If JF psychological theories are correct shouldn’t we also be against …
 

Using JF’s logic on why we should be against BL shouldn’t we also be against:

Marriage; it was designed by men under the women-inferiority superstition.

Mass Transit; it was designed by people with a vehicle under the walking inferiority superstition.

Laws; designed by government under the general public inferiority superstition.

(Any other similar parallels?)

My point is all this psychobabble is just a red herring and has nothing to contribute about anything.

Psychobabble red herrings are created by Sophists with a credible evidence inferiority superstition.

What part of "I'm a cyclist and don't belong in traffic, I'm a driver and that cyclist doesn't belong in traffic" don't you two get please? Yes, JF's verbose and often abrasive writing style can be a little dense to read but so far he's not wrong.

How any of that relates to the OP's post remains a mystery to me. I can only assume that it's trolling due to a purely personal dislike of JF and has absolutely nothing to do with his theories. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Ya think so, huh?:rolleyes: The newest Forester acolyte has arrived to the list and may be just as obsequious as the recently semi-retired HH.

You might not be 'wrong', but also thinking Forrester is cyclings version of Xanu
isnt wrong either. The 'Cyclist inferiority Syndrome' is beyond ludicris.
Maybe he can lend his name to a medication to cure it like that 'restless leg syndrome'
stuff......

What part of I am an experienced and educated cyclists and I ride the safest way possible wither there are bike lanes or not don’t you understand? Some sort of bike lane superstition perhaps? The law cannot require you to ride in an unsafe manner, which to me is a critical point to all this fear mongering around bike lanes. It is only because cyclists have an inferiority complex and feel they are totally helpless around badly designed bike lanes does a lot of this junk exist in the first place.

In short the worst case scenario bike lanes are no skin off my nose and make no difference to my current riding conditions and at best I like riding in them and they make bike riding more pleasant.

Edit: A badly designed bike lane is a lot like a pot hole, if you get involved you can get these things fixed, don’t put up with junk.

Bike Forums is just another way for government to hold us down and force us off of other internet boards. If we're not careful and don't exercise our rights, we will be banned from other internet sites and forced to be exclusively on bike forums.

+1 :beer: So we are suffering from other internet board are inferior superstition.

Any others?

I’m “trolling” to make a point on what consist of a logical argument and what does not. Just because some other group created something to control or subjugate another group does not in itself imply that it is evil.

It is interesting how your statement applies to motorist creating bike lanes to control and subjugate cyclist.

i think john forester has sadly turned into an automobile & congestion advocate.

and he thinks most cyclists should not be riding on the streets. what an elitist.

Sadly most cyclists do not ride in the streets. Most ride in parks, on paths and on sidewalks.

A rare few actually ride in the streets.

???

what? here in Seattle, most riders are riding the streets. despite them riding the roadways, john would consider most of them 'incompetant' and unfit to ride roads. he's an elitist, pontificating prig.

As far as I can tell, according to John Forester, we should be opposed to a lot of things, including mass transit, urban planning and urban planners, motorists and anti-motorists, perhaps even utility cycling but, most importantly, we should oppose anyone who doesn't bow to John Forester's infinite wisdom (and, possibly, any cyclist who isn't a "high mileage road cyclist", a.k.a. a club cyclist) -- ideally, we should belittle and ridicule such infidels. Of course, anyone with the audacity to disagree with The Great One is scum.

Who gives a rat's behind about John Forester's nutcase social and psychological theories? Forester is the clown prince of cycling advocacy, an arrogant and insulting egomaniac and an embarassment to rules of the road cyclists everywhere.

Apologists for John Forester notwithstanding, the biggest obstacle to rational discussion is John Forester, who has made a conscious choice to be devisive. Forester has made a career of being insulting, calling people liars and implying that anyone who disagrees with him is mentally deficient. Belittling people is the very basis of JF's philosophy.

If you want to start an argument among cyclists, just mention Forester's name -- but be prepared for some laughter and ridicule.

Forester's social and psychological theories are a joke (no matter how many times he repeats them). It amuses me no end that anyone takes Forester's wacko theories seriously. The guy knows a lot about cycling and yet he still manages to be very wrong in some very fundamental ways. He's a classic case of what my father used to call a know-it-all who knows a lot of things that aren't true.

Most cyclists are not the folks you might see at your local shop Bek. Most cyclists are the Walmart riding park riders and the weekend riders.

Those on the streets actually represent a small proportion of all cyclists... now they may be the higher milage cyclists, but they do not represent a majority of "cyclists."

Just looking at the people numbers here... not the actual miles ridden, nor the days ridden. This fact is why so many motorists consider bikes, "toys;" for them, that is what a bike is. This is also why bike paths are typically geared for 8-10 MPH.

no, gene, most bicyclists in seattle are riding in the streets. not the ones i talk to at the shop, MOST bicyclists seen in the city. riding in the streets.

despite that, jonh thinks most are likely incompetant and should be banned from riding a bicycle.

is a cyclist a person who owns a bicycle and rides it once a year? or is a cyclist a person that rides a bike, regularily?


Gene, most cyclists in seattle ride the roads.

That's not a superstition! BF is Superior!:D:D:D:beer:

OK Everyone, it's starting to get personal in here, let's dial it back a bit on personal references, thanks!

Huh?

So it's OK for John Forester to personally attact virtually everyone who disagrees with him for over 40 years (even to the point of "love this country or leave it" comments), but it's not OK to point out what an arrogant and insuting egomanical SOB John Forester has been for over 40 years? Gimme a break!

If it's OK for John Forester to be an insuting SOB, it should be acceptable for others to respond in kind.

BF is pretty cool. I started this thread to be a logic puzzle not a personality bashing contest. So maybe if I was more focused in my question.

So does Government (group #1) creating laws to subjugate citizens (group #2) mean that laws are inherently bad for citizens (group #2)?

So what do you think, yes, no? Can you explain your answer?

No, and no, with the following qualification: No group can vote themselves into tyranny faster than scared free citizens;)

Another aspect is that a law voted in for perfectly valid reasons can have unintended consequences, unforeseen because of a faulty cause/effect analysis.:(

I agree that the mods should come down on John when he gets insulting but that still is not a license for open insult season on John. My general rule of thumb is only insult when insulted and then I am done and I think it would be helpful if others at least followed this practice (but better yet would be not to allow the insults in the first place.)

The site has a history of problem posters who do not get disciplined. As far as I can tell, the VC sub-forum is to be pretty much a free-for-all.

When I first came here a few members would take jabs at each other and it seemed more like watching a Don Rickles competition or something, not exactly inappropriate but not constructive either. But now insulting has gotten really out of hand and I think a lot of people here should realize that when you initiate an insult it is a sign of a weak argument.

Anyway it is really hard on the mods to draw a line on what is appropriate and what is not so it is up to us to give them feed back.

Where are the reports of personal insults? I check the moderator's board every day, and I'm not seeing them. You'd be surprised at how few reported posts we receive from this subforum. It makes us think participants are comfortable with the tone in here. There are over 80,000 members now, and we cannot be monitoring every single forum all the time, even if we tried. If you're not comfortable, and you're not reporting posts, we can't help. Help us help you. :)