Advocacy & Safety - Bike Lanes in Berlin...anything like that in the US?

What do you expect? I understand ILTB's frustration. It's just a natural reflex to want to lash out at hijackers. They have their own twisted pet cause to force down everyone's throat, and are quite immune to the powers of logical argument.

What do you expect? I understand ILTB's frustration. It's just a natural reflex to want to lash out at hijackers. They have their own twisted pet cause to force down everyone's throat, and are quite immune to the powers of logical argument.
Maybe he should try that instead of just hurling insults.


CONJECTURE. MALFORMED OPINION. BS.
Two of a kind.

And what do you have to add to the debate (other than personal insults)?
Debate? Is that what you call the endless repitition of EC™dogma, defended by more repitition and added fanciful theories and unique guesswork based on the Forester Chronicles?

Or in Daily Commuter's case, is "debate" what you call the technique of cry baby, waa-waaing about indefensible positions/tender sensibilities being shocked, shocked at any suggestion that blind faith in EC™ dogma/conjuring is NOT the be-all/end-all of bicycling advocacy? Is declaring VC dogma sacrosanct (i.e. any skepticism or call for evidence is a "personal insult") and its proselytizers immune from criticism considered debate in "We-VCer" circles?

Debate? Is that what you call the endless repitition of EC™dogma, defended by more repitition and added fanciful theories and unique guesswork based on the Forester Chronicles?
In the bike lane thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=101993), people who agreed with VC and people who didn't went back and forth arguing about how this study or that study proved or didn't prove a point. At least one person chose to add almost nothing but insults (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=1268051post1268051).


endless repitition of [insults], cry baby, waa-waaing
Speaks for itself.

Thought I'd start a new thread since the Bike Lanes sticky was spilling over : )I applaud the effort to start a rational bike lane discussion but, alas, there are enough VC ideolagues in bikeforums that a rational discussion of bike lanes is virtually impossible. For all intents and purposes this thread was hijacked in the first reply (post #2 by Helmet Head), and I quote "So the more fundamental question is whether segregation or integration of cyclists is best".

The VC ideologue will always eventually find something wrong with all BL designs. The discussion turns to what the ideologue sees as "a more fundamental question". The constant insertion of VC ideology into almost every thread is why I have a lot less interest in this forum than I used to have. Virtually every thread turns into the same tired old VC debate (that is, the threads that don't turn into the same tired old CM debate).


And what do you have to add to the debate (other than personal insults)?

Oh, gimme a break! If anyone needs to be called out for adding nothing but personal attacks, it's you. You've made exactly four posts in this thread, all nothing but personal attacks on ILTB. Posts #102 and #104 on this page are yours as is post #100 on page 4 which I quoted in it's entirety above, as well as post #45 on page 2, your first post in this thread, which I quote in its entirety below.


This is ILTB's game. He demands statistics and studies, but never provides them himself. As usual, he's shouting insults from the peanut gallery.

Daily Commute, your record in this thread speaks for itself. The personal attacker is you. The poster that adds nothing to the discussion is you.

Actually, the first thing approaching a personal attack in this thread was yet another personal attack on ILTB in post #10, in this case by Helmet Head (although I won't argue that HH hasn't added a lot to the discussion).


Suggestions? What part of the GERMAN study of the safety of their own paths cited by Dr. Goodrich above did you not understand? Oh, you didn't read it? Why bother your mind with facts when you already "know" the truth? I see...

Suffer? Now you're equating not faring as well (which is what we do claim about sidepath users as compared to vehicular cyclists) with suffering, your strawman misrepresentation of what we claim. It seems that without creating strawmen misrepresentations of our claims you'd have even less to say than you already do.It turned out that HH had to eat his words since it was a Swedish study. And, if you ask me, HH's claim of a "strawman" is a red herring.

I don't agree with ILTB on everything but it amuses me that VC ideologues seem to have no answer to ILTB but personal attacks.

Since this thread has already been hijacked, I'm not going to fight it.

I like the distinction between vc (the riding style which is pretty much the same as my riding style) and VC (the ideology to which I am almost totally opposed and which I consider one of the worst things that has happened to bicycling in my lifetime). There's a hugh difference between the riding style and the ideology, although they are often confused. The riding style has been attributed to John Forester although it existed before he ever wrote a book which described it. Much of the ideology can probably be blamed on John Forester (For those keeping track, I, too, have read the book. For the record, there's a lot in it with which I strongly disagree).

II don't agree with ILTB on everything but it amuses me that VC ideologues seem to have no answer to ILTB but personal attacks.
What substance was there to respond to? In the Bike Lane thread, there were strong arguments on both sides over the meaning of a bunch of studies. But as this compilation (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=1268051post1268051) of 12 posts in a row shows, ILTB threw in almost nothing but insults.

I do admit that I have given his posts more attention than they deserve. They are low-hanging fruit--all too easy to pick. I'll try to concentrate on responding to more substantive posts.

For all intents and purposes this thread was hijacked in the first reply (post #2 by Helmet Head), and I quote "So the more fundamental question is whether segregation or integration of cyclists is best".
At least I provided at least some explanation/basis for why I believed that the fundamental question relevant here was about (what I now call) cyclo-segregation. Nothing prevents anyone from challenging me on this point, except their inability to do so. Unless they do, I see no reason in taking the time to provide further explanation, for which I would be happy to do, if I knew there to be any interest.


It's just a natural reflex to want to lash out at hijackers. They have their own twisted pet cause to force down everyone's throat, and are quite immune to the powers of logical argument.
As if anyone has even presented a logical argument challenging the points made by "the highjackers".

Yours Truly

I, personally, in terms of how they affect me directly, have little against BLs. I know when to use them, and I know when not to use them. They offer me no benefits (that wouldn't be there if the stripe were erased), and the drawbacks I know how to manage quite effectively, thank you very much.

So, if you have little against bike lanes, and you know when to use them and when not, wouldn't it follow that when you use them you get more benefit than were you not to use them? If you get no benefits, then why ever use them at all? You could even change your route to avoid them.

And why advocate against something that you use sometimes when it's appropriate for you? Are you the only person in the whole world who has enough sense to know when to use bike lanes and when not?

And if you know how to manage drawbacks, wouldn't it be logical to assume that others can manage them quite effectively thank you very much, too?

My opposition to bike lanes comes from my perspective as a bicycling advocate... I believe they hurt cycling and cycling advocacy all the ways I have specified many times before, over and over. I'm not going to do it again. If you or anyone else is interested, I believe all the reasons can be found in the bike lane debate Wiki referenced in my signature below, and, of course, in the bike lane thread.
Your perspective...you believe...bike lane debate. Not a very factual basis on which to come to a conclusion. Not a good basis for public officials to base new transportation policy on. And not a very good basis for me to make my own decisions, either. I have a perspective, I have beliefs, I have reasons, and I manage quite effectively thank you very much, too. So why is your perspective more valuable than mine or anybody else's?

So, if you have little against bike lanes, and you know when to use them and when not, wouldn't it follow that when you use them you get more benefit than were you not to use them?
Whatever benefit I get is from the pavement, not the stripe. If the stripe were not there, the pavement and all of the benefit would still be there, yet there would be no bike lane. So I get no benefit, none, nada, zilch, from the bike lane per se.

Capiche?

Whatever benefit I get is from the pavement, not the stripe. If the stripe were not there, the pavement and all of the benefit would still be there, yet there would be no bike lane. So I get no benefit, none, nada, zilch, from the bike lane per se.

Capiche?

Except that you are not so fond of extra pavement either, or so you say. You are on the record saying that you prefer a narrow lane even over a wide outside lane. (I can find that post as well, if you prefer)

What if you could have your narrow lane, and your pavement too. Wait; that sounds like a bike lane. We could concentrate on teaching people how to effectively using a bike lane (i.e. when, where, and in what situations) and teach drivers how to deal with bike lanes and make the laws (where they are not already) clear that cyclists are not forced to use the bike lanes. Although, that sound suspiciously like the effort of advocacy groups today.

I am pulling this from the "another misinformed editorial" thread, since it is most applicable to bike lanes. Bruce starts by placing bike lanes in the category of "type" of vehicle (which is segregation), as opposed to "use," which aparently is not. Serge interjects to say that bike lanes on a hill is an example of bike lanes being segregated by use (similar to a truck lane on an uphill stretch of highway), not type, since bikes going up hills are slower than other traffic.

Bruce, how is a truck lane on a hill, put there because trucks are generally slower than the rest of traffic, any different from a bike lane on a hill, put there because bikes are generally slower than the rest of traffic?

(again, assuming no intersections - no place to turn right across or left from the truck/bike lane)

Now Serge...an extention to your argument. How is a bike lane on a hill, put there because bikes are generally slower than the rest of traffic different from a bike lane put anywhere else, because bikes are generally slower than traffic (using your assumptions, of course)?

You did answer this question before, but now it seems what you are saying here is inconsistent with your previously held position. Do you now advocate bike lanes going up hills, and if up hills, why not elsewhere?

As if anyone has even presented a logical argument challenging the points made by "the highjackers".

Yours Truly
Yep, my bad. It should be spelt "highjacker". That would make more sense - you'd have to be high to continue these sorts of shenanigans.

I don't need to engage in some pointless debate with you. I've read enough of your posts and other arguments to know it's an exercise in futility. You seem to exist here solely to make a nuisance of yourself as the self-appointed messiah of a cause that is alien to normal people.

I spent a while last night in some photography forums. There were a lot of terms I'd never heard of, issues that are alien to me, and some pretty esoteric screwball arguments. From the view of a normal person peering in on their specialised world, some of it seemed pretty ridiculous.

To any normal person out there, your endless posts and babbling about bike lanes, positions, miniscule analysis of details and events, and endless hijacking of threads would look pretty ridiculous too.

VC is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. The underlying attitude that it relies on for its existence is wrong. This concept is a stain on the joy of cycling, and anybody who pushes it this strongly has a deranged sense of self-importance and a tenuous grasp on reality.

Your name, your description, your sig - they're all indicative of how pathetically obsessed with this cause you really are.

You are not a balanced individual. You degrade these forums.

Whatever benefit I get is from the pavement, not the stripe. If the stripe were not there, the pavement and all of the benefit would still be there, yet there would be no bike lane. So I get no benefit, none, nada, zilch, from the bike lane per se.

If you had a proper understanding of cycling in a cycling-friendly city, and had proper training and guidance in the use of bike lanes you would quickly learn to see how wrong you are. Its only your lack of experience and understanding of road facilities that leads you to your present opinion.

I am pulling this from the "another misinformed editorial" thread, since it is most applicable to bike lanes. Bruce starts by placing bike lanes in the category of "type" of vehicle (which is segregation), as opposed to "use," which aparently is not. Serge interjects to say that bike lanes on a hill is an example of bike lanes being segregated by use (similar to a truck lane on an uphill stretch of highway), not type, since bikes going up hills are slower than other traffic.


Bruce, how is a truck lane on a hill, put there because trucks are generally slower than the rest of traffic, any different from a bike lane on a hill, put there because bikes are generally slower than the rest of traffic?

(again, assuming no intersections - no place to turn right across or left from the truck/bike lane)


Now Serge...an extention to your argument. How is a bike lane on a hill, put there because bikes are generally slower than the rest of traffic different from a bike lane put anywhere else, because bikes are generally slower than traffic (using your assumptions, of course)?

You did answer this question before, but now it seems what you are saying here is inconsistent with your previously held position. Do you now advocate bike lanes going up hills, and if up hills, why not elsewhere?

Wait a sec. Serge says bike lanes offer no benefits. But he also says bike lanes are a special use lane when placed on a hill where bikes are generally slower, just like truck lanes. Do truck lanes have no benefit to trucks?

Serge, maybe you should go out there and start advocating against truck lanes. Truckers should just use the WOL, or they should just take the lane. A good steely gaze should see them up the hill and teach those drivers stuck behind them a lesson about their rightful place on the roads.

Serge, you didn't answer any of my questions in my last post. You only quibbled with me on the meaning of bike lane, per se. More semantics.