SmallFront

No, I did not just learn them. It's a catch-all term for all-sorts of, yes, intellectual dishonesty, I see in your posts: Strawmanning, moving the goal-posts, redefining words as you see fit, invalid premises, and so forth. All sorts of fallacies and general dishonesty when debating all fit under the umbrella of "intellectual dishonesty". But then again, since you didn't use the word "premise", but rather "building up to", I am not surprised one bit.

elcruxio

You keep saying those things. Yet you do not provide with examples (even ones taken completely out of context, which seems to be a hallmark of yours). You do realize that parroting stuff does not make it true.

Dave Cutter

My wife insists that I wear a helmet. So I do.

Statistically.... the risks involved in cycling aren't really such a big deal. I am not implying that cycling itself doesn't have intrinsic dangers/risks. I accept that my chosen sport is a blood sport. So there will be injuries... and there might be a marginally greater risk of more serious injuries if a helmet isn't worn. But I'd like to see the actuary that can actually put numbers to those stats. I doubt it can be done.

Of course.... the safest and easiest solution is just to wear a helmet on the day(s) you have accidents. That's my plan. And it makes the wife happy too.

SmallFront

You must have realised that I am not bothering quoting every instance at this point, just because you move the goal posts or demand that I repost what you have said and not said. You can reread the posts if you are in doubt.

I am not parroting anything. I am repeating points I have already explained and already shown where you were dishonest in one way or another. But no, repeating doesn't make it true, but I did repeatedly show where you were dishonest and explained why it was dishonest. Now you want me to repost those things? You don't even know what a premise is, apparently, and you outright lie about my position, and when not, you misrepresent what I say, and when explained to you, you just pretend you said something else, as I have shown repeatedly in this very thread. I am not going to repost everything I said before, nor disseminate every word of your longer posts again, nor am I going to post full-length posts in their entirety, just so your invalid premises and whatnot can be ignored by you.

I also find it funny, that I caught you in an outright lie, yet, that is completely ignored by you, apparently you want me to repost everything I said in this thread to prove you wrong, even if that is less than practical. If you didn't lie, and what you said was true, it would be a matter of seconds to show exactly where I said what you claim I said. But no, better to pretend I haven't provided anything to back up my arguments (there's that intellectual dishonesty on your part again).

elcruxio

Parroting...

I'm really interested on that supposed lie. I really have no idea what you are talking about.

But just to level the playground with exact same argumentative force:
You do the same thing.

SmallFront

Hmm, apparently, that word means something else to you than to the rest of us. I can gather, that you think that premises and explanations are "parroting".


See the post you quoted here (and didn't respond to the context one bit which is a fine strategy when you want something to go away):

https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-s...l#post16853116

And my post that was quoted, including the thing I consider an outright lie:

https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-s...l#post16853097

Or, will you refuse to go back and read, and then claim victory because I haven't provided the text (and the complete text) again?


I have time and time again provided you with the reasoning, and why yours are invalid, and quoted you to show you where you moved the goalposts and shown you other fallacies too. Excuse me for not wanting to continue that, all while you just move the goalposts, pretend you didn't say something, or pretend I said something I didn't. But I guess the rules of logic doesn't apply to you, and as a result, this is just "parroting".

elcruxio

Ah yes. That wasn't actually a lie. What you did was that you invented my argument order (with gross simplifications) by cutting it from the earlier posts I had written. I had beforehand already differentiated between types of cycling which made all the difference in following posts and which you so graciously chose to disregard. But I guess you couldn't be bothered to take earlier posts into consideration.

And I will point this out again.
Lets assume driving a car is safe.
One can quite reasonably then state that driving a car is safe even though some driving disciplines are not safe (such as nascar or drifting). This is due to the fact that the majority of driving falls within the constraints of "safe" normal driving. When someone then says driving is safe that argument cannot be weakened by stating that it is not since not all driving is safe. It's majority against minority and majority wins.

Same thing with cycling and this time we need no fake assumptions. Cycling is safe. That works because the majority of cycling is safe. Majority of cycling is on par with walking in safety actually. But even though minority niches of cycling are dangerous it does not in fact affect the cycling as safe in general. It can skew the statistics towards unsafe which is of course a shame but it does not affect the safety on majority cycling (which is day to day or utility)

CB HI

I would rather have a mandatory helmet law than Hawaii's Mandatory Bike Lane law where both the state and Honolulu willfully paint dangerous bike lanes.

None of these mandatory laws or FRAP should exist.

SmallFront

No, I didn't "invent" anything. When you use "A" as a premise for argument P, you can't turn around when you come to Q, R, X, Y, Z, and say that "A" was never said, or that "A" is actually "B", and demand that we now ignore "A". Yet another lie from you, trying to defend the first lie.

From me to the guy who has revealed himself not to understand the word "premise", nor its function, it is a simple matter of you rereading the thread, and you will notice, that your premises change constantly, and that when I addressed a specific premise, I only go back when said premise is a contradicts or a large moderation of a previous premise.

I can't get anywhere with you. On the one hand, you demand that I quote your own post constantly, that I have to repost what have already been said by both of you. On the other hand, if I do that, I have to quote the post in it's entirety or close to it, otherwise it's out of context, and I shouldn't attach any value to your premises ("the building-up", as you put it), when you have moved on. Also, I shouldn't dare compare what you say now to what you said before, even in the same paragraph. And if I do, I "invent the order" of your quotes and whatnot.

What a waste of time this has been.

nun

I'm not against the wearing of helmets. It's sensible, but I choose not to do it because the only person it affects is me. I'm surprised that this has concentrated on the wearing, or not, of helmets. I think everyone would agree that for your own personal safety it's best to wear a helmet. Why hasn't there been more discussion of the number of cyclists that routinely put other road users (and themselves) at risk by breaking simple road rules that they would follow when driving a car.

nun

I agree. I could have easily left the helmet stuff out of my post and just concentrated on the unsafe way most cyclists ride in traffic. I included it to underline that just putting a helmet on is not sufficient make you safe on the road. I've been passed so many times by helmeted cyclists when I've been stopped behind a bus signaling a right turn and it's a lottery whether the lights will change and the bus will start the right turn cutting the cyclists on the inside off.

SmallFront

Because the OP and subject line included "I don't wear a helmet".

But you're right. I don't wear a helmet all the time. I had a really old one, and because it was so scruffy, I got into the habit of only wearing it when I deemed it a real necessity. Now, with my new helmet, I have a hard time getting into the habit of donning it "because that's what I always do". I'd like to get into that habit again.

One of my pet peeves are those miniscule watch-battery leds that does next to nothing, and on the other end; people wearing superbright headtorches, blinding everyone, including motorists in the same streets as I am travelling. That, and people riding all over the place, as if they own the place (and is closed to the public) - often without any lights whatsover. But the thread was someone posting about not wearing a helmet, a sort of statement to that end, so of course people respond to that (both sides of the aisle).

CB HI

The cyclist is not endangering anyone else, unless you think the cyclist may tip the bus over if he gets right hooked.

The cyclist also likely knows when the light will turn green and knows if he has time to pass the bus. I know the timing of the lights in the areas I regularly ride. On others, I often can see if the light on the cross street is green or if it has already turned yellow.

FBinNY 

You do understand that drivers were hitting and killing bicyclists long before texting existed, and even before cellphones existed, and probably before cars even had radios.

In fact the MVA death rate for bicyclists is currently lower than it was 5-10 years ago - before texting.

daihard 

It would be the best if none of those laws existed. WA doesn't have a mandatory bike-lane law (thank goodness), but it has the FRAP and helmet laws.

mrtuttle04

You mean a helmet doesn't make you invincible?

SmallFront

Ha, ha!

JoeyBike

.......................

mrtuttle04

When in the Navy on a submarine, I learned the accidents can be avoided or minimized when they happen. Having said that, I still hate wearing helmets and only wear them to minimize social pressure. It is a cost versus reward premises. The cost is potential brain damage, the reward is a comfortable bike ride. I guess I am just the the type of person who is willing to take some chances.

daihard 

I think that's what it comes down to... risk assessment. If you have an accident and hit your head hard, a helmet would most probably help minimize the damage to your head. OTOH, how likely is it that you do get into an accident like that? The probability will probably depend on the type of riding you do.

B. Carfree

Perhaps this is because motorists generally flaunt the law to an equal or greater degree than cyclists do. That's not much of a surprise since they're the same people.

It appears to me that much of the unlawful cycling are simply the way inexperienced people on bikes compensate for the behavior of scofflaw motorists. They fear illegal/unsafe close passes, so they salmon. They fear being hit by either opening doors on parked cars or overtaking motorists on congested urban streets, so they ride on the sidewalk. They fear being run over while waiting at intersections, so they run the lights (Even Joey Bike has given this as a partial rationale for his style).

While none of these compensations are safer than riding lawfully, these people's fears are difficult to overcome when they can see with their own eyes that nearly all motorists run every stop sign, turn right on red without stopping or looking to the right, speed on every road and seem to have an incredible amount of difficulty keeping a seven foot wide vehicle in an eleven foot wide lane.

By the way, I'm an ass whole and a cyclist, but not an ass whole cyclist, if you know what I mean.

nun

I'm just arguing for riding lawfully. That seems to be quite controversial, now I understand why there are so many cyclists riding dangerously. If we were to do that maths would it be personally safer to wear a helmet and run red lights or to go without a helmet and wait for the lights to turn green. Then we could ask which is safer for other road users.

rebel1916

You are truly a warrior for freedom. Have you redeemed your strawman yet?

JoeyBike

I ride exclusively to preserve my life. Sometimes it is safer to obey the law, sometimes obeying the law puts me in harm's way (and motorist's way) for no good reason. If I were the only @-hole on the planet I MIGHT agree to ride lawfully. Until that day comes, you are wasting your breath.

Northwestrider

Please do, easy on the salt if you don't mind