What then do you do when there are no other vehicles about and the light simply does not change...

Not that this was the case in the OP...

See chipcom's response above. This is entirely reasonable, I think. The important point is that one stops.
:)

I might agree to an extent. The trouble is, about 99% of the light running by cyclists that I have seen takes place when the road is completely clear. (stop, look, go is the common form) By comparison, 99% of the lights being blown by drivers happen when the jump the green or try to squeeze through at the tail end of the yellow and didn't make it. Now which act is more dangerous?

If you are talking treating a red as a stop sign that's one thing, running a red implies thinking one can make it, and just blasts through....no prior stop, nothing.

As for treating reds as stops...that's debatable. I've tried to only do it when I find the sensor is not triggering the light for me. I wouldn't use "running" to describe that though.

Seems we were using two different definitions as what's running a red.

If you are talking treating a red as a stop sign that's one thing, running a red implies thinking one can make it, and just blasts through....no prior stop, nothing.

As for treating reds as stops...that's debatable. I've tried to only do it when I find the sensor is not triggering the light for me. I wouldn't use "running" to describe that though.

Seems we were using two different definitions as what's running a red.

It could very well be. I am using what I _see_ the vast majority of the time, and what most drivers are probably seeing as well.

Now in fairness, I probably am on roads with extra-wide lanes or bike lanes so my results are a little skewed. But what I see most of the time is cyclists stopping, and then continuing when the cross traffic is clear (but the light is still red).

Going straight through red lights is pretty much a "GAH!!! IDIOT!!" thing. I can't, and won't jusitfy it. But its not exactly much of what I see on a daily basis.

Perhaps the terms should be running the red light (for treating it like a stop sign) and blowing the red light (ignoring it entirely)?

If some use the excuse that the reason cyclists should be allow to run the red because of the treatment cyclists gets from drivers.

Then I guess with the treatment pedestrians gets from cyclists or drivers and then pedestrians should be allow to walk against the don't walk signal or because the treatment drivers gets from other drivers then drivers should be allow to run the red.

PS Maybe it is only a cyclist but common sense would tell some in here that a cyclist running the red is dangerous for pedestrians.

Beats me. These posts are numbered. Let me know when you find it.



I never claimed that. You are assuming far too much.



I'm not sure if English truly is not your first language, but you still need to use punctuation. I hav absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here.



It was a strawman, If I parse that glurge you just wrote correctly.



Will you please try to make some freaking sense?


Mr if you have absolutely no idea what I am trying to say here then why did you reply to my comments in the first place?

Also how can I be assuming something because weren't you the one who first wrote the words "auto assault"?

And I know English (but as I like to call it Australian) is my first language, because I know the word is have not as you wrote it "hav".

So why are you freaking here writing nonsense and abuse such as not discussing the issue but attacking the person, having different opinion on the same issue (cyclists running the red), misquoting people, twisting comments around, writing comments before thinking and trying to avoid the truth.

Will you please write something useful on the issue?

It could very well be. I am using what I _see_ the vast majority of the time, and what most drivers are probably seeing as well.

Now in fairness, I probably am on roads with extra-wide lanes or bike lanes so my results are a little skewed. But what I see most of the time is cyclists stopping, and then continuing when the cross traffic is clear (but the light is still red).

Going straight through red lights is pretty much a "GAH!!! IDIOT!!" thing. I can't, and won't jusitfy it. But its not exactly much of what I see on a daily basis.

Perhaps the terms should be running the red light (for treating it like a stop sign) and blowing the red light (ignoring it entirely)?

You won't justify cyclists running the red Mr?

Funny you say that because didn't you in another message you justify cyclists running the red because of the treatment cyclists gets from drivers?

So perhaps you should make it clear your opinion do you or do you not justify cyclists running the red?

PS Maybe I should point out yet another mistake in your comment above in public but I am not like you and wheezel as I like to write about the issue which as you can see is not about English and Grammar.

Does anyone think that riding against traffic is putting the right way riders in danger? How many of you have been driving and had a cyclist{mostly a kid on a BMX} coming the wrong way as your trying to get across a busy street? They've caught me by suprise a few times. To who it may concern.
Do not worry about the way people write. This is a public forum,not a school room and we do not{as an adult}need to be corrected as you would do it to my face once.

You won't justify cyclists running the red Mr?


No. As I made clear from the start.


Funny you say that because didn't you in another message you justify cyclists running the red because of the treatment cyclists gets from drivers?


Wrong. Read it again. You've still got it backwards.


So perhaps you should make it clear your opinion do you or do you not justify cyclists running the red?


I've made it clear several times now, obviously you are slow: Cylists running red lights is used by drivers with prejudices towards cyclists as an excuse to justify their appalling behavior and attitude towards cyclists. The act of cylists running red lights, even though not legal, is not a true balance for the dangerous actions and attitudes of these drivers.


PS Maybe I should point out yet another mistake in your comment above in public but I am not like you and wheezel as I like to write about the issue which as you can see is not about English and Grammar.

I never claimed to be perfect, but you have written sentences that simply to not parse. I cannot argue with those who are incomprehensible. I don['t make spell flames or grammar attacks, but when I can't even make sense of the words you type, then there is simply no point to replying.

Mr if you have absolutely no idea what I am trying to say here then why did you reply to my comments in the first place?


Because you are attacking me and saying I did things that I did not do.


Also how can I be assuming something because weren't you the one who first wrote the words "auto assault"?


What does this sentence mean? What does it have to do with anything?


And I know English (but as I like to call it Australian) is my first language, because I know the word is have not as you wrote it "hav".


*Yawn*. Spelling mistakes do not make for incoherant, run-on sentences like you have made. Example:


"In other words isn't common semse telling you just because there are assult on cyclist is no excuse to run the red and I am wondering if you get caught running the red if you will use the excuse sorry police person I ran the red because of "appling attude and actions drivers take against cyclists" "


Tell us what that sentence actually means, kwv.


So why are you freaking here writing nonsense and abuse such as not discussing the issue but attacking the person, having different opinion on the same issue (cyclists running the red), misquoting people, twisting comments around, writing comments before thinking and trying to avoid the truth.


Why am I here? Because are falsely accusing me of doing the things such as 'attacking people', and the like. Also, some folks have made some points that I felt needed answering. The only person 'attacked' by me would be you, and that is because of your false statements regarding me.


Will you please write something useful on the issue?

I'm sorry, but there is very little difference between you and a troll right now.

If some use the excuse that the reason cyclists should be allow to run the red because of the treatment cyclists gets from drivers.
.

Who is saying that? I am certainly not.

But don't let me stop you from raping that Straw Man.

Because you are attacking me and saying I did things that I did not do.



What does this sentence mean? What does it have to do with anything?



*Yawn*. Spelling mistakes do not make for incoherant, run-on sentences like you have made. Example:


"In other words isn't common semse telling you just because there are assult on cyclist is no excuse to run the red and I am wondering if you get caught running the red if you will use the excuse sorry police person I ran the red because of "appling attude and actions drivers take against cyclists" "


Tell us what that sentence actually means, kwv.



Why am I here? Because are falsely accusing me of doing the things such as 'attacking people', and the like. Also, some folks have made some points that I felt needed answering. The only person 'attacked' by me would be you, and that is because of your false statements regarding me.



I'm sorry, but there is very little difference between you and a troll right now.

Me accusing you of something so you didn't write in message 20 the following:

"Does it excuse the appalling attitude so many drivers have towards bikes? No. It does not."

Or message 42:

"It is definately not a balance for the horriffic actions some drivers take against cyclists"

Also is there any different between you and a fool when reading your own comments you have proven you have nothing useful to write especially when you don't write comments on the issue and instead you attack me.

So sorry I cannot help you if you want to go on with your flame game, abuse and comments that doesn't make sense.

As I have more important things to go on with it which includes replying to others in here whose comments if you look when compared to yours are in fact about cyclists.

So you have choices to make:

Write comments on the issue or keep quiet:

'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865), (attributed)

No. As I made clear from the start.



Wrong. Read it again. You've still got it backwards.



I've made it clear several times now, obviously you are slow: Cylists running red lights is used by drivers with prejudices towards cyclists as an excuse to justify their appalling behavior and attitude towards cyclists. The act of cylists running red lights, even though not legal, is not a true balance for the dangerous actions and attitudes of these drivers.



I never claimed to be perfect, but you have written sentences that simply to not parse. I cannot argue with those who are incomprehensible. I don['t make spell flames or grammar attacks, but when I can't even make sense of the words you type, then there is simply no point to replying.

Yes you are right you are not perfect especially when you failed to realise yes you are flame attacking me with the following comments:

"I've made it clear several times now, obviously you are slow".

So obviously from all this I cannot argue with a someone who thanks to their own comments looks like a fool especially a fool that cannot or will not write about the issue and doesn't like others pointing out the truth.

Read your own stupid comments yes you have flame attacked me.

Kwv,pratice what you preach?

Me accusing you of something so you didn't write in message 20 the following:

"Does it excuse the appalling attitude so many drivers have towards bikes? No. It does not."

Or message 42:

"It is definately not a balance for the horriffic actions some drivers take against cyclists"

Also is there any different between you and a fool when reading your own comments you have proven you have nothing useful to write especially when you don't write comments on the issue and instead you attack me.


Simple reading comprehension would tell you that neither of those comments is excusing the running of red lights in any manner. I'd like to know by what twisted logic you went from what I wrote up there to suggesting that its OK to run red lights because of driver's attitudes.


So sorry I cannot help you if you want to go on with your flame game, abuse and comments that doesn't make sense.

As I have more important things to go on with it which includes replying to others in here whose comments if you look when compared to yours are in fact about cyclists.

So you have choices to make:

Write comments on the issue or keep quiet:

'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865), (attributed)

The irony meter pegs again.

Yes you are right you are not perfect especially when you failed to realise yes you are flame attacking me with the following comments:

"I've made it clear several times now, obviously you are slow".


Boo-hoo. That comment was made after you suggested for more than the second time that I was advocating a position that I did not support. You don't like the flames? Then don't make strawman attacks.


So obviously from all this I cannot argue with a someone who thanks to their own comments looks like a fool especially a fool that cannot or will not write about the issue and doesn't like others pointing out the truth.

Commas, kvw, please, please, please, use some commas.


Read your own stupid comments yes you have flame attacked me.

Yes I have, after you made several attacks on me. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

I wonder if the Mary Poppins crowd that stops at every light and stop sign feels the same way about us "scofflaws" that I feel about those who ride with headphones (I strongly disapprove of headphones but freely run lights when "safe"). Dicuss. ;)


LOL, I didn't know that I was a "Mary Poppins", geeze, I thought it was only in motorcycling that you got labled! Now I'm a idiot for riding a bicycle, that get's screamed at me as some yokel local in a PU, passes by me, even when I'm in a bicycle lane!! Now, I'm looked down upon cause:

a. I ride a Comfort bike
b. I'm a "Mary Poppins", cause I stop at all stop lights and signs and even, "shock", use hand signals!

I guess I'll have to go and hide my head in the sand, LOL, not likey, geeze get over yourselves folks!

Boo-hoo. That comment was made after you suggested for more than the second time that I was advocating a position that I did not support. You don't like the flames? Then don't make strawman attacks.



Commas, kvw, please, please, please, use some commas.

Yes I have, after you made several attacks on me. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

It is your problem Mr that you think I am attacking you but we both can clearly see you are attacking me such as saying I am slow and write comments that has nothing to do with the issue once again as the issue is not about me but cyclists or making fun of rape with the words raping the strawman.

So please please don't denied something that you don't want others to point that you did in fact do or write comments that has nothing to do with the issue or are very sick comments.

And to others who unlike Mr will listen I try to take this to private messages but I am still waiting for his replies so I guess from not replying to my comment Mr just want a soapbox and an audience where they can launch their flame war.

So from now on in even if Mr writes comments on the issue I won't even reply as it seems he doesn't even like other people opinions especially ones that doesn't agree with him.

Boo-hoo. That comment was made after you suggested for more than the second time that I was advocating a position that I did not support. You don't like the flames? Then don't make strawman attacks.



Commas, kvw, please, please, please, use some commas.

Yes I have, after you made several attacks on me. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

It is your problem Mr Boo Hoo that you think I am attacking you but we both can clearly see you are attacking me such as saying I am slow and write comments that has nothing to do with the issue once again as the issue is not about me but cyclists or making fun of rape with the words raping the strawman.

So please please don't denied something that you don't want others to point that you did in fact do or write comments that has nothing to do with the issue or are very sick comments.

And to others who unlike Mr Boo Hoo will listen I try to take this to private messages but I am still waiting for his replies so I guess from not replying to my comment Mr Boo Hoo just want a soapbox and an audience where they can launch their flame war.

So from now on in even if Mr Boo Hoo writes comments on the issue (yeah right) I won't even reply as it seems he doesn't even like other people opinions especially ones that doesn't agree with what he has to say.

Boo-hoo. That comment was made after you suggested for more than the second time that I was advocating a position that I did not support. You don't like the flames? Then don't make strawman attacks.



Commas, kvw, please, please, please, use some commas.

Yes I have, after you made several attacks on me. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

It is your problem Mr that you think in expressing an opinion I am attacking you but we both can clearly see you are attacking me such as saying I am slow and write comments that is making fun of rape with the words raping the strawman and that has nothing to do with the issue once again as the issue is not about me but cyclists.

So please please don't or write comments that has nothing to do with the issue or are very sick comments or don't denied something that you don't want others to point that you did in fact do.

Because by writing "Don't dish it out if you can't take it" isn't this proof that you are fact attacking me?

And to others who unlike will listen I try to take this to private messages but I am still waiting for his replies so I guess from not replying to my comment Mr just want a soapbox and an audience where they can launch their flame war.

So from now on in even if Mr writes comments on the issue (yeah right) I won't even reply as it seems he doesn't even like other people opinions especially ones that doesn't agree with what he has to write.

Simple reading comprehension would tell you that neither of those comments is excusing the running of red lights in any manner. I'd like to know by what twisted logic you went from what I wrote up there to suggesting that its OK to run red lights because of driver's attitudes.



The irony meter pegs again.


Common sense and reading your own comments wouldn't this tell you that you have a twisted way of thinking and for the truth of cyclists running the red as you were the one and not me who wrote comments on drivers attitude towards cyclists?

So bother replying Mr I have better things to do with my life then read comments from an person like you especially a person who denied doing something when the truth are their own comments.


The BS and Abuse Meter is way up again.

[QUOTE=Mr. Miskatonic]Because you are attacking me and saying I did things that I did not do.


What does the words "auto assault" has to do with anything?

Well let see that is right, as you were the one Mr who wrote these words so maybe you should tell anyone "What does it have to do with anything?"?

Unless of course you are going to denied writing these words.

And all this has what to do with riders being wrong riding against traffic? Everybody should know its wrong and is breaking the law and puts others inc the law breaker in danger.

I confess. Kwv has written five messages in reply to my comments and I can't understand a single one of them. I'll just have to risk the idea that someone might actually understand what he types, and come to dislike me based on the opinions he claimed I have.

I'm done here, at least as far as kvw is concerned.

I confess. Kwv has written five messages in reply to my comments and I can't understand a single one of them. I'll just have to risk the idea that someone might actually understand what he types, and come to dislike me based on the opinions he claimed I have.

I'm done here, at least as far as kvw is concerned.

Mr since you don't want to take this issue that has nothing to do with cyclists and red light to the private message.

Then I guess I have to risk the idea that you want to make yourself look like an fool in public once again because common sense would tell you that if you couldn't understand my comments then you would have not reply to them.

Also once again stop lying in public Mr by CLAIMING someone has thought something when you know they have done no such thing.

As it was you and not me as the one who is concerned you done here, me I am not concerned you are done here as I enjoy a good laugh thanks.

:-) :-) :-)

So I got no problem Mr that you are concerned you are done here as you written many replies to me that had nothing do with cyclists and red light even those you said you couldn't understand me.

Genec, your post saddens me. Whenever someone gets into a steel and glass motorized vehicle weighing thousands of pounds their personalities change for the worse, to arrogance and aggressiveness, even if they are cyclists. How dissapointing. You did the equivalent of "get in this guys face". I venture to guess you never would have done this if that guy was in an automobile, or if you were both on foot, if he was jaywalking.

What the cyclist did was perfectly correct. If there is no traffic coming, the safest thing for the cyclist to do is get out of contact with cars. I never obey any traffic light. If I have the green as I approach an intersection, I assume that the approaching car or the car on the side street will not yield the right of way to me and I plan accordingly. To insist on the right of way when its car v. bike-even though the law says I have the right of way, is dangerous and foolish. Likewise, if I have the red and the street is clear, I go, because its safer for me and for car traffic.

Traffic laws are about safety, not small minded adherence to abstract rules.

Genec, your post saddens me. Whenever someone gets into a steel and glass motorized vehicle weighing thousands of pounds their personalities change for the worse, to arrogance and aggressiveness, even if they are cyclists. How dissapointing. You did the equivalent of "get in this guys face". I venture to guess you never would have done this if that guy was in an automobile, or if you were both on foot, if he was jaywalking.

What the cyclist did was perfectly correct. If there is no traffic coming, the safest thing for the cyclist to do is get out of contact with cars. I never obey any traffic light. If I have the green as I approach an intersection, I assume that the approaching car or the car on the side street will not yield the right of way to me and I plan accordingly. To insist on the right of way when its car v. bike-even though the law says I have the right of way, is dangerous and foolish. Likewise, if I have the red and the street is clear, I go, because its safer for me and for car traffic.

Traffic laws are about safety, not small minded adherence to abstract rules.


Extend the bolded statement to include "while cycling" and you are wrong. I often "correct" fellow cyclists while riding... as I believe that if a cyclist does wrong, all other cyclists get lumped together by the driving public....

So I do chastise fellow cyclists that run lights when the light was going to change anyway, I do chastise wrong way riders and I do make comments to cyclists about their riding styles relative to their use of the road.

Now, just to make things perfectly clear... I do run stop signs when I am sure there is no one (not even a ped) around to witness it. And I do stop, then go through lights that I am sure will never change for me. I will run such a light before I will get off my bike and push the darn ped button.

RE my driving habits... I drive much like I ride. Too much, based on my wife's and other's opinions.

So if anything, I am guilty of "getting in this guy's face," but no more than if I had been on a bike, right beside him.

Genec-So you admit that its ok to run stop lights if there is nothing coming, I don't understand why you put so much importance on whether someone is a witness to your traffic infraction. When you run the light, you are either being safe or unsafe, a witness has no bearing on the safety of your behavior, and I have to assume you think its safe otherwise you wouldn't do it.

Do you understand what you did? Politely telling another cyclist that riding down the wrong side of the street is dangerous more for him than for you is one thing, but you chased down a guy on a bicycle, in your steel and glass missile, and yelled at him for doing something that you admit was ok to do! To me, getting chased down while I'm riding my bike is the most threatening thing you can do to me. It puts me instantly in fight or flight mode. I'm sure you understand how aggressive and threatening your behavior was, so I'm still baffled why you did it.

Genec-So you admit that its ok to run stop lights if there is nothing coming, I don't understand why you put so much importance on whether someone is a witness to your traffic infraction. When you run the light, you are either being safe or unsafe, a witness has no bearing on the safety of your behavior, and I have to assume you think its safe otherwise you wouldn't do it.

Do you understand what you did? Politely telling another cyclist that riding down the wrong side of the street is dangerous more for him than for you is one thing, but you chased down a guy on a bicycle, in your steel and glass missile, and yelled at him for doing something that you admit was ok to do! To me, getting chased down while I'm riding my bike is the most threatening thing you can do to me. It puts me instantly in fight or flight mode. I'm sure you understand how aggressive and threatening your behavior was, so I'm still baffled why you did it.

By "witness" in my previous post, I mean nobody that would be effected or would care... No one that is effected by my actions nor would take note. And you're right... what I do is dictated by whether it is safe or not.

Now while I was in my glass and steel cage... I did not run the guy down... we were both awaiting another light... and I spoke to him in conversational tone... my use of the term "VC" however went right over his head and was what caused me to come here and confess my "sin." The whole post was based on the irony of using terms from BF, like they were everyday terms... Heck, some of the stuff we discuss here from time to time is so deep in the detail and muck that frankly the real world doesn't care one tiny bit.

Now as far as me contridicting what I do, with what this cyclist did... I stop at all red lights... this guy did too. If the light doesn't trigger, or there are no autos to trigger it... then I will, carefully, "run the light." In the case of the OP, there were autos waiting at the light, the autos triggered the light, there was no doubt that the light was going to change, yet the cyclist chose to run the light, in front of several motorists... which was an act that was totally unwarranted. HE HAD NO REASON TO RUN THE LIGHT! None what so ever. Yet he did it... and no doubt planted some image in the minds of some of those motorists waiting patiently at that light.

Do you see the difference between running a light that will never change for you and running a light that is on the verge of change and doing so in front of many "witnesses?"

The title of your post is "yelled at a cyclist this morning", and in the body of the post you state that you got "1:1" with him. I assume you mean "one to one", which in my book means, you got in his face. Now, apprently after much reflection, you state that no, you did not yell, you spoke to him in a conversational tone. Fine, you still chased him down and distracted him to try to point out something that was completely safe. Its safer for bikes to be moving (of course assuming they are not interfering with traffic, and you have not said in any of your posts that he in any way interfered with any driver) when cars blast off from a green light.

"Do you see the difference between running a light that will never change for you and running a light that is on the verge of change and doing so in front of many "witnesses?""

I see now exactly why you were so upset with this guy that you felt obliged to stop him. Apprently, you are obsessed with the image that cyclists portray to car drivers and that is more important to you than safety. Fine, but don't impose your questionable views on another cyclist, especially by endangering him by chasing him down on the road to engage him in your "conversational tone".

The title of your post is "yelled at a cyclist this morning", and in the body of the post you state that you got "1:1" with him. I assume you mean "one to one", which in my book means, you got in his face. Now, apprently after much reflection, you state that no, you did not yell, you spoke to him in a conversational tone. Fine, you still chased him down and distracted him to try to point out something that was completely safe. Its safer for bikes to be moving (of course assuming they are not interfering with traffic, and you have not said in any of your posts that he in any way interfered with any driver) when cars blast off from a green light.

"Do you see the difference between running a light that will never change for you and running a light that is on the verge of change and doing so in front of many "witnesses?""

I see now exactly why you were so upset with this guy that you felt obliged to stop him. Apprently, you are obsessed with the image that cyclists portray to car drivers and that is more important to you than safety. Fine, but don't impose your questionable views on another cyclist, especially by endangering him by chasing him down on the road to engage him in your "conversational tone".

Apparently you did not read and comprehend the first post... the one where I state that I did not actually yell at him nor did I chase him down.

You see 1:1 as some confrontational situation... I see it as tet a tet. To each their own.

You don't like what I right, fine then don't bother to read it.

Image is more imporant than safety... yeah like running a red light is a image thing.

Have a nice day!

Every one has the right to tell me their opinion, and I have the right to ignore them.
Problem is, the tone of voice one chooses when trying to illuminate a subject.
What if, now just imagine, for a second....what if you stopped your car, got on your bike, caught up to the person that offended you, introduced yourself, and then calmly explained your viewpoint without trying to influence the opponent's viewpoint. Maybe you would have conveyed a message that would have positively influenced your fellow citizen. Unfortunately, by being judgemental, we all too often alienate the very person(s) that we are trying so hard to influence, making the problem worse. Genec, don't beat yourself up over it, but you have done more harm toward your VC philosophy by your aggressive approach, and in the process have alienated many from this presumably sound philosophy in this very forum. If taking the above said approach is too involving or time consuming, then bite down on something, and keep on driving.

Every one has the right to tell me their opinion, and I have the right to ignore them.
Problem is, the tone of voice one chooses when trying to illuminate a subject.
What if, now just imagine, for a second....what if you stopped your car, got on your bike, caught up to the person that offended you, introduced yourself, and then calmly explained your viewpoint without trying to influence the opponent's viewpoint. Maybe you would have conveyed a message that would have positively influenced your fellow citizen. Unfortunately, by being judgemental, we all too often alienate the very person(s) that we are trying so hard to influence, making the problem worse. Genec, don't beat yourself up over it, but you have done more harm toward your VC philosophy by your aggressive approach, and in the process have alienated many from this presumably sound philosophy in this very forum. If taking the above said approach is too involving or time consuming, then bite down on something, and keep on driving.

After seeing how fast some cyclists travel or getting flack from some cyclists when you point out their errors that put themself and other road users at risk is it worth it pointing out their errors?

Every one has the right to tell me their opinion, and I have the right to ignore them.
Problem is, the tone of voice one chooses when trying to illuminate a subject.
What if, now just imagine, for a second....what if you stopped your car, got on your bike, caught up to the person that offended you, introduced yourself, and then calmly explained your viewpoint without trying to influence the opponent's viewpoint. Maybe you would have conveyed a message that would have positively influenced your fellow citizen. Unfortunately, by being judgemental, we all too often alienate the very person(s) that we are trying so hard to influence, making the problem worse. Genec, don't beat yourself up over it, but you have done more harm toward your VC philosophy by your aggressive approach, and in the process have alienated many from this presumably sound philosophy in this very forum. If taking the above said approach is too involving or time consuming, then bite down on something, and keep on driving.

Stop Yelling! The biggest problem with cyclist doing Anything wrong is drivers alreay hate us and if they see one of us do something wrong,we are all doing it.

I wasn't yelling. I was having the last word.
Thread tools are fun and educational.
Red Herring: A fallacy in which the person is attacked, not the argument.