Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Some VC definitions

That's called "satire", HH (or, "ridicule" if you prefer). And there's nothing absurd about pointing out how these never-ending threads contribute next to nothing in terms of real "Advocacy and Safety".
I disagree. An example of the value of this OP/thread is that it allows me to refer to you as a VC contrarian.

'VC contrarians' would more appropriately be called 'VC advocate contrarians', because no one is doing more harm to VC than it's purported supporters, who know virtually nothing about effective persuasion or effective civility.

:)

I disagree. An example of the value of this OP/thread is that it allows me to refer to you as a VC contrarian.

Wow...I'm crushed. :rolleyes:

It's also inaccurate, as I've owned a copy of Effective Cycling for over 10 years, and ride very assertively (though I don't find it necessary to play Peek-a-Boo). When did you first read Effective Cycling?

BTW - please explain how defining all these silly terms has anything to do with real "Advocacy" and "Safety".

'VC contrarians' would more appropriately be called 'VC advocate contrarians', because no one is doing more harm to VC than it's purported supporters, who know virtually nothing about effective persuasion or effective civility.

:)
I agree we have plenty of room for improvement in those areas.

On the other hand, how many scientists do you think could practice "effective persuasion or effective civility" in a forum dominated by ID adherents?

When the ID adherents resort to satirical misrepresentations of evolution and to ad hominem critiques of the scientists as those "who know virtually nothing about effective persuasion or effective civility", you know that their positions are not based on reason and logic.

Sound familiar?

Wow...I'm crushed. :rolleyes:

It's also inaccurate, as I've owned a copy of Effective Cycling for over 10 years, and ride very assertively (though I don't find it necessary to play Peek-a-Boo). When did you first read Effective Cycling?

BTW - please explain how defining all these silly terms has anything to do with real "Advocacy" and "Safety". You might have read it, but did you understand it?

I studied EC only about 3 or 4 years ago. When I read it, I remember thinking that it described basically how I rode already, with only a few minor differences. Turned out those "few minor differences" were much more significant, especially in terms of integrating me with traffic, than I realized at first.

The connection of this thread with advocacy and safety is based on a few assumptions.

cyclists who adopt VC are safer than those who don't.
the more cyclists who adopt VC, the better cycling looks to others
in order to adopt VC one must understand VC
these definitions will help convey VC and the related concepts more accurately and effectively to those who do not yet understand it.

I agree we have plenty of room for improvement in those areas.

On the other hand, how many scientists do you think could practice "effective persuasion or effective civility" in a forum dominated by ID adherents?

When the ID adherents resort to satirical misrepresentations of evolution and to ad hominem critiques of the scientists as those "who know virtually nothing about effective persuasion or effective civility", you know that their positions are not based on reason and logic.

Sound familiar?
I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say with your crappy analogy, since I'm definitely a scientist and not an ID supporter, and I routinely see AJ* spouting plenty of ad hominem insults himself. You guys are just full of it at all levels, aren't you? The best thing for your cause would be for all of you to just shut up and go away, or do some woodshedding to work on the 'reason and logic' element of your presentation, which really sucks.

*AJ = Anachronistic John

You might have read it, but did you understand it?

Sheesh...it's a book about riding a bicycle for Chrissakes.

Despite your deep-seated need to dissect, define, and control the debate, it's not ******** Rocket Science. :rolleyes:

On the other hand, how many scientists do you think could practice "effective persuasion or effective civility" in a forum dominated by ID adherents?

Poor, Hard Head...the lone voice of rationality and reason, trapped in a world full of idiots who just "Don't Get It". :rolleyes:

It must be very lonely on your planet...

Yawn...yet another pointless Thread That Won't Die. :rolleyes:

Brought to you by the Church of Cyclistology™ "Control the logic - Control the Masses" ©

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say with your crappy analogy, since I'm definitely a scientist and not an ID supporter, and I routinely see AJ* spouting plenty of ad hominem insults himself. You guys are just full of it at all levels, aren't you? The best thing for your cause would be for all of you to just shut up and go away, or do some woodshedding to work on the 'reason and logic' element of your presentation, which really sucks.

*AJ = Anachronistic John The fact that you're a scientist and not an ID supporter does not mean you do not fit the ID adherent side of the analogy as it relates to the discussions in this forum.

To continue the analogy, Richard Dawkins in his discussion with ID adherents, like Forester in his discussions with bike lane apologists, is unable to refrain from slipping in some ad hominem attacks against the ID proponents now and then.

But the bulk of what Dawkins and Forester have to say in their respective debates is based on science, logic and reason, while the bulk of what their opponents have to say is comprised mostly of ridiculing and complaining about Dawkins and Forester, rather than addressing the underlying issues.

The fact that you're a scientist and not an ID supporter does not mean you do not fit the ID adherent side of the analogy as it relates to the discussions in this forum.

To continue the analogy, Richard Dawkins in his discussion with ID adherents, like Forester in his discussions with bike lane apologists, is unable to refrain from slipping in some ad hominem attacks against the ID proponents now and then.

But the bulk of what Dawkins and Forester have to say in their respective debates is based on science, logic and reason, while the bulk of what their opponents have to say is comprised mostly of ridiculing and complaining about Dawkins and Forester, rather than addressing the underlying issues.
Not only does your analogy still suck, but you are living in a dream world if you think that AJ's arguments are based solely on logic and reason.

Not only does your analogy still suck, but you are living in a dream world if you think that AJ's arguments are based solely on logic and reason. Did I say "solely"? I don't think so.
Even Dawkin's arguments are not based solely on logic and reason.
But to make our points, Forester, Dawkins and I do not resort to twisting the words of our opponents.
You, on the other hand, at least in this context, seem to have a very hard time making any point without twisting the words and/or positions of those with which you disagree.

And you're actually one of the better ones among the BL apologists, for most of whom ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments is practically all they ever have to say.

But to make our points, Forester, Dawkins and I do not resort to twisting the words of our opponents.

How in the world do you manage to get a helmet onto that swollen head of yours?

FWIW, Forester and Dawkins are world-acknowledged, published experts in their fields. You, on the other hand, are a newbie VC zealot, who is strident, ineffectual, and whiny.

How in the world do you manage to get a helmet onto that swollen head of yours?

FWIW, Forester and Dawkins are world-acknowledged, published experts in their fields. You, on the other hand, are a newbie VC zealot, who is strident, ineffectual, and whiny.
:beer: You forgot "glib"

How in the world do you manage to get a helmet onto that swollen head of yours?

FWIW, Forester and Dawkins are world-acknowledged, published experts in their fields. You, on the other hand, are a newbie VC zealot, who is strident, ineffectual, and whiny. Maybe so, but I don't resort to twisting the words and/or meaning of my opponents, at least not intentionally, which is the only respect in which I dared compare myself to these two gentlemen.

You, on the other hand, could not keep from twisting my meaning, just to be insulting, again.

Now, do you have any constructive criticism to contribute, or are you just going to keep flinging insults?

:beer: You forgot "glib"
If I was glib, then you'd have no trouble finding logical inconsistencies in my positions.

Maybe so, but I don't resort to twisting the words and/or meaning of my opponents, at least not intentionally, which is the only respect in which I dared compare myself to these two gentlemen.

You, on the other hand, could not keep from twisting my meaning, just to be insulting, again.

Now, do you have any constructive criticism to contribute, or are you just going to keep flinging insults?

Like many others, I have attempted to be constructive and reasonable with you. Unfortunately, you are persistent in your arrogant (or ignorant) assertions that everyone else just "doesn't get it" or "doesn't understand" you...including such noted cycling authorities as Robert Hurst who has ripped many of your silly arguments and assertions to shreds.

Your arrogance, and your Wall of Words(TM) posting style are two of the reasons why most folks find you tiresome and irritating.

But, this should not come as a surprise to you...you've been told these things by many people, many times.

Poor, Hard Head...the lone voice of rationality and reason, trapped in a world full of idiots who just "Don't Get It". :rolleyes:

It must be very lonely on your planet...

This coming from a guy who had to lie about his "tests" that supposedly disproved an HH theory because he couldn't come up with anything better.

This coming from a guy who had to lie about his "tests" that supposedly disproved an HH theory because he couldn't come up with anything better.

???

This coming from a guy who had to lie about his "tests" that supposedly disproved an HH theory because he couldn't come up with anything better.
Huh?

???

Do I need to link to the thread?

Do I need to link to the thread?

If you wish. I have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't recall having to lie in any of my arguments with HH (I don't take them seriously enough to bother with that). Perhaps you mistook mockery, satire and/or ridicule for a "lie".

But to make our points, ...... and I do not resort to twisting the words of our opponents.

It must taken some serious nerve to say a whopper like that on the forum man!
Oh wait, since you're right and we're not, then of course it didn't take nerve, DOH! I should have known better :rolleyes:

If you wish. I have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't recall having to lie in any of my arguments with HH (I don't take them seriously enough to bother with that). Perhaps you mistook mockery, satire and/or ridicule for a "lie".

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=279174&page=11

Scroll down to post #266 by you then watch the dodging ensue. I did not detect any mockery, satire, or ridicule in your post.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=279174&page=11

Scroll down to post #266 by you then watch the dodging ensue. I did not detect any mockery, satire, or ridicule in your post.

Hmmm....I've re-read the relevant parts of that thread, and don't see anything I posted that approaches a "lie", as you have accused.

But, hey, I'm willing to use Landis' Wiki Defense, and let others weigh in on the issue. If anyone is still reading this Thread That Won't Die :rolleyes:, and cares to read the last couple of pages in the link you've posted, please tell us whether or not you think I was a "liar". I throw myself upon the collective opinion of BF, and will accept their judgment in this matter.

FWIW, if the judgment determines that I'm not a liar, that would make you a "slanderer".

Like many others, I have attempted to be constructive and reasonable with you. Unfortunately, you are persistent in your arrogant (or ignorant) assertions that everyone else just "doesn't get it" or "doesn't understand" you...including such noted cycling authorities as Robert Hurst who has ripped many of your silly arguments and assertions to shreds.

Your arrogance, and your Wall of Words(TM) posting style are two of the reasons why most folks find you tiresome and irritating.

But, this should not come as a surprise to you...you've been told these things by many people, many times.
Now, do you have any constructive criticism to contribute, or are you just going to keep flinging insults?

It must taken some serious nerve to say a whopper like that on the forum man!
Oh wait, since you're right and we're not, then of course it didn't take nerve, DOH! I should have known better :rolleyes:
Do you have any constructive criticism to contribute, or are you just going to keep flinging insults?

Hmmm....I've re-read the relevant parts of that thread, and don't see anything I posted that approaches a "lie", as you have accused.

But, hey, I'm willing to use Landis' Wiki Defense, and let others weigh in on the issue. If anyone is still reading this Thread That Won't Die :rolleyes:, and cares to read the last couple of pages in the link you've posted, please tell us whether or not you think I was a "liar". I throw myself upon the collective opinion of BF, and will accept their judgment in this matter.

FWIW, if the judgment determines that I'm not a liar, that would make you a "slanderer".
In post #266 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4102412&postcount=266)you quoted me:



To those of you who apparently don't have much experience riding up ahead in motorist's paths and observing their behavior in a mirror, the answer apparently seems obvious too: that it can't make much of a difference.

Fortunately, it is easy enough to test this for yourself.


To which you claimed: "I have tested this for myself, ..."

That is the alleged lie.

When I asked you to clarify what you were referring to by "this", you dodged the question without answering it in #273. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4102887&postcount=273)



Yet another HH splitting of hairs, Wall of Words(TM), and denigration of the experience of others.

Please define "this". :rolleyes:


I didn't ask you to define this, I wanted you to clarify whether you were referring to "riding up ahead in motorist's paths and observing their behavior in a mirror", which is the only reasonable reference you could have been making.

When pressed by JJ and myself on this issue, you never gave any indication whatsoever to back up your claim that you actually did test "this".

The only reasonable conclusion is that if you had tested "this", you'd be able to answer at least some of the questions that we asked, instead of dodging. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that you lied.

you're a lier!

no, you're a lier!

Nu uh!

Ya hu!

God damn people. Lay off each other already.

In post #266 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4102412&postcount=266)you quoted me:



To which you claimed: "I have tested this for myself, ..."

That is the alleged lie.

When I asked you to clarify what you were referring to by "this", you dodged the question without answering it in #273. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4102887&postcount=273)



I didn't ask you to define this, I wanted you to clarify whether you were referring to "riding up ahead in motorist's paths and observing their behavior in a mirror", which is the only reasonable reference you could have been making.

When pressed by JJ and myself on this issue, you never gave any indication whatsoever to back up your claim that you actually did test "this".

The only reasonable conclusion is that if you had tested "this", you'd be able to answer at least some of the questions that we asked, instead of dodging. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that you lied.

I have had much more cycling experience than you. When I said I had tested your theory, I meant that I had observed driver behavior with respect to my lateral position in a wide variety of environments (WOL, BL, NOL, urban, French, etc.), and not found any significant degree of safety enhancement from the Peek-a-Boo technique you promote. I nearly always use a mirror, and I'm often "up ahead in the motorist's path" (e.g., on road with no shoulder). In my experience, drivers don't seem to notice me any sooner if I'm 0.6 degrees left, nor do they give me any more room than they would otherwise. I'm wise enough to neither hug the curb, nor drift back and forth playing Peek-a-Boo.

FWIW, other noted cycling authorities have also taken you to task for promoting such nonsense as if it were divinely inspired (see Robert Hurst's eloquent skewerings, for instance).

With your lengthy history of being pedantic, hard-headed, self-possessed, and arrogant, it should not come as a shock to you when others lose interest somewhere around post #250 or so, stop answering your silly repetitive questions, and find other more useful and fun things to do (like, ride my bike).

Do you have any constructive criticism to contribute, or are you just going to keep flinging insults?

nope and yep (at least according to your definitions)