I just found this site, Bicycling Life (http://www.bicyclinglife.com/), I'm pretty sure from a link on another recent thread here. Whoever you are - THANK YOU! I love the site! :love: I don't have the time I'd like to explore, but I've been sneaking peeks whenever I get a spare moment.
This morning I'm discretely browsing this article (http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/SteppingStones.htm) (the title of this thread), and finding it very intriguing. The author, a Briton, makes the argument through a series of steps that "it is clearly time to shift the spotlight from the hardware of infrastructure to the software of minds", which he quotes from an article from Cycle Touring and Campaigning magazine. One of the intriguing results he attempts to show is how an increase in numbers of cyclists will lead statistically to an increase in safety.
I admit I'm not enough of a statistician to read all the details of his argument before my eyes start glazing over, so I was wondering what other people thought. He is clearly limiting his assessment to the UK. Those of you in the States, how well do you think his logic would hold true here?
joejack951
09-12-06, 11:05 AM
I just finished reading it and loved the presentation. I fully agree with his message that anything we do to make the image of cycling seem less safe is anti-cycling advocacy. Based on recent threads and the discussion that has followed, I conclude once and for all that bike lanes = anti-cycling advocacy. I think the author would agree.
rando
09-12-06, 12:28 PM
yeah, I found that site on my own a while back.... while there is some good info they have a strong and obnoxious anti-bike-lane stance that I do not agree with. those who are virulently against BLs may find some comfort there.
Helmet Head
09-12-06, 12:45 PM
Good article. Seems obvious to me...
while there is some good info they have a strong and obnoxious anti-bike-lane stance that I do not agree with
I think you are confusing a priori "anti-bike-lane stance", which implies having that view and being colored by it, versus information and analysis that logically leads one to an "anti-bike-lane stance", which is what is presented there.
On the other hand, you exhibit an a priori "pro bike lane stance" which starts with liking bike lanes, and disregarding information and analysis that logically leads one to an "anti-bike-lane stance". You seem to dismiss their information and analysis, for example, for no apparent reason, other than it's an "anti-bike-lane-stance".
JohnBrooking
09-12-06, 01:12 PM
And we're off... :rolleyes:
rando
09-12-06, 01:18 PM
Good article. Seems obvious to me...
I think you are confusing a priori "anti-bike-lane stance", which implies having that view and being colored by it, versus information and analysis that logically leads one to an "anti-bike-lane stance", which is what is presented there.
On the other hand, you exhibit an a priori "pro bike lane stance" which starts with liking bike lanes, and disregarding information and analysis that logically leads one to an "anti-bike-lane stance". You seem to dismiss their information and analysis, for example, for no apparent reason, other than it's an "anti-bike-lane-stance".
I'm rubber and you're glue! everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you! :p
whatsa matter, Helmie, no more dead kids that you can use to tout your theories?
Tom Stormcrowe
09-12-06, 01:57 PM
I just found this site, Bicycling Life (http://www.bicyclinglife.com/), I'm pretty sure from a link on another recent thread here. Whoever you are - THANK YOU! I love the site! :love: I don't have the time I'd like to explore, but I've been sneaking peeks whenever I get a spare moment.
This morning I'm discretely browsing this article (http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/SteppingStones.htm) (the title of this thread), and finding it very intriguing. The author, a Briton, makes the argument through a series of steps that "it is clearly time to shift the spotlight from the hardware of infrastructure to the software of minds", which he quotes from an article from Cycle Touring and Campaigning magazine. One of the intriguing results he attempts to show is how an increase in numbers of cyclists will lead statistically to an increase in safety.
I admit I'm not enough of a statistician to read all the details of his argument before my eyes start glazing over, so I was wondering what other people thought. He is clearly limiting his assessment to the UK. Those of you in the States, how well do you think his logic would hold true here?
Thanks!