I own a copy of John Forester’s Effective Cycling (6th Ed.). I knew when I bought it that he was a controversial bicycle advocate. And I knew, because it is always the case, that I’d have areas of agreement and disagreement with him.
What I didn’t realize is that I apparently have emotional problems.
Forester unnecessarily relies on a combination of straw man and ad hominem fallacies to set up what are otherwise interesting analyses of facts/opinions/experiences and discussions of his approach . I was reading chapter 22 yesterday and found yet another example of fallacious thinking in the opening paragraph to the section on mirrors:
Many cyclists who have developed their worries more than their skills are strong advocates of rear-view mirrors mounted on the helmet or on the eyeglass frames. They argue that with such mirrors they never have to turn their heads, and that mirrors are thus a necessity for cycling safety. In my opinion, their emotional response indicates that they are relying upon their mirrors to alleviate their fears rather than to accomplish safe maneuvers, and that they confuse their presumed need to see regularly behind them with the looking and negotiating that I describe for lane changing.
What follows this is a sober discussion about mirrors that I found useful, although I disagreed with some of his opinions. Disagreement is not a bad thing. It can, and should, be an open door to conversation, learning, and understanding. Forester’s attitude in this book appears to be, however, that not only is disagreement with him a bad thing, it’s pathological.
I am a mirror advocate. I have a big sucker mounted right there on my handle bars. I do not, however, recognize myself in the paragraph above. The reason: In order to make his point, Forester creates a straw man to knock down. Not only does he knock it down, he insults it thereby insulting anyone who might dare disagree with him.
- I have never claimed mirrors allow you to ride without having to look back. Quite the opposite in fact.
- I have never argued mirrors are a necessity. I think they are a good idea. I use one for the same reasons drivers of cars use them — in my opinion it’s prudent to look behind regularly. Bicyclists, like car drivers, still have to turn their heads and look.
- I do not confuse my desire to see regularly behind me with the “looking and negotiating” Forester describes (a technique with which I heartily agree and practice on every ride).
Wow, did you catch that? Forrester’s position on mirrors is also a good example of the either-or fallacy (aka. false dichotomy or false dilemma) — another one you’ll find throughout the book.
Look, we all make errors of reasoning. But Forester’s fallacies are not errors; he employs the same ones too consistently. To the logician, fallacies are errors. But in rhetoric, my discipline, they are also tools of persuasion.
I think Forester’s employment of particular fallacies encourages those who agree with him to treat those who disagree with contempt and disrespect. That’s exactly what I’ve seen since starting this blog and becoming active in bicycle advocacy. I don’t like it. It’s counter-productive.
While I think I always have more to learn (the reason I bought Effective Cycling), I also think I have a few things figured out. But the academic me is always reminding the bicycling me that 1) I could be spectacularly wrong, and 2) disagreement should be an open door to communication, learning, and understanding.
Comments 11
I think Forester’s false dilemmas and ad hominem characterizations seriously detract from what is an overhwelmingly strong case.
Inclusion of “hot button” terms like “selfish,” “uneducated,” “bad enough,” “harbor this perception,” “competent,” “incompetent,” “untrained,” “novice,” a whole host of others, and my personal favorite, “inane,” irritate me greatly about something I completely agree with and practice daily.
Forester – and his “second-rate imitators” may know issues, but I fully agree with Andy that it can be hard work to get past the patronizing rhetoric to get at the meat.
And yes, add “pathological” to that list…
Posted 08 Aug 2009 at 9:11 am ¶“I don’t like it. It’s counter-productive.”
Hear, hear!
Posted 08 Aug 2009 at 9:25 am ¶I heard from someone who knows John that he now uses a mirror now that he is older and has trouble using his neck.
I cannot verify that claim as I do not know him personally.
Posted 08 Aug 2009 at 11:35 am ¶Robert… Interesting. Perhaps a CT reader might be able to confirm or deny. If true, it’s a good illustration of how context has a nasty way of challenging certainty.
Posted 08 Aug 2009 at 11:55 am ¶Go to chainguard
http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/message/20995
The mirror, as it should be, is used to determine when a head check is worthwhile, not as a substitute for a head check.
Posted 08 Aug 2009 at 2:23 pm ¶The discussions about mirror use on chainguard are a good example of exactly what Andy is talking about vis-á-vis Forester’s “followers.” I stumbled on one of those when I first discovered that listserve several years ago. At the time I had not ridden without a mirror and would have been uncomfortable not having one. I was stunned at the vehement opposition to mirrors by some list members. Personal preference regarding mirror use is a pretty stupid issue to get worked up (or judgmental) about.
I still have bar-end mirrors on my 2 road bikes. I don’t have one on my Surly because it has barcons. I missed it at first and tried to use a temple mirror, but I found it more annoying than useful. I still like to have a mirror for pre-scanning a merge on high-speed roads, but I manage fine without. I will admit, I have developed a much better head turn than I had before riding without a mirror.
Posted 08 Aug 2009 at 3:13 pm ¶I tried to read that book (or maybe an earlier edition, it was from the library), but I couldn’t do it, in part at least because of the things you mention. I noticed that things Forester himself liked to do were absolutely necessary for the rest of us, and things that he didn’t like to do were completely out of the question for all of us (the example I recall there had to do with tandem riding– the captain holding the bike at stops without the stoker putting a foot down). I didn’t find it persuasive (or readable) either way.
Posted 09 Aug 2009 at 8:24 am ¶Steve… Thanks for that link. I’d like Forester to answer this question: What changed? And I don’t mean the stiff neck. Just goes to show the trouble with either-or thinking.
Posted 09 Aug 2009 at 11:12 am ¶Disclaimer: never met Forrester, never read his book.
I call Forrester’s most devoted followers teh Bike Taliban. They hate dissent and the dissenter. They tend to espouse the belief that there is one way to ride on the road, and all other ways (i.e. separated facilities), are dangerous and lethal. Their way (no separation under any circumstances, ride your bike as a part of traffic) has resulted in the 0.2 % commuting share we see in this country. It has also resulted in roadway engineers totally forgetting to design bike-friendly streets.
Since I do believe there is safety in numbers and I do think bike lanes and sharrows do bring out more riders, I think Forrester’s approach has been counter productive.
Posted 11 Aug 2009 at 2:14 pm ¶I simply don’t care what the gurus think or write. I feel more comfortable with a mirror and turn my head when I feel it prudent (which is often). This reminds me of the tired old debate about whether helmet project brains or discourage bike commuting. Since I live in the US and not Denmark, I wear a helmet. It is my job to make decisions to best protect me on the road, and as long as I am following the law, it really is immaterial what anyone else thinks.
Posted 17 Aug 2009 at 10:19 pm ¶Karen… Right on!
Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 6:50 am ¶