Originally Posted by sbhikes
In answer to the original question, I can relate.
I came here seeking camraderie to help me keep to my personal pledge to ride my bike to work. I asked a few "how do I handle this situation" questions. Got some helpful advice, until the stuff about how I shouldn't have pulled over to avoid being hit by a beer truck (Red Flag #1), and how stupid I am to ride in bike paths and bike lanes, and all that other stuff.
Talk about showing off your sausage, there's been a whole lot of sausage-showing in the "take the lane" BS I've heard. *Pulls up pants, sniffs* Well, I wouldn't ride in that dangerous shoulder where the logging trucks might overlook my sausage. I would always take the lane and only pull over after my log-sized sausage was adequately acknowledged! Puhleeze! (Red Flag #2)
I gave some thought to the ideas I heard, but many of them came with too much anti-bike lane baggage to make any sense in the conditions I ride in daily. For instance, I tried the "ride in the lane and only pull over to let people pass" idea, and decided it was not a good plan, then was told I have a low IQ because clearly I was incapable of comprehending such a plan. (Red Flag #3)
Then the Lord and Master of the ones who diagnosed my mental deficiencies came on board and the whole crowd has taken on a fever pitch of negativity and rank sexism (Red Flag #4) that simply leads me to say I won't ever advocate anything to anybody that might lead anyone to this crowd.
It's not that vehicular cycling is wrong. I just can't understand what good it will accomplish to ridicule and berate people and tell them they are suffering from superstitions and mental disorders. That's crazy talk and puts you on my ignore list.
Apparently, if the conversations I have with real world advocates are any indication, the "ignore list" is where these people end up anyway.
Edit: How can I forget when somebody posted a link to Forester's smiling face on the American Dream Coalition web site! That was the biggest red flag of all, and happened right around the time he and Randal O'Toole came to speak for a local organization in Santa Barbara that actively fights against the work of the bicycle coalition.
I realized then that the Forester Brand of VC is more about creating cyclists who advocate for auto-centric urban development (whether they know they do it or not) than it is about making things safer or better for cyclists. That was the last Red Flag (although I must admit none of my red flags were in any particular order) and the final nail in the coffin of any interest I might have in Forester Brand Vehicular Cycling.
Diane, I do not know what questions you asked nor what advice you received before I was informed that my views were being discussed. However, I seem to remember that your initial words to me presented pro-bikeway views with a distinctly antagonistic attitude. A big red flag because I opposed certain road designs proposed for Santa Barbara that were bad for cyclists and I said that cyclists need good roads? Was that the source of your antagonism? I sincerely hope not. More likely what upset you was that I refused to take part in your anti-motoring campaign. Of course not, I was talking about what is good for cyclists, not about making things worse for motorists. In other words, much of your side of the discussion was about anti-motoring, not about vehicular cycling at all.
It appears that, for one reason or another, you either do not understand the issues, or you refuse to consider them. And at least one of your hopes was absurd, that our cities could be rearranged so that everybody could ride to work on bike paths well separated from traffic. I think, indeed, that you need to learn far more about the subject that fascinates you and then consider how better to understand it. Or, of course, just pay attention to your personal cycling and ignore the rest.