if a bike lane is considered safe for travel by helemt head when traffic is still a good distance behind him, and he darts back and forth, back and forth, in and out of a well provided bike lane, that lane position is also safe when there is no traffic present. one of helmet heads' fallacies presented, that same direction traffic will effectively 'block' oppossing traffic is a very dangerous and flawed assumption.

Weaving back and forth in front of cars a good distance from the rider, for 'visibility' and conspicuity's' sake is not as safe as using a clean and safe bike lane as the default position on a well accomodated roadway.

peek-a-boo weaving and swerving in and out of safe lane position on a well accomodated bike lane for the sake of traffic a good distance from the rider is NOT vehicular bicycling.

Avoiding a clean bike lane on a well accomodated roadway because there isn't any traffic is NOT vehicular bicycling.

when a lane position becomes unsafe, leave that position. follow roadway rules and regs, signs and striping. a vehicular bicyclist will do all this.

a vehicluar bicyclist 'defaults' to the bikelane on a well accomodated road.

Whacko zealots with strong wrong-headed convictions have made it very difficult for those of us with strong convictions based on logic and reason.

That's highly ironic, coming from you HH. If anyone here is a zealot, it's you - the "Preacher of the PowerWeave".

The definition of zealot is:

"one who is zealous, one who is full of zeal for his own specific beliefs or objectives, usually in the negative sense of being too passionate; a fanatic"

Your hundreds of posts trying to convince us that we are all illogical and irrational, and that only you have the answers to the great mystery of how to ride a bike in the presence of a bike lane, clearly qualify you as the chief zealot of A&S.

It's not even his zealotry that peeves me. it's his stinking attitude. he's a total DickHead.

That's highly ironic, coming from you HH. If anyone here is a zealot, it's you - the "Preacher of the PowerWeave".

The definition of zealot is:

"one who is zealous, one who is full of zeal for his own specific beliefs or objectives, usually in the negative sense of being too passionate; a fanatic"

Your hundreds of posts trying to convince us that we are all illogical and irrational, and that only you have the answers to the great mystery of how to ride a bike in the presence of a bike lane, clearly qualify you as the chief zealot of A&S.
Well, I can't deny that I'm full of zeal for my own specific beliefs and objectives. Obviously. I guess that makes me a zealot. Excusez mois!.

Is being a zealot necessarily a bad thing? Shouldn't the basis for those beliefs and objectives matter? Or is just being a zealot necessarily negative?

Do you differentiate between a zealot of the theory of evolution and one with zeal for the idea that the universe is 6,000 years old? If so, what's the difference? And which one am I more like, and why?

Remember, I'm the one who, for example, believes that "drivers following cars are not nearly as likely to not be paying attention for as long, so they are less of a threat" to a cyclist riding in a bike lane or shoulder than are drivers who have open road in front of them. You, on the other hand, believe that "whether a given driver is following someone else is NOT a significant factor that affects the likelihood of whether he will drift out of his line of travel".

When pressed, I provided the reasons for why I believed what I believed. You provided no reasons for your belief, and you scoffed at mine simply because mine were not based on studies (as if yours were).

Then, when I (quickly) found a study that supported my belief, it meant nothing to you. So far as I know, you still believe what you believe, for no reason, despite the results of at least one study.

So, yeah, I have zeal for my beliefs. I have zeal for beliefs that results from logical analysis based on facts and reason. I don't have zeal for beliefs like yours, which seemingly have no basis in reason.

Well, I can't deny that I'm full of zeal for my own specific beliefs and objectives. Obviously. I guess that makes me a zealot. Excusez mois!.

Is being a zealot necessarily a bad thing? Shouldn't the basis for those beliefs and objectives matter? Or is just being a zealot necessarily negative?

It's not so much your message (which we could debate about).

It's you...you're a bloviating *sshole who repeatedly state thats everyone who doesn't agree with you is illogical and irrational. Surely this isn't news to you...I suspect you've been told similar things by others in the real world...haven't you?

It's not so much your message (which we could debate about).

It's you...you're a bloviating *sshole who repeatedly state thats everyone who doesn't agree with you is illogical and irrational.
First, it is simply not true that I "repeatedly state thats everyone who doesn't agree with you is illogical and irrational". I rarely make statements about people. There is one notable exception, Bek, who drives me nuts, and is on ignore now.

Second, when someone says something I find to be illogical and/or irrational, I state that what they say is illogical or irrational, not that they are. In other words, I comment on what they say, not on who they are (again, excepting Bek). And, I provide the reasons. Again, consider our exchange yesterday, which I feel was typical. You said you didn't believe something due to lack of studies, I accepted that, then found the study to back it up.

First, it is simply not true that I "repeatedly state thats everyone who doesn't agree with you is illogical and irrational". I rarely make statements about people.

Your zealotry blinds you...even to your own words!

From this thread alone:

"Do you live all of your life with your head buried in the sand, or do you reserve this approach to your search for knowledge only within the field of bicycling and traffic safety?"

"I'm not wasting my time presenting arguments that you are incapable of comprehending, rain man."

"'Yes, an impasse between those whose opinions are based on logic and reason, and present arguments based on this, and those whose opinions are based on irrational emotion, and can do little more other than repeat their premises as mantras, as if that converts them into logical conclusions somehow. Heck, most of these folks can't differentiate a premise from a conclusion, much less think critically at all."


Second, when someone says something I find to be illogical and/or irrational, I state that what they say is illogical or irrational, not that they are.

From this thread alone:

"Whacko zealots with strong wrong-headed convictions have made it very difficult for those of us with strong convictions based on logic and reason."

"Very few people have the critical analysis capabilities and skills required to be able to discern and appreciate the difference. That means I can only reach those that do have those capabilities and skills."

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Your zealotry blinds you...even to your own words!

From this thread alone:

"Do you live all of your life with your head buried in the sand, or do you reserve this approach to your search for knowledge only within the field of bicycling and traffic safety?"

"I'm not wasting my time presenting arguments that you are incapable of comprehending, rain man."

"'Yes, an impasse between those whose opinions are based on logic and reason, and present arguments based on this, and those whose opinions are based on irrational emotion, and can do little more other than repeat their premises as mantras, as if that converts them into logical conclusions somehow. Heck, most of these folks can't differentiate a premise from a conclusion, much less think critically at all."

Ouch on the first one. Fair enough.
The second one is with Bek, a category of its own.
The third one, although not referring to anyone in particular except Bek, is over the line.

I will be more careful. I know why I wrote each one of them, but the reasons are lame excuses, at best.



From this thread alone:

"Whacko zealots with strong wrong-headed convictions have made it very difficult for those of us with strong convictions based on logic and reason."

"Very few people have the critical analysis capabilities and skills required to be able to discern and appreciate the difference. That means I can only reach those that do have those capabilities and skills."

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
These are general statements about the population as a whole, and no one in particular. Do you disagree with them?

The inability of most people, even college grads, to employ critical thinking, is not a big secret.
Heck, most people don't even know what it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

Critical thinking is when you don't disagree with Serge, right?

lose the argument, get proven repaetedly that head's WACKY riding advice is NOT SOUND, and he decides I'm "over the top.'.......


har de har har.

A bicyclist DOESN'T default to the traffic lanes when there is a safe and clean bike lane on a well accomodated road. a vehicular bicyclist will default to the bike lane, and ride DLLP FROM the bike lane of a well accommodated road.

Bek, Diane, SSP, someone: please provide some supporting evidence to your statements which you deem arguments. Please. I'm begging. Something. Anything (preferably relevant but I'll take anything if it shows that you at least understand what supporting evidence is).

Well, if you poke around this forum long enough (try the recent topic where Serge worries whether he's been wasting his time) and you'll find that when you agree with him you get Cheers and Beers, but when you don't you get Jeers--as SSP has shown above, jeering criticisms of your critical thinking skills. Is that supporting evidence enough to my latest assertion?

Well, if you poke around this forum long enough (try the recent topic where Serge worries whether he's been wasting his time) and you'll find that when you agree with him you get Cheers and Beers, but when you don't you get Jeers--as SSP has shown above, jeering criticisms of your critical thinking skills. Is that supporting evidence enough to my latest assertion?
No, it's evidence that those who know how to think critically tend to agree with me.

Evidence of your assertion would be a post that expressed an opinion I disagreed with, that indicated critical thinking on the part of the poster, and one that I disagree is critical thinking.

By the way, Brian Ratliff and patc are two posters who come to mind who have submitted posts exhibiting the ability to think critically, and that have disagreed with me. There are others, I'm sure, but I can't think of them at the moment. They are relatively rare. Those that often agree with me and often exhibit the ability to think critically include Chephy, JJ, Galen, CommuterRun, and noisebeam. There are others.

The unsubstantiated nonsense posted by Bek in this thread repeatedly is an extreme example of "noncritical thinking".

A few pages back, SSP's dismissal of the reasons I was giving for why I asserted that drivers following cars are significantly less likely to look away from the road long enough to drift than are drivers with open road in front of them, combined with his unsupporter counter-assertion, is another example of noncritical thinking.

No, it's evidence that those who know how to think critically tend to agree with me.

Have you ever been assessed for "Narcissistic Megalomaniac Syndrome"?

Just wonderin'...

BTW - is there anyone who *agrees* with you who does *not* think critically?

BTW2 - 85% of respondents to the Is HelmetHead a Zealot? (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=240169) poll agree that you are, in fact, a zealot (in the negative, fanatical sense of the word).

Have you ever been assessed for "Narcissistic Megalomaniac Syndrome"?

Just wonderin'...

BTW - is there anyone who *agrees* with you who does *not* think critically?
Well, there are people who have agreed with me without exhibiting the ability to think critically.

BTW2 - 85% of respondents to the Is HelmetHead a Zealot? (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=240169) poll agree that you are, in fact, a zealot (in the negative, fanatical sense of the word).
That's not surprising given how many lack the critical thinking ability to discern between reasoned zeal and irrational zeal. In fact, it's supporting evidence for my point.

That's not surprising given how many lack the critical thinking ability to discern between reasoned zeal and irrational zeal. In fact, it's supporting evidence for my point.

Wow - that's a breathtaking bit of narcissistic delusional thinking there HH.

According to your "logic" if 99 out of 100 people say you're an idiot, it just proves that 99 out of 100 people "lack critical thinking skills"!

I'd say that meets the criteria for Narcissistic Megalomania.

BTW - what do you do in the real world, jobwise that is?

This is NOT unsubstantiated-

my postings are NOT unsubstantiated nonsense. This thread is all about riding a well accomodated road in accordance with rules and regulations, stripes and signage and following the rules for vehicles, including bicycles.

Joejack, its as aparrant as following the stripes on a road. no rationale? PLUEAZE...

a vehicular bicyclist will use roads as they are designed, and a vehicular bicyclist will use a bike lane on a well accomodated roadway as their default position.

weaving back and forth, in and out, endlessly, in front of cars a good distance away from a rider, in and out of a safe and clean bike lane on a well accomodated road, is NOT vehicular bicycling.

I'm thinking pretty critical thoughts right now.

According to your "logic" if 99 out of 100 people say you're an idiot, it just proves that 99 out of 100 people "lack critical thinking skills"!
Congratulations. That would be an example of uncritical thinking.

I'm a software engineer.

Congratulations. That would be an example of uncritical thinking.

Since I was paraphrasing your own "logic" above (re: the survey results as to whether you are a zealot), it sounds as if you are admitting that you lack critical thinking skills.

I'm glad we can agree on something, at last! :D

Joejack, its as aparrant as following the stripes on a road. no rationale? PLUEAZE...

I follow the stripes on the road that the majority of road users follow, or at least the majority of the road users whom I need to be concerned about. By doing this, I decrease my odds of doing something or being somewhere unpredictable in the eyes of someone else who is also doing what the majority of road users are doing. What benefit do you get by following the path of the minority, or at least the minority of road users that you need to be concerned with?

I'm glad we can agree on something, at last! :D
Looks like you have critical thinking skills after all. You're a genius.

I follow the stripes on the road that the majority of road users follow, or at least the majority of the road users whom I need to be concerned about.

When I drive, one of the roadway stripes I follow is the shoulder or bike lane line.

It's not even his zealotry that peeves me. it's his stinking attitude. he's a total DickHead.You mean like when he continually refers to his beliefs as based in "logic and reason"? Thereby implying that if we disagree with him, we're not logical?

Yeah, I see what you mean. :D

No one cell call is more important than anyone's right to ride safely. But, it's a matter of numbers. For example, we know that about 40,000 people die per year from car crashes. Yet, we allow the driving of cars. Why? Because the right for all of us to drive cars is valued more than 40,000 lives per year.

Similarly, the right for hundreds of millions of us to make billions of cell calls while driving is valued more than the very small number (especially compared to the 40,000) of lives that might be lost because of this.Oh Lord of Logic and Reason, you've made some glaring errors... :D

1) Hundreds of millions of us? There are 300 million people in the U.S. Are you suggesting that most of those people have cell phones? 'cause they don't...

2) Billions of cell calls are made while driving? I don't suppose you have data to support that. No, I didn't think so...

3) You claimed in the same thread that 2600 additional deaths each year due to cell phone use whare insignificant, yet you go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on adn.... Well, you belabor the point about the number of deaths from inadvertent drift, which I'm sure we can all agree is a far, far smaller number than the 2600 lives that are lost due to cell phone use. Yet one group-- the 2600-- you virtually ignore, while the other group-- a small number of lives lost due to inadvertent drift-- you make a crusade of.

Does that seem logical and reasonable to you, oh Lord of Logic and Reason? Or do you only focus on your fear of riding, and ignore behavior-- cell phone use while driving-- that you yourself engage in?

Since I was paraphrasing your own "logic" above (re: the survey results as to whether you are a zealot), it sounds as if you are admitting that you lack critical thinking skills.


What I said was: [85% of respondents to a poll voting that I was a zealot (in the bad way)] supports my point that much of the population is unable to think critically. Note that I never said that ALL of the 85% who voted that way were unable to think critically. Not also that I said "supports", not proves.

Here's was your (uncritical thinking produced) paraphrase: According to your "logic" if 99 out of 100 people say you're an idiot, it just proves that 99 out of 100 people "lack critical thinking skills"!

For that to be my logic, I would have had to say, "The 85% voting for me being a zealot proves that 85% "lack critical thinking skills". But I didn't say that. A critical thinker would note the difference, realize its significance, and not make the mistake you did. A critical thinker would also note that what I actually said did support my point, and this twisted version of yours does not follow logically at all.

Now, you multiply this type of comprehension/thinking error times the number of posts of mine that you've read, and what results is a complete misunderstanding by you of what I'm saying.

What I said was: [More HH "logical thinking" and sophistry]
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/images/smilies/rofl2.gif

Blue, I 've never claimed my beliefs were logic.
The numbers were not critical to my point.

"Tens of millions making billions of cell calls per year while driving ..." makes the same point.

If 50 million people make 100 calls per year while driving, about 2 per week on average, that's 5 billion... ergo billions.

I never said 2600 extra deaths was insignificant. I said society values the billiions of calls per year while driving more than the 2600 lives. That's not a reflection of my value. That's my assessment of society's values.

The fact that death from inadvertent drift is very unlikely is not relevant. Death from any kind of overtaking collision is very unlikely, but many cyclists still fear it more than crashes from cross traffic. That's what I'm trying to address. The number of deaths due to inadvertent drift, even as small as it is, is relevant to that. Context, Blue, context.

What I said was: what I'm saying.

what the heck kind of reasoning is THAT? to support your faulty claims about peek a boo bicycling?

didn't you hear? A vehicular bicyclist defaults to a clean and safe bike lane on a well accomodated roadway.

Oh, I see. this thread is actually all about helmet head and his sophistry, masquarading as bike riding advice.

I think I've done all the good I can around here, at least for a while. I'm outta here, for at least a few weeks.

Have fun.

I never said 2600 extra deaths was insignificant. I said society values the billiions of calls per year while driving more than the 2600 lives. That's not a reflection of my value. That's my assessment of society's values...I'll come back with what you DID say another day. Gotta go for now...

I think I've done all the good I can around here...

you did very little good, head, you just eroded your weak, flawed bike advocacy platform even more, buddy.


your line of faulty bike positioning advice, of ignoring roadway stripes and signage, ignoring a clean and safe bike lane on a well accomodated road,

in favor of weaving back and forth, back and forth, endlessly, in front of overtaking vcars when they are still a good distance from you, is NOT vehicular bicycling.

and its not doing one whit of good. your logic is lousy. in fact, i saw very little logic exhibited by head in this thread, i didn't see ANY counter from head to using roads as they are designed for vehicles, including bikes.


my crashing (head's first rebuttal on this topic) has nothing to do with the safety of good, clean bike lanes on well accomodated roads.

Whacko zealots with strong wrong-headed convictions have made it very difficult for those of us with strong convictions based on logic and reason.

Very few people have the critical analysis capabilities and skills required to be able to discern and appreciate the difference. That means I can only reach those that do have those capabilities and skills. Folks like noisebeam, galen, joejack, derath, chephy, and most of those responding favorably to my latest poll. Even you if I catch you in a rare moment of seriousness.

Anyway, I will leave the task of reaching the rest to those who "get it" through logic and reason, but can also convey it through means that are pursuasive to those for whom logic and reason does not work. I can't reach those people directly myself, for I have no idea how. At least not in a forum where all the communication is done through writing English.

Wow, here's a post for the archives...if you don't go back and edit it. So those that agree with you are the enlightened elite, while those who do not are buffoons. Yep, that's gonna win you friends, influence and converts. I do believe you just showed your stripes.

I think I've done all the good I can around here, at least for a while. I'm outta here, for at least a few weeks.

Have fun.

That has been your MO since I've known you...when you start getting called on the millions of lines of 'logic' you write, you head for the hills, wait for things to cool off, and claim victory. You sure you aint GWB?

Wow, here's a post for the archives...if you don't go back and edit it. So those that agree with you are the enlightened elite, while those who do not are buffoons. Yep, that's gonna win you friends, influence and converts. I do believe you just showed your stripes.

+1!

And I bet he doesn't even drink the Kool-aid that all his followers do!

What I said was: [85% of respondents to a poll voting that I was a zealot (in the bad way)] supports my point that much of the population is unable to think critically. Note that I never said that ALL of the 85% who voted that way were unable to think critically. Not also that I said "supports", not proves.

Here's was your (uncritical thinking produced) paraphrase: According to your "logic" if 99 out of 100 people say you're an idiot, it just proves that 99 out of 100 people "lack critical thinking skills"!

For that to be my logic, I would have had to say, "The 85% voting for me being a zealot proves that 85% "lack critical thinking skills". But I didn't say that. A critical thinker would note the difference, realize its significance, and not make the mistake you did. A critical thinker would also note that what I actually said did support my point, and this twisted version of yours does not follow logically at all.

Now, you multiply this type of comprehension/thinking error times the number of posts of mine that you've read, and what results is a complete misunderstanding by you of what I'm saying.

Please tell me you're kidding.

You saying that most people lack critical thinking skills because 85% of people think you're a zealot supports my idea that you're blind to the facts.

Most people who meet me think that I'm a stage-***** when I get on stage and start fire dancing. That doesn't mean that they lack critical thinking skills, it means that I appear to be a stage-***** when fire dancing. In this case, the appearance is correct.

Is your appearance correct? I'm inclined to say "yes."

I think I've done all the good I can around here, at least for a while. I'm outta here, for at least a few weeks.

Have fun.
Is that a threat, or a promise to ignore yourself, or everyone else?

Either way, Adios!

I bet Serge lumped me into his group of 85% who lack critical thinking skills when I did not even vote in that zealot poll, nor did I ever post a comment in that poll indicating I believed he was a zealot.

Besides, his list of so-called critical thinkers is soley made up of people who said nice things to him in his poll about whether he's gotten anybody to ride further left (or ride more safely--he does confuse the two).

So much for reason and logic. This all seems to me to be more about emotion and popularity contests.

So much for reason and logic. This all seems to me to be more about emotion and popularity contests.

AKA Politics. ;)

You know, I never was one for soap operas, but this forum has me hooked... It's almost like two stags fighting in a corn field--they aren't really concerned with what they're trampling. They're just having a good time butting heads.

I haven't learned anything from this forum, but it's given me some good laughs. :roflmao:

You know, I never was one for soap operas, but this forum has me hooked... It's almost like two stags fighting in a corn field--they aren't really concerned with what they're trampling. They're just having a good time butting heads.

I haven't learned anything from this forum, but it's given me some good laughs. :roflmao:


+ ... how do you make an infinity symbol?...
anyway, YES! that's the only reason i read these... and i find myself actually composing really cutting and well written responses and i realize that i don't want to get involved any more than i "have to". i'm sort of sorry to hear that HH is "gone" though. who will drive the plot now?
any takers?

...yeah, none of you can think critically anyway. hahahhaha.

+i'm sort of sorry to hear that HH is "gone" though. who will drive the plot now?
any takers?

I imagine the 'apostles' will carry on.

Ooooh... A sequel... I do so love sequels... :beer:

I imagine the 'apostles' will carry on.

Joejack is the new HH! :D

HH is, like, so last season. This season I'm taking JoeJack and Galen. Ohmigod, they're so, like, HH 2.0.

HH is, like, so last season. This season I'm taking JoeJack and Galen. Ohmigod, they're so, like, HH 2.0.

Please, for the love of whatever God you pray to...NEVER do that again... ;)

Besides, his list of so-called critical thinkers is soley made up of people who said nice things to him in his poll about whether he's gotten anybody to ride further left (or ride more safely--he does confuse the two).:roflmao:

I think I've done all the good I can around here, at least for a while. I'm outta here,

http://moviesoundscentral.com/sounds/lard_ass.wav

The King is dead. Long live the King.

I think JoeJack and Galen actually ARE Serge.

The King is dead. Long live the King.

I think JoeJack and Galen actually ARE Serge.
I think the entire Forester worshiping claque of bike lane hysterics are just channeling the wisdom of their chosen Prophet. They can't help themselves.

The King is dead. Long live the King.

I think JoeJack and Galen actually ARE Serge.

Like I said before...beware of sockpuppets. Of course Serge probably couldn't cover up being himself for more than a few posts, but ya never know....most politicians have some acting skills.