Fine, Hawkear. Why don't you show me how the point can be made without bringing in such an example.Well, you're the one who is asserting it, so the burden of proof lies upon you.

An appeal to emotion/fear is not the way to go about backing up your statement.

If you were to say "Compaing the relative merits of bike lanes is pointless, as the negative effects inherent in all bike lanes outweigh any positive attributes you may have observed," and then demonstrated some of the negative effects, then we could be on our way to having a discussion. What you originally said did not foster any discussion, just emotion, and therefore did not contribute anything of value to the thread.

Fine, so now there are two N words that are to be avoided. Got it. You know, the original N word is inherently offensive. I understand that. Comparing or drawing analogies of not-so-evil things like bike lanes to the extreme evil - I understand the objections to that. But I didn't do that. So now you're saying, at least in this forum, that this other N word should also be considered inherently offensive. I find that position to be baseless and absurd.

I will comply, but I remain disappointed in all of you.

Fine, so now there are two N words that are to be avoided. Got it. You know, the original N word is inherently offensive. I understand that. Comparing or drawing analogies of not-so-evil things like bike lanes to the extreme evil - I understand the objections to that. But I didn't do that. So now you're saying, at least in this forum, that this other N word should also be considered inherently offensive. I find that position to be baseless and absurd.

I will comply, but I remain disappointed in all of you.
Oh, come on now. You've been on the internet long enough to have heard of Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law), right?
Hitler, on a semiotic level, has far too many negative connotations associated with him to be used as a valid comparison to anything besides other despotic dictators.
Nazis and Death Camps are on the same level, obviously. Their connotations in our culture make them far too powerful to use as mundane comparisons. Don't be so clueless.

Of course I've heard of Godwin's Law, and I thought my reference was a legitimate exception (since it was not a comparison, much less a mundane one, but an example using the Nazi's as an example of extreme evil), and I'm disappointed in the rest of you for not recognizing and appreciating the difference.

Their connotations in our culture make them far too powerful to use as mundane comparisons.
Either please state exactly what you think I compared to Nazis or camps, or stop saying that I did.

Thank you.

can we argue about bike lanes now??????

Either please state exactly what you think I compared to Nazis or camps, or stop saying that I did.

Thank you.
By placing them in the same sentence, and stating that comparing different bike lanes is like comparing death camps, you are obviously appealing to emotion rather than logic.

If you want some more detail, you stated this was an analogy, correct? Here's a definition of the word analogy:
A form of logical inference or an instance of it, based on the assumption that if two things are known to be alike in some respects, then they must be alike in other respects.
Here are some analogies:

dog : dog food :: cat : cat food
mug : coffee :: stein : beer
bike lanes : segregate cyclists from motorists :: death camps : segregate jews from germans ... and kill them
bike lanes : not worth comparing :: death camps : not worth comparing

Your analogies are kind of a stretch to start with, and then to state that you are not comparing them is ridiculous.

If you didn't intend to evoke emotion, then why did you use such emotional subjects?

I never made an analogy or comparison with Nazis or camps. Please stop saying that I did.

It's easy for you to say that now that your post was deleted.

All I did was use Nazi death camps as an example of evil. Anyone have a problem with that?

Apparantly everybody has a problem with it.

What I did was point out that being able to "grade" something with a "B+" that belongs to a particular class relative to other members of that class, doesn't mean that that member of the class, or any members of that class, are "good" outside of this relative measure. To illustrate how meaningless such within-class relative ratings are, I made this point by showing how it applied in the most extreme example of a "bad" class that I could think of: Nazi camps.

So, the OP applied a grading system to bike lanes. Then you applied a similar grading system to Nazis and other evil things. What on earth was the purpose of bringing up the most evil thing you could think of and subject it to a similar comparison if not to link the two? What is the point submitting Nazis as an example of evil in the same paragraph is saying the bike lanes are bad if not to link the two as examples of evil things? You should just admit that you made a comparison of bike lanes and Nazis and just move on.

And, yes, I would make the same point with a Holocaust survivor sitting next to me, because using the camps as an example of the most extreme evil I can imagine does not diminish their evilness.
That is truly sad. I hope you never do this.

The emotional attributes were irrelevant to me. I simply wanted to illustrate my point using an obviously non-positive example of a class. The camps were the most obvious example I could think of.

No analogy between bike lanes and camps was intended, in no way shape or form.

The most I was comparing was "the grading/ratings of bike lanes" to "the grading/ratings of death camps"

Comparing the ratings of A to the ratings of B is a far, far cry from comparing A to B.

Does comparing how students are graded in high school to how, say, Consumer Reports rates dishwashers (both may use a bell curve, spread sheets, etc.), imply a comparison between high school students and dishwashers? Of course not. Similarly, comparing bike lane ratings to a hypothetical rating of death camps should not imply a comparison between bike lanes and death camps. It certainly does not for me, and it did not occur to me that it might for someone else.

That this distinction was not recognized and appreciated, by so many of you, is most disappointing.

helmet, you are one disappointed dude....

Does comparing how students are graded in high school to how, say, Consumer Reports rates dishwashers (both may use a bell curve, spread sheets, etc.), imply a comparison between high school students and dishwashers?
Well, actually it does in a way. By comparing how students are graded to how dishwashers are graded it coule be inferred that the grading of students is as impersonal as the grading of dishwashers, that students are no different than dishwashers, that both are just products to be rated on a scale.

No, Serge, we're disappointed in you.

Please speak for yourself.
It is exactly what I expect from him, based on a consistent track record of counterproductive use of offensive analogies to make a point. His excuses for such behavior are also consistent with an obtuse refusal to recognize that his opinions/theories on bicycling, bicyclists or law, do not become facts (or need to be respected) through his use of rhetorical flimflam, constant repetition or shock value.

I rest my case.

The emotional attributes were irrelevant to me.Too bad. You picked an emotional juxtaposition. You should be more aware of what you are doing.
No analogy between bike lanes and camps was intended, in no way shape or form.Well, you didn't make that very clear. Maybe you could have come up with a better example initially.
Comparing the ratings of A to the ratings of B is a far, far cry from comparing A to B.Still, the juxtaposition is there.
That this distinction was not recognized and appreciated, by so many of you, is most disappointing.Oh, get off your high horse, and get a clue. You have to realize by now that bringing up emotional subjects in topics totally unrelated has no purpose other than to generate an emotional reaction. I still stand by my assessment that your initial post served as nothing more than a troll. You really can't be that naive.

HHead and others.

Why not try to alienate fewer, by ponying up with a well considered apology. You might still think that others are wrong, but at least you will have made the movement to see from another's point of view.

Some people might be used to throwing around words like nazi, and other deragatory "enemy" words. But when objections are raised why do you need to defend that? Why not change to get your point accross? Seems like if you aren't willing to listen to what your audience is saying then you are really more concerned with something besides your bike-related message.

I think that it takes a big person to say that they are sorry. If you think that this all is PC then you are missing the point. Using sensationalism, (that someone thinks is ojectionable), is a lame why to get somebody to listen.

Actually, there were and are a lot of people like the Nazis. We still have skinheads/neo Nazis. There have been pogroms perpetrated against different peoples/religions sanctioned by the State since the beginning of time. Recently, 'Ethnic Cleansing' comes to mind. The thought process is the same. The only difference is one of scale.
Fair point, but I never read that any of them gave a hoot about bike lanes.


Why would anyone expect Helmet Head to stop pretending bike lanes are as dangerous to the human race as mass murder? HH has never cared about truth, facts or logic. He posts to be as offensive as possible, and to stir up as much turmoil as possible. Other members of the Forums COULD chose to simply ignore any thread he pollutes, but noooo....
Now it's you who are going too far. I think it's helpful to have someone so strongly opposed to "special" facilities in a bike forum. But this time, he went too far.

I intended no offense to anyone, not even an emotional reaction. On matters like this, I guess I must be pretty dense.

I apologize if my comment or comments caused any offense.

Serge

I rest my case.

Does that mean you'll go away?

Seriously dude,if you're not a troll,then you really need some help. You preach your VC beliefs with a level of instensity that can only be described as zealotry,flame anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest,and haughtily dismiss anything outside your world view.

Example: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=97420&p=1039888
"Unless one lives somewhere with no hills and lots of cobble-stoned streets, I don't understand the point of carrying the extra weight of anything heavier than a 700x23."

So it never occured to you that there may be people who have carpel tunnel,ride less than perfect roads/construction areas/trails,or have to deal with snow?

There are other examples I could give(like your claim that drivers are the same everywhere,that you later contradicted after visiting SB),but it would be pointless given an inability to see your own faults that rivals a politician's. You truely bring narcissism to a new level.

So let me explain the OP's post,since it went right by you. If you cannot make a point effectively without relying on hot-button rhetoric,then just give it up. You're not going to win any converts,and it just serves to offend many readers.

[edit] This got posted after HH's apology,but I'm standing by it. Maybe he's gotten jumped on enough that he's finally starting to realise how abrasive he is. Hopefully this will bring about an improvement.

Why would anyone expect Helmet Head to stop pretending bike lanes are as dangerous to the human race as mass murder? HH has never cared about truth, facts or logic. He posts to be as offensive as possible, and to stir up as much turmoil as possible. Other members of the Forums COULD chose to simply ignore any thread he pollutes, but noooo...
Now it's you who are going too far. I think it's helpful to have someone so strongly opposed to "special" facilities in a bike forum. But this time, he went too far.
Thanks for explaining what "going too far" means. If Daily Commuter thinks it (i.e. wacky logic/rhetoric) is "helpful" or agrees, than anything goes. If Daily Commuter doesn't agree, than it is too far. Thanks for clearing that up.

Does that mean you'll go away? . . .
I agree that he went too far with the Nazi stuff, but a forum like this needs a strong advocate for riding in traffic. Also, His "Puzzlers" are interesting and provoke good debates. And his philosophy of cyclists taking personal responsibility for our own safety is useful.

And he isn't the only one making inappropriate Nazi analogies. Some of the CM'ers compared the NYPD to the Nazis, even though real Nazis would have just shot all the demonstrators (and them anyone who complained about it).

And he isn't the only one making inappropriate Nazi analogies.
Wouldn't I have to make an analogy to Nazis in order for it to be inappropriate?
And if I made an analogy to Nazis, wouldn't you be able to name the thing I said was analogous to Nazis, like you say CMers drew an analogy between the NYPD and the Nazis? What is my "NYPD", so to speak? And don't even try to say that I drew an analogy between Nazis and bike lanes, or even with their camps and bike lanes, because I did no such thing.

While I will and did apologize for referring to Nazis in an example, if that offended anyone, I honestly don't see the difference between what I did, and what you did by starting this very thread, for example.

Would I have to make an analogy to Nazis in order for it to be inappropriate?
And if I made an analogy to Nazis, wouldn't you be able to name the thing I said was analogous to Nazis, like you say CMers drew an analogy between the NYPD and the Nazis? What is my "NYPD", so to speak? And don't even try to say that I drew an analogy between Nazis and bike lanes, or even with their camps and bike lanes, because I did no such thing.You made an analogy between the grading of bike lanes to the grading of death camps. You used such an extreme example for the sole purpose of evoking an emotional response.

Emotional response != logic.

Does that mean you'll go away?

Seriously dude,if you're not a troll,then you really need some help. You preach your VC beliefs with a level of instensity that can only be described as zealotry,flame anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest,and haughtily dismiss anything outside your world view.

Example: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=97420&p=1039888
"Unless one lives somewhere with no hills and lots of cobble-stoned streets, I don't understand the point of carrying the extra weight of anything heavier than a 700x23."

So it never occured to you that there may be people who have carpel tunnel,ride less than perfect roads/construction areas/trails,or have to deal with snow?
Frankly, it did not occur to me. Thanks for enlightening me.


There are other examples I could give(like your claim that drivers are the same everywhere,that you later contradicted after visiting SB),but it would be pointless given an inability to see your own faults that rivals a politician's. You truely bring narcissism to a new level.
I never said that drivers are the same everywhere, and I never said that SB drivers are significantly different. If you dig up everything I ever said about drivers, you'll find them all to be consistent with my belief that drivers are more or less the same everywhere you go. In some places they tend to drive a little faster or a little slower, in some areas when exactly yellow means stop varies a bit, but, by and large all regional differences, though they exist, are relatively minor and insignificant in terms of what it takes to drive among those drivers. At least that's my experience from riding and driving in quite a variety of places, including all over California, many U.S. cities (in a past life I used to travel for work...) Dallas, Houston, Chicago, rural Illinois, Boston, NYC, Florida, Seattle, Portland, Atlanta, Birmingham, Nashville, and some in Europe (Germany, Austria and France). In all of these places, I noticed subtle but not very significant differences between the various regional driving styles and behaviors.


So let me explain the OP's post,since it went right by you. If you cannot make a point effectively without relying on hot-button rhetoric,then just give it up. You're not going to win any converts,and it just serves to offend many readers.
I understand the point. For some reason I've come to believe that using extreme examples helps illustrates certain points. I know it works for me, but maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps it comes from looking at "bounding cases" in computers all these years. Perhaps to non-engineers it's an unfamiliar tool. I'll give it some thought.

I'm curious how different Santa Barbara drivers really are. I don't know if you ever really explained it other than to say you felt like a second-class citizen when riding here. Care to provide a little more?

You made an analogy between the grading of bike lanes to the grading of death camps. You used such an extreme example for the sole purpose of evoking an emotional response.

Emotional response != logic.
Hawkear, I don't know what I could say that would convince you that the purpose of using the extreme example had nothing to do with evoking an emotional response, much less it being the sole purpose of doing so, but I'll try.

Extreme cases are commonly used in engineering to establish bounds of a problem.
For example, if a software program is supposed to find the square root of a given number, then reasonable inputs to try in testing are the extreme cases: 0, negative numbers, and the maximum integer on the machine, and a few randomly chosen numbers in between. If it works for all of those, then you have a reasonably good basis on which to judge the software as working properly.

In informal logic, using an extreme to illustrate a point is a common method.

If 100 degrees is too hot for a given purpose, then you can assume that 110 degrees is too hot as well.
If Jeffrey Dalmer is shown to have a given characteristic, then you can assume that having that characteristic does not prove you're not capable of murder.

Using extreme examples has nothing to do with evoking emotional responses, and using them has a sound logical basis.

If one wants to illustrate how relative ratings within a class are meaningless with respect to the evaluation of that class relative to entities outside of it, it is perfectly logical to use a well-known class that is commonly understood to be of a given value. There are not too many classes that fall into that category, and the one that came to mind to me was the one that I used. Again, I'm sorry if that offended anyone; that was not the intent. And it most certainly was not used in order to evoke an emotional response, so I would appreciate it if you would stop contending that it was.

I'm curious how different Santa Barbara drivers really are. I don't know if you ever really explained it other than to say you felt like a second-class citizen when riding here. Care to provide a little more?
I did not ride in Santa Barbara. I drove around for about an hour while on a road trip.

What I said was that drivers seemed to treat cyclists like second-class citizens on the roadway, moreso than in San Diego. It just felt like there was more of a separation between motor traffic and bicycle traffic in SB than in SD. I didn't see much interaction between cyclists and drivers, and what little I noticed was more akin to pedestrian-motorist communication than driver-driver communication. It was just a first impression, and all from driving a car, so I wouldn't put much into it. One of these days I hope to actually ride around there, and see how I'm really treated. On the other hand, since how one is treated depends much more on the behavior of the cyclist than on the drivers, that probably won't show much either.

Hawkear, I don't know what I could say that would convince you that the purpose of using the extreme example had nothing to do with evoking an emotional response, much less it being the sole purpose of doing so, but I'll try.

...

Using extreme examples has nothing to do with evoking emotional responses, and using them has a sound logical basis.

If one wants to illustrate how relative ratings within a class are meaningless with respect to the evaluation of that class relative to entities outside of it, it is perfectly logical to use a well-known class that is commonly understood to be of a given value. There are not too many classes that fall into that category, and the one that came to mind to me was the one that I used. Again, I'm sorry if that offended anyone; that was not the intent. And it most certainly was not used in order to evoke an emotional response, so I would appreciate it if you would stop contending that it was.
HH, I see what you're saying here, but you did not take into consideration the extreme emotional responses associated with your extreme examples, or if you did, you left them in deliberately to evoke the response. So, were you naive, or a troll?

Naive. Very naive. Now that my naivite has been eliminated, I'm just disappointed.

I did not ride in Santa Barbara. I drove around for about an hour while on a road trip.

What I said was that drivers seemed to treat cyclists like second-class citizens on the roadway, moreso than in San Diego. It just felt like there was more of a separation between motor traffic and bicycle traffic in SB than in SD. I didn't see much interaction between cyclists and drivers, and what little I noticed was more akin to pedestrian-motorist communication than driver-driver communication. It was just a first impression, and all from driving a car, so I wouldn't put much into it. One of these days I hope to actually ride around there, and see how I'm really treated. On the other hand, since how one is treated depends much more on the behavior of the cyclist than on the drivers, that probably won't show much either.
Can you give an example? What's a pedestrian-motorist-like communication between a cyclist and a motorist look like? How would a similar situation be handled in SD?

The two specifics I remember are:

I saw a cyclist in a bike lane on a downhill 25 mph road in a residential area crossing driveways, instead of merging left and using the full lane. She was traveling over 20 mph.

I saw a cyclist in a bike lane stop and wait to cross with pedestrians (rather than merge left and make a vehicular left turn). This was in the crowded very slow moving traffic on a simple 2-lane road in the touristy business section just east of 101.

There were other incidents, but I don't remember the specifics, just the general impression I got. All the bike lanes everywhere made me feel like there is an expectation for cyclists to be separated from vehicular traffic, and cyclists and motorists seemed to behave consistently with that expectation.

The two specifics I remember are:

I saw a cyclist in a bike lane on a downhill 25 mph road in a residential area crossing driveways, instead of merging left and using the full lane. She was traveling over 20 mph.

I saw a cyclist in a bike lane stop and wait to cross with pedestrians (rather than merge left and make a vehicular left turn). This was in the crowded very slow moving traffic on a simple 2-lane road in the touristy business section just east of 101.

There were other incidents, but I don't remember the specifics, just the general impression I got. All the bike lanes everywhere made me feel like there is an expectation for cyclists to be separated from vehicular traffic, and cyclists and motorists seemed to behave consistently with that expectation.
Ok. But those aren't examples of pedestrian-motorist-like communication between a cyclist and a motorist. Just examples of people riding bikes in a way you don't approve of in facilities you don't approve of.

Lack of communication is a form of communication, and what I meant.

In the first case, the cyclist did not ever look back, and clearly did not even consider merging left. I was watching her as I followed. I don't think it occured to her to even try to communicate with me, to acknowledge that she knew I was there, etc., much like a pedestrian on a sidewalk typically does not communicate with motorists passing by on the street. This is different from how motorcyclists tend to behave, for example. when they are being passed. There is usually some kind of body language, looks, slight lane adjustments., etc., that are all used to communicate with passing motorists.

In the second case, the cyclist waited, like a pedestrian, until the cars stopped, and then crossed. The only communication was his looking to make sure the cars had stopped, just like a pedestrian would.

In the second case, the cyclist waited, like a pedestrian, until the cars stopped, and then crossed. The only communication was his looking to make sure the cars had stopped, just like a pedestrian would.

This would also be the action of someone with a bicycle only traffic light...

Are you sure this was not the case?

This is exactly how motorists react at stoplights.

Choose which two analogies fit best.

Nazis:NYPD; Concentration Camp:Woodward Camp; El Guapo:People's Republic of China Army

This would also be the action of someone with a bicycle only traffic light...

Are you sure this was not the case?

This is exactly how motorists react at stoplights.
As I stated earlier, he was stopped in the bike lane, on the right side of the street, waiting to cross the street in the crosswalk with the pedestrians.

He was clearly acting and communicating like a "rolling ped", not a driver.

As I stated earlier, he was stopped in the bike lane, on the right side of the street, waiting to cross the street in the crosswalk with the pedestrians.

He was clearly acting and communicating like a "rolling ped", not a driver.

Then again he could have just been a rolling ped. You have no idea of the skills of that cyclist or their mindset...

I see cyclists running stoplights and riding in the wrong direction all the time... should I use those isolated incidents to pass judgement on on "cyclists in San Diego," or "cyclist road conditions in San Diego?"

How about when we were taking road II... how many cyclists did we see doing it the "wrong way," and what might be the impression they leave on the "driver in the street?"

Certainly that one idiot driver thought that we were in the wrong... Go figure.

Helmet head, please shut up and go see "The Producers". Like my dad says, " I'm too old to change, and all of my friends like me this way."

By the way, I stopped using the lame side walk stair combo to get over the West End Bridge and now ride the circle, just like a car. So your rantings did have some effect.

Lack of communication is a form of communication, and what I meant.

In the first case, the cyclist did not ever look back, and clearly did not even consider merging left. I was watching her as I followed. I don't think it occured to her to even try to communicate with me, to acknowledge that she knew I was there, etc., much like a pedestrian on a sidewalk typically does not communicate with motorists passing by on the street. This is different from how motorcyclists tend to behave, for example. when they are being passed. There is usually some kind of body language, looks, slight lane adjustments., etc., that are all used to communicate with passing motorists.

In the second case, the cyclist waited, like a pedestrian, until the cars stopped, and then crossed. The only communication was his looking to make sure the cars had stopped, just like a pedestrian would.
I can't imagine why on earth you need to turn around and look behind you to negotiate with a car driver that is passing you when you are in one lane and the car is in another lane. I don't do that on my motorcycle and I don't do it in a bike lane. I'm aware they are there, with my mirrors on my motorcycle and with my ears on my bicycle and that's plenty sufficient.

And so what a guy stopped and waited for traffic to pass before crossing the street? What's wrong with that? He got to the other side safely. He didn't do anything stupid or illegal.

Lighten up guys, I wasn't judging the cyclists' behavior at all.

Lighten up guys, I wasn't judging the cyclists' behavior at all.
Ha, Ha, and Ha! The BF's very own hanging judge of all that is correct about bicycling behavior pleads for everyone else to "Lighten up." Tee, Hee and Hee!

Ha, Ha, and Ha! The BF's very own hanging judge of all that is correct about bicycling behavior pleads for everyone else to "Lighten up." Tee, Hee and Hee!
Please do not waste everyone's time with baseless and/or frivolous expressions of disagreement, including using juvenile ad hominem attacks like, "The BF's very own hanging judge of all that is correct about bicycling behavior".

Please do not waste everyone's time with baseless and/or frivolous expressions of disagreement, including using juvenile ad hominem attacks like, "The BF's very own hanging judge of all that is correct about bicycling behavior".
You could just put ILTB on your ignore list and move on with your life.

But then this forum wouldn't be as fun to read. ;)

Please do not waste everyone's time with baseless and/or frivolous expressions of disagreement, including using juvenile ad hominem attacks like, "The BF's very own hanging judge of all that is correct about bicycling behavior".
Whaa, Whaa, Whaa. A full year and thousands of messages critiquing everybody else's compliance with HH's standards of correctness justify the title. So, Lighten Up Judge or at least Loosen Up your helmet straps.

A full year and thousands of messages critiquing everybody else's compliance with HH's standards of correctness justify the title. So, Lighten Up Judge or at least Loosen Up your helmet straps.
The common vehicular rules of the road that allow any competent driver to drive a vehicle off practically any commercial airport in the world, and know how to do so legally and safely, without consulting one word of the local traffic laws, are hardly my standards.

The only issue is whether cyclists riding in traffic want to reduce their chances of collision, by following these same common vehicular rules of the road, or increase their chances, by violating them.