View Single Post
Old 08-06-07, 08:28 AM
  #23  
larryfeltonj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Atlanta GA
Posts: 553

Bikes: Raleigh Supercourse, Peugeot Iseran, Raleigh Twenty

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by sggoodri
The straw man argument I keep seeing repeated is as follows:

The vehicular cycling advocate's original argument is this: Vehicular cycling skill development makes cyclists more safe, confident and comfortable on a wide variety of roads than without it; roadway engineering should be conducted in a manner that is compatible with vehicular cycling including the vehicular rules of the road as well as the kinematic and dynamic aspects of bicycles as vehicles.

The distorted version (straw man) argument is this: No changes to the engineering of the roadway system or behavior of motorists regarding bicycle traffic are ever beneficial or desirable for cycling; All cyclists who know the rules of the road can be perfectly safe and comfortable cycling on all roads designed to accommodate motor vehicle traffic.
.
This is a good succinct and complete summary of the repeatedly constructed straw man. Sometimes it's presented in a Straw Man Lite form, and sometimes it's in a form I'm beginning to think of as Beko-Sack-of-Sledgehammers. But it usually boils down to the distortion you've outlined above.
larryfeltonj is offline