It's back. What's your strategy?

[sbhikes]

You know who is back. Soon anti-BL and CLP will be shoved down our throats until you know who goes on vacation again. Got a strategy to get by until the next hiatus?

Or do you prefer it when you know who is here and feel that anti-BL/CLP is what advocacy is all about? Or do you just like to argue? Or is this forum boring when you know who isn't here?

Go ahead. Confess. We won't tell.

[patc]

I think that, unless and until the moderators deal with the handful of problem posters (including the one you are referring to) this forum is useless. The ignore list helps to a point - but when every other message is from the same person, and every thread becomes a VCers thread, its pointless to take this forum seriously.

Read, but don't contribute anything meaningful - that's my phisolophy for A&S.

[Roody]

I thought I was sort of an insider here, but WTF is CLP?

[Roody]

I think that, unless and until the moderators deal with the handful of problem posters (including the one you are referring to) this forum is useless.
Why should the mods do anything? There are at least twice as many views when HH is here. More hits = more revenue from Google, doesn't it?

He should get a cut! :D

[Blue Order]

I zone this forum out when every thread is hijacked for an anti-BL screed. Assertion: yaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwn.

[Helmet Head]

Did you guys all flunk math?

[galen_52657]

Helmet is emphatic in his view regarding the most productive way to protect the most basic of all cycling advocacy positions - the right of cyclists to use a public road.

I have never seen anyone put a single dent in any of his hypotheses:

1) The most prevalent mindset of road using Americans regarding bicycles is that they should stay out of the way of motor traffic to facilitate the ease of motor traffic.

2) That even many cycling advocates consciously or unconsciously subscribe to this mind set.

3) That bike lanes play to and reinforce this mindset

4) That failing to dispel this mindset is failing advocacy

5) That roads with bike lanes are inherently less safe for cyclists than roads without bike lanes

6) That education and training of cyclists and motorists regarding cyclist's rights to the road and proper riding and passing technique are paramount to advocating for cyclist's safety

[Bekologist]

The armchair quarterbiker?


I know for a FACT one of the bike 'experts' has no knowledge how to use roadways with bike accomodations.

I operate with the strategy that one of the armchair bikers has no clue what he's talking about-

Helmet Head, he's no expert!


Galen, #4 AND 5 are completely FALSE. Maybe everything else in your defense of diatribes about biking, except #4 and #5.

[Blue Order]

Helmet is emphatic in his view regarding the most productive way to protect the most basic of all cycling advocacy positions - the right of cyclists to use a public road.

I have never seen anyone put a single dent in any of his hypotheses:

1) The most prevalent mindset of road using Americans regarding bicycles is that they should stay out of the way of motor traffic to facilitate the ease of motor traffic.

2) That even many cycling advocates consciously or unconsciously subscribe to this mind set.

3) That bike lanes play to and reinforce this mindset

4) That failing to dispel this mindset is failing advocacy

5) That roads with bike lanes are inherently less safe for cyclists than roads without bike lanes

6) That education and training of cyclists and motorists regarding cyclist's rights to the road and proper riding and passing technique are paramount to advocating for cyclist's safetyBecause I'm not interes...Oh look, a bunny!

[buzzman]

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water...

[Roody]

This is just hilarious! I have barely seen any of you guys post while HH was gone, now you're all back too!

Did you all have a nice vacation together? I hope you had some nice group rides. Instead of a pace line, You'd be lined up the other way, from left to right, with HH drifting all over the place. :D

OMG!! I think I'm starting to sound like ILTB!! :eek:

[Blue Order]

:roflmao:

[Bekologist]

No group rides for me, Roody.

I did about a hundred mile overnighter on trails just this weekend, and biked to work everyday, as well as fit in about 5 hours of pure pleasure/training riding in the last week, and STILL had time to post a few threads, I haven't gone anywhere, except out to ride my bike and stuff....


My strategy is to ride, ride like the wind!

Some people around these parts just like to blow smoke about how they drive cars or armchairs as if they were actually bicycles!

[Helmet Head]

Roody... tears in my eyes.

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

Bek... you're pathetic.

Galen... you're a genius. You can summarize my views better than I can.

Pat... thanks for clarifying what you're doing to improve this forum... nothing.

Diane... thanks for noticing I've been absent. For the record, it was no vacation, believe me.

Blue Order... Every thread highjacked for anti-bl screen? Every thread? I hope you pay more attention to traffic when you're riding than you pay attention to what is going on here...

[Bekologist]

Bek... you're pathetic.

so that's what you think of dedicated cyclocommuters and weekend riders, eh?

At least I'm not the one armchair biking!

[Roody]

No group rides for me, Roody.

I did about a hundred mile overnighter on trails just this weekend, and biked to work everyday, as well as fit in about 5 hours of pure pleasure/training riding in the last week, and STILL had time to post a few threads, I haven't gone anywhere, except out to ride my bike and stuff....


My strategy is to ride, ride like the wind!
Sounds great Bek, you're a warrior. I wish i could have rode with you! I've been on a little vacation, too, in beautiful northern Michigan (Well, southern to you :) -- Traverse City) but without a bike. :( So I'm one who's been riding the computer lately.

Tomorrow, I'm going home and I'll be driving a car! Dont tell my buddies on Living Carfree! shhh.... secret ... It's just a temporary arrangement to help my dad out ... I haven't gone over to the dark side yet.

[Helmet Head]

Bek, my calling you pathetic does not apply to all dedicated cyclocommuters and weekend riders. It would, if the basis for my calling you pathetic was that you were a dedicated cyclocommuter and weekend rider, which it isn't. If you weren't so pathetic, no one would have to explain this to you.

[Bekologist]

huh?

I remember that thread you started last fall, Helmet, when you were in your car, and complaining about some bicyclist you saw from the driver's seat.

That's pathetic, chump.

Strategy? ride instead of pretending to, for starters.

[Paul L.]

Helmet is emphatic in his view regarding the most productive way to protect the most basic of all cycling advocacy positions - the right of cyclists to use a public road.

I have never seen anyone put a single dent in any of his hypotheses:

1) The most prevalent mindset of road using Americans regarding bicycles is that they should stay out of the way of motor traffic to facilitate the ease of motor traffic.

2) That even many cycling advocates consciously or unconsciously subscribe to this mind set.

3) That bike lanes play to and reinforce this mindset

4) That failing to dispel this mindset is failing advocacy

5) That roads with bike lanes are inherently less safe for cyclists than roads without bike lanes

6) That education and training of cyclists and motorists regarding cyclist's rights to the road and proper riding and passing technique are paramount to advocating for cyclist's safety

Hypothesis is a good word for it. Wish we could see a recent study with actual data that drivers think this way or that or have a scientific measurement as to how much better they see something that is right in front of them as opposed to something in front of the right side of their car. Where are the studies that show drivers are more apt to strike obstacles slightly to their right as opposed to ones dead on in front of them? oops, guess I am slipping into the trap, sorry folks.

Funny thing is I didn't even notice old helmet was gone. We need someone just as passionate about bike lanes as helmet is about being against them, then we could bring this forum to it's knees!

[Roody]

We need someone just as passionate about bike lanes as helmet is about being against them, then we could bring this forum to it's knees!
How about instead of bringing it to its knees, we try to raise it higher? Really we've got a pretty good thing, if it does get a little tedious at times.

The problem with HH's foes isn't lack of passion. It's lack of clarity and rationality. I was a philosophy major in college but I sure can't keep up with his sophistry ... oops ... I mean his sophisticated grasp of logic and rhetoric. :)

[Treespeed]

It's good to see that after a little time away that absolutely nothing has changed.

[Helmet Head]

You keep up with my anti-bike lane bigoted sophistry just fine, Roody, as is shown by your ability to explain much of my views in your own words, often with better clarity.

Pathetic Bek, however, doesn't even recognize when his arguments are simply ad hominem attacks. He doesn't even seem to understand why resorting to ad hominem attacks is a logical fallacy. It's not clear that he even comprehends what a logical fallacy is, and why one might strive to avoid them.

What Bek cannot seem to grasp is that my arguments do not require anyone to see me as an expert, which, by the way, I have never claimed or implied to be. My arguments are presented as is, and I expect them to stand on their own and be evaluated independent of who happens to be posting them. This is why the rebuttals consisting solely of criticisms of me ("when you were in your car, and complaining about some bicyclist you saw from the driver's seat ...") are so irrelevant. But it's all Bek can hang his helmet on, so that's what he does. It truly is, pathetic.

Let me put it this way. Let's say I NEVER ride my bike. Let's even stipulate I have never ridden a bike, and don't even know how. So what? My arguments, which have nothing to do with me, still stand. As is. Waiting.

[Daily Commute]

Y'all are embarassing yourselves.

shbikes starts a thread just to bash HH and VC'ers, and she wonders why this topic keeps coming up? Geez. Read your own posts. It's the anti-VC'ers who want to turn every thread into a VC debate. This thread is proof. Either Helmet Head uses some kind of mind control over you (does the Steely Gaze work over the internet?), or you are failing to take responsibility for your own posts.

Maybe the motto of shbikes, patc and Bekologist should be, "Stop me, please, before I post again!"

You can argue that HH is wrong (he sometimes is), but at least his threads are about substance. You folks start threads just to be jerks.


I think that, unless and until the moderators deal with the handful of problem posters (including the one you are referring to) this forum is useless. The ignore list helps to a point - but when every other message is from the same person, and every thread becomes a VCers thread, its pointless to take this forum seriously.

Read, but don't contribute anything meaningful - that's my phisolophy for A&S.
This is rich. In a thread that's specifically designed to "insult, attack, and denigrate another member," you complain that the mods aren't picky enough. If they enforced the rules as written (http://www.bikeforums.net/faq.php?faq=basic_guidelines#faq_harrassment), this thread would be deleted or locked.

Personally, I think you, shbikes, and Bekologist are "problem posters." You think Helmet Head is the problem. Perhaps that's why the mods have taken a hands off attitude.

I'm glad the mods let us argue. I'm even glad (to an extent) that the mods won't close down this attack thread.

[CommuterRun]

Thank you, Galen, for stating this so concisely. :)

Helmet is emphatic in his view regarding the most productive way to protect the most basic of all cycling advocacy positions - the right of cyclists to use a public road.

I have never seen anyone put a single dent in any of his hypotheses:

1) The most prevalent mindset of road using Americans regarding bicycles is that they should stay out of the way of motor traffic to facilitate the ease of motor traffic.

2) That even many cycling advocates consciously or unconsciously subscribe to this mind set.

3) That bike lanes play to and reinforce this mindset

4) That failing to dispel this mindset is failing advocacy

5) That roads with bike lanes are inherently less safe for cyclists than roads without bike lanes

6) That education and training of cyclists and motorists regarding cyclist's rights to the road and proper riding and passing technique are paramount to advocating for cyclist's safety

Although Helmet Head and I may disagree on some points, he is absolutely correct on all of these. He just catches all the garbage instead of me, because he is more passionate about voicing his point of view on this.

That is not to say that a cyclist who utilizes vehicular cycling techniques will not use a bike lane, if it's well designed and maintained to the same standards as the other vehicle lanes on the same road.

[Bekologist]

Points 4 and 5 of Galen's are completely FALSE..... (a bicyclist can advocate FOR bike accomodations, AND bike accomodations make roadways safer for bicyclists....)

However, I take offense at some poster's assertion my threads lack merit-I've contributed threads about bike tours, gear, cycling clothing, as well as bike safety.

I started a few A&S threads last fall, that exposed Helmet Head's inability to operate a bicycle on roads with accomodations for bicyclists.

I am critical of Helmet Head's advice because he doesn't know how to ride a bike on roads with bike lanes.... he deserves scorn for his self-officious misguidance, and pointing out to Bike forums just that.... Helmet Head has no business giving advice on how to ride a bike until he learns how!!!

[galen_52657]

Bek,

Coming from a cyclist who admitted publicly to taking multiple spills associated with identical road hazard conditions (if not identical locations), of which one spill resulted in an extended hospital stay and loss of consciousness, I find your critique of anyone's riding ability to be suspect.

[Bekologist]

I've been riding about 35 years, a few spills are normal over time when you ride, Galen. Haven't you found that out yet?

Oh, getting hit by a taxicab from behind is NOT the same as falling on gravel on a wet corner at night, or having a high speed colision with a jeep, crashing into a park bench while drunk, flying off a harbor breakwall, or any of my other, less memorable crashes. Did I tell you, Galen, about the time I nearly ran into a bear?

[galen_52657]

Did I tell you, Galen, about the time I nearly ran into a bear?

Was the bear blocking the bike lane????

[LittleBigMan]

You know who is back.

...you know who goes on vacation again.

...do you prefer it when you know who is here...

...is this forum boring when you know who isn't here?

I'm not afraid to mention He-who-must-not-be-named...

VOLDEMORT, EXPELLIAMUS!

By the way, I wonder where Serge is? If you can hear me, welcome back. Diverse views are essential. :D

[Keith99]

This is just hilarious! I have barely seen any of you guys post while HH was gone, now you're all back too!

Did you all have a nice vacation together? I hope you had some nice group rides. Instead of a pace line, You'd be lined up the other way, from left to right, with HH drifting all over the place. :D

OMG!! I think I'm starting to sound like ILTB!! :eek:

+100

HH is often annoying. His detractors are worse and are doing exactly the same thing they complain about him doing.

[bbunk]

Helmet is emphatic in his view regarding the most productive way to protect the most basic of all cycling advocacy positions - the right of cyclists to use a public road.

I have never seen anyone put a single dent in any of his hypotheses:

1) The most prevalent mindset of road using Americans regarding bicycles is that they should stay out of the way of motor traffic to facilitate the ease of motor traffic.

The most prevelant mindset is to avoid gridlock. They put HOV lanes on freeways to encourage people to carpool not to segregate or get them out of the way. No one likes to be stuck in traffic, well no one I know, that is something we should use to our advantage to promote cycling.

2) That even many cycling advocates consciously or unconsciously subscribe to this mind set.

Personal opinion. Has there been a poll of cycling advocates to find out what their mindset is?

3) That bike lanes play to and reinforce this mindset

Personal opinion. When I ride past a line of cars waiting up to five cycles of the traffic light to get through and intersection it reinforces my joy of not sitting and wasting time in traffic.

4) That failing to dispel this mindset is failing advocacy

Personal opinion. Advocacy is not argueing about bike lanes between cyclist. Advocacy is promoting riding to those who don't ride, working with politicians to increase their knowledge and get their support, etc.

5) That roads with bike lanes are inherently less safe for cyclists than roads without bike lanes

Personal opinion. Heresay.

6) That education and training of cyclists and motorists regarding cyclist's rights to the road and proper riding and passing technique are paramount to advocating for cyclist's safety

I agree. Driver training as a whole is lacking and even worse when they don't teach drivers to share the rode and what the law is.

[patc]

This is rich. In a thread that's specifically designed to "insult, attack, and denigrate another member," you complain that the mods aren't picky enough. If they enforced the rules as written (http://www.bikeforums.net/faq.php?faq=basic_guidelines#faq_harrassment), this thread would be deleted or locked.

I think the "take the higher road" nonsense is for fools, I'm a practical person.

This thread should have been deleted. I should have been reprimanded for my post. I see several "This poster is on your ignore list" posts as well, some of those probably break rules too. History made me feel pretty confident that no moderator action would be taken, and that anything other than extreme personal threats would be ignored. Hence my lack of respect for the so-called rules. The only visible moderation I can recall seeing is the locking on an entire thread, which is the equivalent of cancelling recess because of one problem kid. It just shows contempt to contributors.

I have reported messages in the past, sometimes reporting myself as well for a responce I later felt had gone to far. I have no problem with the rules, but I see no point in following then when no one else is made to and following them would result in net harm to me.


Personally, I think you, shbikes, and Bekologist are "problem posters." You think Helmet Head is the problem. Perhaps that's why the mods have taken a hands off attitude.

I can't speak for Dianne or Bek. For myself, if you have problems with my posts feel free to discuss them with me, either openly or by PM as you feel appropriate. As you just did.

We my first post to this thread inappropriate? A problem? In bad faith? Yes to all the above, I don't care. I have contempt for what A&S has become and I don't care to hide it.

I don't agree with you that identifying problem posters is made impossible by having two or more sides, or more than one problem person. Anyone with every rudimentary training as a facilitator can identify problems. Impartially and consistently applying the rules often prevents problems from getting out of hand in the first place. A hands off attitude just results in a free-for-all. I can think of at least three people on A&S, including myself, who would have recieved a warning in the last month had I been moderator.

If you think I am, overall, a negative influence on A&S you may be correct. If you can convince me that A&S would be a better place without me I will consider no longer posting. I certainly don't enjoy it, and prefer contributing to LCF where we actually have productive discussion. (Although the lack of moderation is seen there too.)


I'm glad the mods let us argue. I'm even glad (to an extent) that the mods won't close down this attack thread.

Argument, as in debate, is great. Argument, as in fighting, is a waste of time. Some forums are more about information while others are more about an exchange of ideas. In either case the forum quickly becomes useless when neither information nor ideas are allowed to flow effectively.

The next question, then, is why do I hang around A&S, and would continue to read it even if I stop posting? Three reasons. First because, despite the best efforts of some, there are some new ideas and information posted here from time to time. Secondly because I have to deal with rabid VCers locally, so this is something of "field research" for me. Finally because I find some of the ideas put forth by VCers, including HH, to be very harmful and dangerous and the better I am equipped to fight them locally, the better.

At the end of the day, however, this is just a web forum, and none of this matters all that much. It probably wasn't worth typing all this, but I'm taking today off and have nothing better to do just this minute.

[patc]

This is just hilarious! I have barely seen any of you guys post while HH was gone, now you're all back too!

I didn't go anywhere, just didn't have much free time for posting. I try to make an effort to read and contribute to LCF daily, but don't have much to add there lately. "Hi, I'm still here" gets to be a waste of bandwidth.

On that subject, where's Brian Ratcliff these days? I like the ideas he has, like the left-turn ramp for bike lanes concept. I actually printed that one out, I want to suggest it for a new roadway which may (or may not) be built in the near future.

[Roody]

Y'all are embarassing yourselves.

shbikes starts a thread just to bash HH and VC'ers, and she wonders why this topic keeps coming up? Geez. Read your own posts. It's the anti-VC'ers who want to turn every thread into a VC debate. This thread is proof. Either Helmet Head uses some kind of mind control over you (does the Steely Gaze work over the internet?), or you are failing to take responsibility for your own posts.

Maybe the motto of shbikes, patc and Bekologist should be, "Stop me, please, before I post again!"

You can argue that HH is wrong (he sometimes is), but at least his threads are about substance. You folks start threads just to be jerks.



This is rich. In a thread that's specifically designed to "insult, attack, and denigrate another member," you complain that the mods aren't picky enough. If they enforced the rules as written (http://www.bikeforums.net/faq.php?faq=basic_guidelines#faq_harrassment), this thread would be deleted or locked.

Personally, I think you, shbikes, and Bekologist are "problem posters." You think Helmet Head is the problem. Perhaps that's why the mods have taken a hands off attitude.

I'm glad the mods let us argue. I'm even glad (to an extent) that the mods won't close down this attack thread.
+1, DC. This is the point I was trying to make in a more subtle and humorous way. Probably too subtle for the attack dogs on this forum!!!

I also agree that the dissension is not all bad. There's a "free speech" saying I can't remember that goes something like:

"The way to deal with bad speech is not less speech (censorship) but more speech."

[sbhikes]

Personally, I have been posting over this little hiatus in the topic about the TOC. Other than that, I've been terribly busy at work and at home, preparing for a workshop, giving a workshop and doing some consulting on the side which sadly took up most of my weekend. Except for riding my bike to the TOC, I barely have ridden at all in the past week and a half. :(

I think the forum is a little more boring when Lord Voldemort is absent, but it's also way more trying when he-who-must-not-be-named is here, too. At least while he was away the TOC topic didn't turn into a treatise on bike lanes and quasi-VC techniques.

Just curious...since when is pure logic the only or even the best way to figure out how best to do anything?

I used to work wtih a guy who believed in logic as the main way to figure everything out. For example, he said that according to the standards documents, the proper way to code in HTML was the way the documentation specified. Therefore to ensure the best result, I should code HTML to the standards, and that anything else was wrong.

That of course completely disregarded the fact that not all browser-makers interpreted the standards the same way (for example, some browsers add the pixels that borders take up to the size of the box and some subtract), so if you simply followed the standard you would not get a consistent result.

You could not argue with him, however, because any arguments about actual experience coding for the browsers out in the real world didn't mesh with his logic that the standards are right so that was the right way to do it.

I think making conclusions about you-know-whats only on a pure logical basis is just as inane as the kinds of arguments this guy I knew would make.

[flipped4bikes]

Ugh. Another fight over VC and bike lanes. Or rather a fight between both sides. No more!

Yet I seem inexplicably drawn in, like a moth to a flame. Heck, it's beats Republicans and Democrats fighting over their own greed, any day! :rolleyes:

[Paul L.]

How about instead of bringing it to its knees, we try to raise it higher? Really we've got a pretty good thing, if it does get a little tedious at times.

The problem with HH's foes isn't lack of passion. It's lack of clarity and rationality. I was a philosophy major in college but I sure can't keep up with his sophistry ... oops ... I mean his sophisticated grasp of logic and rhetoric. :)


But logic without proof is pure speculation until backed up with observed facts. My personal experience on the road agrees with some of what HH says but much of it contradicts his so called "Logic". Just because a person makes sense does not necessarily mean they are right, it just means they are better at arguing and debate.

[Paul L.]

And for the record, Bike lane advocates see plenty of dents in his sophistry and anti-bike lane people don't. Big surprise there.

[slagjumper]

My stratagy would be to find common ground and move on. Repeating yourself many times does not make the thing you are saying true. Nor does yelling it. Obnoxous people are sometimes right, but often ignored. I support irritating people's right to say stuff.

Is there any common ground here? I think that we would all agree that:

Some motorists and cyclists could be better educated when it comes to bicyclists, the law, safety and the road.

Roads are a precious commodity for the auto industry, the oil companies, lobbying groups, politicians and of course motorists and cyclists.

The afore mentioned interests are very likely to be in opposition to cyclists' road use advocacy.

Two groups of cycle advocates, with different agendas is weaker when confronting the other road interests.

As time goes on there will be more cars and that will only make success more difficult for cycling advocates.

Some roads are more dangerous then others, some bike lanes are more dangerous then others. Some roads with bike lanes are safer for cyclists, then if that road did not have a bike lane. Some roads are more dangerous to cyclists because of the bike lane. (No stats just seems reasonable.)

There is no study on driver’s attitudes about cyclist's road use.

There are no studies that break down cyclist injuries on a bike lane versus not involving a bike lane.

Often it is dangerous on the edges of the roadway if in a bike lane or not.

There are few things in the world that can be reduced to black and white.

[Paul L.]

I do agree with much of what HH says I just am not willing to decry bike lanes as the latest sign of the Anti-Christ.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

And for the record, Bike lane advocates see plenty of dents in his sophistry and anti-bike lane people don't. Big surprise there.
Add to the record that an intelligent person can see plenty of dents in his sophistry without having any particular preference for or against bike lanes, or even have a care in the world about cycling. Sophistry IS sophistry. PERIOD.That a hand full of fellow true believers who share in the dogma, and chant the mantra, don't find fault with goofball logic and sophistry that "confirms" their ideology doesn't mean a dang thing.

[Helmet Head]

Just curious...since when is pure logic the only or even the best way to figure out how best to do anything?

I used to work wtih a guy who believed in logic as the main way to figure everything out. For example, he said that according to the standards documents, the proper way to code in HTML was the way the documentation specified. Therefore to ensure the best result, I should code HTML to the standards, and that anything else was wrong.

That of course completely disregarded the fact that not all browser-makers interpreted the standards the same way (for example, some browsers add the pixels that borders take up to the size of the box and some subtract), so if you simply followed the standard you would not get a consistent result.

You could not argue with him, however, because any arguments about actual experience coding for the browsers out in the real world didn't mesh with his logic that the standards are right so that was the right way to do it.

I think making conclusions about you-know-whats only on a pure logical basis is just as inane as the kinds of arguments this guy I knew would make.
Diane, you're trying to use logic to argue against using logic. I don't think anyone can pull that off!

Perhaps you're confusing logic with premises?

It is a true that an argument can be perfectly logical and still conclude with an absurd assertion. How? By starting with absurd premises.

The error of your friend was not that he used logic, but that he started with a false premise: the proper way to code in HTML was the way the documentation specified.

Probably the most effective way to deal with him would be to construct a logical argument, based on premises that he would accept, that demonstrated that the documentation is sometimes in error or incomplete, and in those cases the proper way to code in HTML might be contrary to the documentation.

Don't throw away the baby (logic) with the bath water (bad premises)!

One of my favorite quotes: "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." -Ayn Rand

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ayn_rand.html

Sense a contradiction? Check your premises!

[Helmet Head]

My stratagy would be to find common ground and move on. Repeating yourself many times does not make the thing you are saying true. Nor does yelling it. Obnoxous people are sometimes right, but often ignored. I support irritating people's right to say stuff.

Is there any common ground here? I think that we would all agree that:

Some motorists and cyclists could be better educated when it comes to bicyclists, the law, safety and the road.

Roads are a precious commodity for the auto industry, the oil companies, lobbying groups, politicians and of course motorists and cyclists.

The afore mentioned interests are very likely to be in opposition to cyclists' road use advocacy.

Two groups of cycle advocates, with different agendas is weaker when confronting the other road interests.

As time goes on there will be more cars and that will only make success more difficult for cycling advocates.

Some roads are more dangerous then others, some bike lanes are more dangerous then others. Some roads with bike lanes are safer for cyclists, then if that road did not have a bike lane. Some roads are more dangerous to cyclists because of the bike lane. (No stats just seems reasonable.)

There is no study on driver’s attitudes about cyclist's road use.

There are no studies that break down cyclist injuries on a bike lane versus not involving a bike lane.

Often it is dangerous on the edges of the roadway if in a bike lane or not.

There are few things in the world that can be reduced to black and white.
Excellent list. I only have an issue with one: Some roads with bike lanes are safer for cyclists, then if that road did not have a bike lane. I don't know of any road that would qualify (no, Gene, not even KV Rd, on which the bike lanes probably attact cyclists who have no business riding there).

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Is there any common ground here? I think that we would all agree that:
Two groups of cycle advocates, with different agendas is weaker when confronting the other road interests.
Maybe. But in some cases shutting out and isolating a counterproductive group (of non compromising self proclaimed keepers of the book on competent cycling) would make the whole of cycling advocacy stronger. When one of the groups of "cycle advocates" is nothing more than a relative handful of ideologues (AKA experienced high mileage road cyclists™ with an agenda to "educate" everyone else) whose purpose has become in fact obstructionism and opposition to the goals/objectives/ desires of the majority of the cyclists (AKA everybody else) - the best advocacy move for overall cycling is to say goodbye and good dang riddance to such a negative effect advocacy group.

[Helmet Head]

But logic without proof is pure speculation until backed up with observed facts.
All logic is based on some premises. If you find a logical argument persuasive, then you probably accept the validity of the premises and the soundness of the logic that leads to the argument's conclusions.

If you don't find an argument persuasive, then either you don't accept the validity of the premises (which you should be able to identify), or there is a flaw in the logic (which you should be able to identify), or you're being irrational.

It's easy enough to say, "logic without proof is pure speculation until backed up with observed facts" in general. But in practice, that means identifying the premises in someone's argument and noting that you don't believe they are true, preferably with an explanation as to why.

There is very little hard data in this area, yet we still hold strong opinions. How is that possible? Because we draw conclusions based on premises which we believe are reasonable to accept as true despite the lack of hard data backing them up. That's the point of the post seeking common ground, I believe. To identify those assertions we can all agree to accept as true as a given, so we can proceed from there.

[galen_52657]

I think HH is simply following a well-worn political trail blazed by none other than.... the NRA! The NRA has steadfastly refused to entertain or acknowledge any infringement no mater how minuscule or justified, to a citizen's right to own a deadly weapon. As a result, any moron can waltz down to K-Mart and purchase a firearm. The automobile is far more regulated in this country than firearms.

HH sees bike lanes as part of a program of infringement upon the rights of cyclists to use the public roadway, similarly, NRA members see any attempt to regulate fire arms a an infringement to their constitutional right to bear arms. Personally, I agree with HH. Is there an unholy conspiracy to foist bike lanes on cyclists? I don't know. Can I sight a study showing roads with bike lanes are more dangerous to cyclists than roads without bike lanes? Nope. My road experiences tell me they are, but I don't have a study to confirm my experiences.

But, people knew smoking tobacco was bad for health before the Surgeon General confirmed it (some people still dispute that one!).

There are known facts about bike lanes as currently implemented in this country. Facts that are irrefutable and proven by observation:

1) Bike lanes are routinely designated along side parked car door zones.
2) Right turn lanes and through bike lanes conflict at intersections.
3) Bike lanes collect road debris that is swept off the motor travel lanes.

Other bike lane facts can be logically assumed without observation:

1) Every road in the USA will never have a bike lane
2) By having a designated cycling area off limits to other vehicles, the other vehicle user can and will expect cyclists to use and remain in bike lanes.

Once you go down the slippery slope of marginalization, its hard to de-marganilized yourself.

[Brian Ratliff]

On that subject, where's Brian Ratcliff these days? I like the ideas he has, like the left-turn ramp for bike lanes concept. I actually printed that one out, I want to suggest it for a new roadway which may (or may not) be built in the near future.

I'm still here. Glad to see that someone found that concept useful. I don't mind the exchange of ideas; bike lane vs. anti-bike lane included. Ideas don't come from a vacuum, but they also don't come from spats and expressions of acrimony, which was what the forum turned into for a while. Admittedly, I was also taking part, for which I appologize to the appropriate people; you know who you are. It was probably good for all involved to take a time out and instead go dream about having enough money to convert a triple to a double, which is apparently a very contentious issue over in the road cycling forum, not to mention a fairly expensive conversion.

This is, after all, just an internet forum; an idea generator, which has the nice propery of being able to enflame passions while not mattering a whit regarding the real world. Passion is good because it provokes debate and polarization, which in turn generates unique ideas to defend against extreme ideas on both ends. The ideas sometimes come to something; and that, in and of itself, is a good thing. Movement is always preferrable to stagnation, no matter what direction the movement occurs.

[Helmet Head]

2) Right turn lanes and through bike lanes conflict at intersections.
More importantly (I think), standard straight-or-right lanes (not to mention straight-or-right-or-left lanes) and through bike lanes conflict at intersections.

While a bike lane to the right of a right only lane is blatantly bad - at least there is a relatively reasonable solution for that (paint the bl to the left of the right only lane).

But a bike lane to the right of a right-or-straight lane is much, much more common, and the only relatively reasonable solution for that is to eliminate the bl at least 100 feet (preferably more) prior to the intersection. Around here, they try to remedy the situation by changing the stripe from solid to dashed 20-30 feet before the intersection. While this does encourage some right-turning motorists to (properly) merge into the bike lane, most still do not, and hardly any through cyclists merge left out of the striped bl as they should to eliminate the conflict with right turning traffic.

And when you consider that almost every intersection with every driveway and alley is essentially the type of intersection I'm talking about here, the magnitude of this issue should become obvious. The fact is, there is no practical way to remedy this inherent problem with the very concept of bike lanes.

[Paul L.]

There are known facts about bike lanes as currently implemented in this country. Facts that are irrefutable and proven by observation:

1) Bike lanes are routinely designated along side parked car door zones.
2) Right turn lanes and through bike lanes conflict at intersections.
3) Bike lanes collect road debris that is swept off the motor travel lanes.

Other bike lane facts can be logically assumed without observation:

1) Every road in the USA will never have a bike lane
2) By having a designated cycling area off limits to other vehicles, the other vehicle user can and will expect cyclists to use and remain in bike lanes.

Once you go down the slippery slope of marginalization, its hard to de-marganilized yourself.


And once you go down the firm road of non-compromise you alienate yourself from the majority in many cases and in others become a fanatic.

Not every Bike lane is painted in the door zone so that is not a fact, you can only state that some are. So what we have proved is that some bike lanes aren't of the best design. I would submit to you that there are MANY freeway interchanges designed extremely poorly and could be categorized as dangerous so this is not just a bike issue.
Some Bike Lanes collect road debris, some roads collect road debris. Should the city sweep their lanes? Yes.
Every road should not have a bike lane. Some roads should. I think that saying every road should have a bike lane is just as myopic as saying every road shouldn't.

Anyway, facts are interesting things and if we have learned anything from politics in the last 5 years the outcome depends completely on how and when you "Expose" limited facts. I don't think we can boil this issue down to black and white folks.

[Helmet Head]

For the record, I like the bike ramp for cyclists' left turns too! What's not to like? We have a problematic situation at the north end of the Rose Canyon bike path in San Diego, where there is no reasonable way for westbound cyclists who want to turn left to get onto the path southbound (the only legal way is to stop on the right and use the crosswalk).

The problem, of course, is that there is no practical way the City of San Diego is ever going to put in an expensive left turn ramp for cyclists here, in perhaps the most obvious type of application for one. So is it reasonable to expect them to do so at "regular" intersections? I think not.

I've long said that if the goal is a completely segregated infrastructure for cyclists, that's one thing (I'm partial to my particular idea of undergrounding all motorized traffic). But if we know we're never going to get that (and I, for one, know this) we need to consider whether a heavily segregated infrastructure is a good compromise for us. In other words, what is our order of preference:

1) 100% segregated infrastructure (bikes and cars never mix)
2) heavily segregated infrastructure (segregation even on many roads where slow moving vehicles are not prohibited)
3) lightly segregated infrastructure (segregation only on roads where slow moving vehicles are prohibited)
4) no segregation, not even on freeways.

For me, it's 1, 3, 4, 2. A heavily segregated infrastructure is absolutely the worst option for cyclists, I believe, and yet that is the direction we're moving, and the one cycling advocacy is pushing towards.