this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2025
74 points (95.1% liked)
Bicycles
4842 readers
8 users here now
Welcome to !bicycles@lemmy.ca
A place to share our love of all things with two wheels and pedals. This is an inclusive, non-judgemental community. All types of cyclists are accepted here; whether you're a commuter, a roadie, a MTB enthusiast, a fixie freak, a crusty xbiking hoarder, in the middle of an epic across-the-world bicycle tour, or any other type of cyclist!
Community Rules
-
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
-
Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
-
No porn.
-
No ads / spamming.
-
Ride bikes
Other cycling-related communities
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
More importantly, Mr. Forester tried to use dedicated bike paths like a freeway, trying to maintain 30mph and only dodging obstacles. Because he almost had a few collisions, and he claims he only almost had a collision once in many years of road cycling, he calls bike paths 1000 times more dangerous.
There's quite a few other instances of lying with statistics, and using studies to disagree with those same study's conclusions thinking himself smarter, but I think the one time he tried to collect his own data was the worst.
Yes, Forester was more brazen than many of his fans. His use of anecdata is the sort of argument that gets dismantled on social media and bike forums. It's amazing he got away with it for so long, with his books being re-printed and updated. Maybe highways designers who didn't want to bother with cyclists were happy that an 'avid cyclist' gave them a reason not to, so ignored the silly footnotes and bad references.