate words for people who allow you to describe them in a condescending tone for their lack of antipathy for John Forester.

Sometimes you remind me of a schoolyard bully, who resorts to intimidation to get his way.
__________________
No worries
LittleBigMan is offline  
Old 04-26-07, 12:43 PM
  #50  
galen_52657
Banned.
 
galen_52657's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Towson, MD
Posts: 4,020

Bikes: 2001 Look KG 241, 1989 Specialized Stump Jumper Comp, 1986 Gatane Performanc

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
randya, nobody give a flying fluck what you do.
galen_52657 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.