Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Are you a VC advocate?

Please use the following definitions (lifted from the "Some VC definitions" thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=275653) OP) in answering the questions in the poll.

Vehicular Cycling (VC) is a set of practices, techniques and skills used to ride a bicycle on roadways in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road, including the vehicular rules of the road that govern drivers of slow moving vehicles. It is distinguished from traffic cycling practices that are blatantly in conflict with the vrotr.

Basic VC (BVC) is the collection of VC techniques, skills and practices most experienced cyclists already use, but most novices need to learn, such as:

* Ride on the right half of the road, with vehicular traffic.
* Obey traffic control.
* Use hand signals before turning.
* Use lights/reflectors at night.
* Use speed positioning between intersections, including riding in the margins.
* Use destination positioning at intersections and their approaches.
* Turning left by waiting for a gap before merging left.
* Recognize that door zones should be avoided.
* Etc.

Advanced VC (AVC) is the collection of VC techniques, skills and practices few experienced cyclists already utilize, at least not consistently, and almost all novices have not learned, such as:

* Using negotiation to create gaps.
* Merging left one lane at a time.
* Signaling using look backs.
* Being able to look back for more than a fraction of a second without riding off course.
* Using assertive "centerish" lane positioning to discourage lane sharing/squeezing when the lane is too narrow to be safely shared.
* Using assertive "centerish" lane positioning to improve sight lines and conspicuity when safe and reasonable to do so.
* Recognizing when traffic behind needs a hint about what to do, and providing it appropriately and effectively.
* Recognizing when and where bike lanes are okay to use, and when they should be avoided.
* Avoiding door zones by habitually riding at least five feet from the edge of parked vehicles.
* Etc.


Strict VC is strict adherence to VC while riding a bicycle. It means never riding on sidewalks, never doing a 2-step left turn, never taking a short cut through a parking lot, never mountain biking, never rolling a stop (a.k.a California Stop), never riding on bike paths, etc.

I advocate pie.

I advocate pie and ice cream.

My 3yo son advocates me riding my bike to the ice cream store, with him in the Burley trailer.

When we go to Dairy Queen, we use roads all the way, and use vehicular cycling concepts the whole way.

When we go to Maggie Moo's ice cream shop, we use the Black Creek Greenway, but operate on the right hand side and generally treat it as a miniature road full of pedestrians and dogs on leashes.

We return happy either way.

I do not care about any abbreviation except for VC. Anything VC says must be obeyed, unless we are in the situation when following VC may cause an accident. VC strictly regulates lane positioning, BL usage, merging etc. If one is not familiar with VC it is absolute must to go and learn it before entering the road. Just in case if anyone missed it: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vc.htm

I voted no, although I would suggest to people to use certain vehicular techniques if they wanted my advice.

I advocate following the rules of the road and also adapting to your environment and route, which may mean not following the rules of the road or even being on the road.

I am a cyclist. I advocate for cyclists. I wish all people would cycle some but know this is not a reality. I try not to take myself too seriously but fail all to often. Whatever I find keeps me safer out on the road I will advocate, whatever I think could help more people cycle, I will advocate, whatever will make life better for all cyclists, I will advocate. I do not advocate a tunnel vision perception of what is good cycling.

So I guess I am other. I think I will call it, unitarian cycling. :) Now everyone hold hands and sing-

Kum ba ya! I bike,
Kum ba ya!
Kum ba ya! I bike,
kum ba ya!

I do not care about any abbreviation except for VC. Anything VC says must be obeyed, unless we are in the situation when following VC may cause an accident. VC strictly regulates lane positioning, BL usage, merging etc. If one is not familiar with VC it is absolute must to go and learn it before entering the road. Just in case if anyone missed it: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vc.htm
:p

Good one!

When I joined bikeforums, I would have said I was a VC advocate. That is, until the alarm bells started going off (Helmet Head's VC advocacy has been persuasive).

This poll is even more pre-loaded than the normal HH poll (I never vote in a HH poll-- I haven't in a long time -- HH always has an ulterior motive).

Despite the title, this poll is not about being a VC advocate. It's about riding techniques, using some silly "definitions" that HH made up (AVC, BVC, SVC) in his nearly zillionth attempt to redefine VC (I think they call that trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear).

I've been a regular transportational cyclist who rides in traffic according to the rules of the road for over four decades. I advocate the riding techniques. However, if we're voting about being a VC advocate, I vote "NO!" VC involves way too much nonsense.

It's one of the big lies of VC(-ism) to pretend that VC is just about riding techniques. That's how they hook ya. Then, after they tell you the good stuff, they indoctrinate you into the VC ideology (the book Effective Cycling works that way too- combining good stuff (riding techniques) with arrogant nonsense). The label "VC Advocate" applies only if you swallow the nonsense (or, at least, most of it) along with the good stuff.

I reject the nonsense. The VC-ists can have it.

VC contains more than its share of things I wholeheartedly reject-- this despite the fact that I ride mostly vehicularly and I'm kind of a facilities skeptic.

If a "VC Advocate" label is what you're selling, I don't want it.

When I joined bikeforums, I would have said I was a VC advocate. That is, until the alarm bells started going off (Helmet Head's VC advocacy has been persuasive).

This poll is even more pre-loaded than the normal HH poll (I never vote in a HH poll-- I haven't in a long time -- HH always has an ulterior motive).

Despite the title, this poll is not about being a VC advocate. It's about riding techniques, using some silly "definitions" that HH made up (AVC, BVC, SVC) in his nearly zillionth attempt to redefine VC (I think they call that trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear).

I've been a regular transportational cyclist who rides in traffic according to the rules of the road for over four decades. I advocate the riding techniques. However, if we're voting about being a VC advocate, I vote "NO!" VC involves way too much nonsense.

It's one of the big lies of VC(-ism) to pretend that VC is just about riding techniques. That's how they hook ya. Then, after they tell you the good stuff, they indoctrinate you into the VC ideology (the book Effective Cycling works that way too- combining good stuff (riding techniques) with arrogant nonsense). The label "VC Advocate" applies only if you swallow the nonsense (or, at least, most of it) along with the good stuff.

I reject the nonsense. The VC-ists can have it.

VC contains more than its share of things I wholeheartedly reject-- this despite the fact that I ride mostly vehicularly and I'm kind of a facilities skeptic.

If a "VC Advocate" label is what you're selling, I don't want it. Don't be silly. There is no attempt to deceive.

It just so happens that in some contexts the term VC is used to refer to the techiques, and in others it's used to refer to the advocacy of VC.

So what is the "nonsense" to which you refer?

VC contains more than its share of things I wholeheartedly reject--

Could you share examples, please?

It just so happens that in some contexts the term VC is used to refer to the techiques, and in others it's used to refer to the advocacy of VC.
You are wrong. I consider it one of the worst things that has happened to cycling in my lifetime but the vehicular riding techniques (which I support) have become so closely associated with the divisive "shoot yourself in the foot" politics of JF and his followers, as well as the psychological and social theories of JF that they cannot be separated (or 'segregated', since you are so fond of that term). "VC" (especially when capitalized) means the whole thing, the politics and theories as well as the riding techniques and philosophy (one way to refer to just the riding techniques is to spell it out, thusly: "vehicular cycling". Then it will be clear what is meant).


So what is the "nonsense" to which you refer?This "nonsense" question has been answered many times.

Just to review: you can begin on John Forester's website (which I strongly encourage everyone to read). The most nonsensical nonsense is in the "social" section.

http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/social.htm

Enjoy!

I honestly believe that more people actually reading his theories will mean fewer people putting much stock in his theories (especially the psychological ones).

If you want to read a nice long thread which includes posts by the great scientist in his own mind himself, read the thread, "John Forester takes on BF Posters" in this forum.


Don't be silly. There is no attempt to deceive.I know I'm repeating myself, but you crack me up. You repeat yourself a lot, too (in fact, wasn't the first post in the thread kind of a repeat?).

This "nonsense" question has been answered many times.

Just to review: you can begin on John Forester's website (which I strongly encourage everyone to read). The most nonsensical nonsense is in the "social" section.

http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/social.htm
One man's (even if that man is the coiner of the term) theories about why the philosophy associated with the term is rejected, does not make those theories part of the techniques, philosophy or their advocacy.

Can you cite anyone anywhere (besides yourself) using the term "VC" in a context that makes it clear this meaning is intended?

Could you share examples, please?
Apparently, not.

JRA, you are right on the money.

VC is just an identity politics thing. If HH asks if you are a VC advocate he means are you an evangelist spreading the gospel, and not are you a cyclist who uses vehicular cycling skills.

JRA, you are right on the money.

VC is just an identity politics thing. If HH asks if you are a VC advocate he means are you an evangelist spreading the gospel, and not are you a cyclist who uses vehicular cycling skills.
Is this your idea of showing respect for the beliefs of other forum members, Diane?

http://bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4078384&postcount=123


Is this your idea of showing respect for the concerns of other forum members, Pete?

Can you cite anyone anywhere (besides yourself) using the term "VC" in a context that makes it clear this meaning is intended?

In the "What am I?" thread (post 26), MrCjolsen expressed a similar sentiment regarding confusion about the term "vehicular cycling": "The problem is the vehicular cycling is a riding technique that some people have turned into a poltical ideology."

To which Helmet Head replied (post #29 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=276189&page=2#29)):

"Vehicular cycling is an exercise of a political right.
Vehicular cycling is an ideology that holds the right of cyclists to ride in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road as its highest value.
Vehicular cycling is a traffic cycling paradigm based on the premise that cyclists (on roads) fare best when they act and are treated as vehicle drivers."

You even used the word "paradigm" (one of those wonderful meaningless words often used to make an insignificant idea seem important).

And, interestingly, you spelled out "vehicular cycling". So I guess, even if you spell it out, "vehicular cycling" refers to a political ideology. Bummer!

HH, you asked, "Are you a VC Advocate?" and I answered that I did before I saw the way you behave on bikeforums. That's the truth. If you don't like it, tough (in all fairness, you weren't the only thing that turned me against VC, but your zealotry did start me thinking that something had to be wrong. Then I started reading Forester more carefully, plus some of the VC propaganda websites, and I realised that there is a lot wrong).

Rather than vote in the poll, (which would be throwing my hat into a pissing match) I'm going to ask a simple question which is based on observation and member's comments. Is there anyone here that is an A&S regular who does not know exactly where each of the other regulars stand on this issue?

Rather than vote in the poll, (which would be throwing my hat into a pissing match) I'm going to ask a simple question which is based on observation and member's comments. Is there anyone here that is an A&S regular who does not know exactly where each of the other regulars stand on this issue?
Thinking that you know where another person stands is different from actually knowing.

Without mentioning any names, like sbhikes, some regulars regularly show that they don't understand my stand, for one, by misrepresenting and exaggerating what I stand for. Probably a majority of my posts are attempts to correct misstatements about my position.

That's why I started the definitions thread.

do you mean the "Helemt Head defines his cycling techniques" thread masquerading as a "VC definitions" thread?

do you mean the "Helemt Head defines his cycling techniques" thread masquerading as a "VC definitions" thread?
Speaking of misrepresentations...

The FIRST SENTENCE of the OP of that thread clearly states: [this is] a slightly different presentation of what vehicular cycling means to me.

maybe the moderators could change the misreprentin' title of that thread then...

I advocate pie.

What is with the pie? I think I like pie as much as anyone, particularly pecan and blueberry. Apple can be good, but sadly, so often it is bad. What I don't get is when somebody pulls the trigger on the baked goods, it always seems to be pie.

Why can't we have cookies. I really love a home made chocolate chip cookie. On top of that they are so much better suited to bike travel. I can eat a chocolate chip cookie while riding my bike. Try that with your pie. I advocate that the Bicycle Forums works to be more open to the more under-represented baked treats, like cookies. And blondies. Who doesn't like blondies?

Back to the original post what do you have to do to qualify as an advocate?

Speedo

You are wrong. I consider it one of the worst things that has happened to cycling in my lifetime but the vehicular riding techniques (which I support) have become so closely associated with the divisive "shoot yourself in the foot" politics of JF and his followers, as well as the psychological and social theories of JF that they cannot be separated (or 'segregated', since you are so fond of that term). "VC" (especially when capitalized) means the whole thing, the politics and theories as well as the riding techniques and philosophy (one way to refer to just the riding techniques is to spell it out, thusly: "vehicular cycling". Then it will be clear what is meant).

+1 Well said. I believe it is dishonest to use the term vehicular cycling, which is a well respected term use to describe the concept or riding a bicycle according to the rules of the road, to also describe a social-political viewpoint that is both divisive and extremist, which is in effect using the former to give the illusion of credibility to the latter. Kinda like North Korea using the word 'democratic' in it's official name: Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Is this your idea of showing respect for the beliefs of other forum members, Diane?

Showing respect does not preclude one from being honest about their own beliefs.

Sometimes the truth can be painful.

Actually I believe our new buddy Kal is responsible for most of the whining to the mods. Before his appearance, A&S had one of the lowest rates of posts being reported to mods. It is a typical tactic of the extremist...if one's ideas are questioned and one cannot answer...seek to silence those asking the questions, under the guise of being abused, disrespected, dishonored, etc.

Give HH credit, despite our disagreement on issues and even clashes of personality, he has never been one to go running to mommy when things are not going his way.

I advocate that the Bicycle Forums work to more open to the more under-represented baked treats, like cookies. And blondies. Who doesn't like blondies?
I like 'em.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/mozartman/Blondie_logo.png

yup

I feel you are discriminating against brunettes.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4082785&postcount=25

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/mozartman/blondie2.jpg

another Blondie

jeezus chip. I'm awake now! and I need to wash my eyes with bleach.

I feel you are discriminating against brunettes.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4082785&postcount=25
OK, don't want to discriminate. Something for everybody. This one's for you!:p

No, no, no!

Blondies. Mmmmmmmm!

http://www.signesbakery.com/images/Blonde02.jpeg

Seriously, back to the OP. I don’t go to meetings. I occasionally write my elected representatives. I will answer cycling related questions by interested parties. Does that make me an advocate?

Speedo

I voted AVC. I know the techniques and use them... especially in heavy fast traffic... they work. This is how I commute, and how I tour.

However... I have also been know to sidewalk bike... using the wrong side of the road even. This happens on rare occasions when I have a beer or two and do not feel like mixing it up with traffic in any way. I become a rolling pedestrian. I have no fear of intersections as I wait until there are no vehicles for long long distances before crossing.

I also throw off my VC hat when riding my beach cruiser down at the boardwalk... there survival depends on reacting to whatever situations may arise... from blonds in thongs to roller bladers to barnies from out of town that don't have a clue.

However I don't know if any of this makes me an "advocate."

Without mentioning any names, like sbhikes, some regulars regularly show that they don't understand my stand, for one, by misrepresenting and exaggerating what I stand for. Probably a majority of my posts are attempts to correct misstatements about my position.

Sometimes, when you find that lots of other intelligent folks around you just "don't get it"...the problem is not with those other folks.

It would be very interesting to compare the sum total of your posts, in terms of characters, over a month or so and compare them against the rest of the crew. I'm guessing whoever is in second place is far, far behind you, thanks to your "Wall of Words" posting style. So, you've had ample opportunity to explain (ad nausem) your theories...and yet you persist in thinking that we "don't understand (your) stand". :rolleyes:

Is it any wonder that other folks would find those behaviors tiresome?

It's not about the bike...:rolleyes:

Is it any wonder that other folks would find those behaviors tiresome?

Are you saying that you actually read what HH is posting? :eek:

After all my bicycling experiences, I not only advocate vehicular cycling but basic vehicular cycling and advanced vehicular cycling. However, I find plenty of room for relaxing things when on MUPs and mountain biking,

Without mentioning any names, like sbhikes, some regulars regularly show that they don't understand my stand, for one, by misrepresenting and exaggerating what I stand for. Probably a majority of my posts are attempts to correct misstatements about my position.
Although I was the only one named, I might offer that perhaps if so many people regularly show they don't understand you, maybe you might consider whether the problem is other people, or YOU.

I wonder if this happens in other aspects of your life as well. My guess is probably yes.

I'm not going to vote, I never do.
But I have made my stance on this so clear in the past that if I were to make it any more clear, I'd be no longer visable... and I'm a fat man for christs sake!! :D

Helmet Head,
With all due respect herer, and I mean that sincerely, what gives you the right to generate your own definition and subsective definitions of a term/paridgm that you neither coined, fathered, nor can be held as a person responsible for the original definition of the neologism itself? And then it seems you are using these definitions that you have created, as a backdrop to support your theories and ideas that, no doubt, you believe whole heartedly in?
Using this line of thinking, could I not create my own definition of "right" and argue each and every one of you that bicycles do not have the right to be on the road in the first place? Using, of course, my own definition as my basis on this argument and continually referring back ot it in order to prove my point(s)?

Can you see where confusion and confrontation are getting its fuel here?
Just my take on things.

Without mentioning any names, like sbhikes, some regulars regularly show that they don't understand my stand, for one, by misrepresenting and exaggerating what I stand for. Probably a majority of my posts are attempts to correct misstatements about my position.

Although I was the only one named, I might offer that perhaps if so many people regularly show they don't understand you, maybe you might consider whether the problem is other people, or YOU.

My efforts to correct misstatements about my position reflect the fact that I take responsibility for causing the misunderstandings in the first place.

That said, it would be nice if folks made a more genuine effort to understand and verify that they understand my position before writing about them.

Helmet Head,
With all due respect herer, and I mean that sincerely, what gives you the right to generate your own definition and subsective definitions of a term/paridgm that you neither coined, fathered, nor can be held as a person responsible for the original definition of the neologism itself?
I have the same right as everyone does to invent terms and specify their meanings, or clarify what I mean when I use existing terms. A few weeks ago Brian Ratliff had his own thread of this type. Terms are just references to definitions. What really matters are the definitions and the contexts in which they are referred.


And then it seems you are using these definitions that you have created, as a backdrop to support your theories and ideas that, no doubt, you believe whole heartedly in?
Using this line of thinking, could I not create my own definition of "right" and argue each and every one of you that bicycles do not have the right to be on the road in the first place? Using, of course, my own definition as my basis on this argument and continually referring back ot it in order to prove my point(s)?
In terms of the terms and definitions that you provide, you can create any argument you like, of course. But the argument is only as good as the underlying definitions.

For example, I might define the terms X and Y as follows:
X = 2
Y = 3

Just because I gave my own definitions to X and Y, does not mean I can use them anyway I like. For example, I cannot argue that "X + Y = 99". I mean, I can, but it won't be a valid argument given the definitions that I started with. I can, however, argue that "X + Y = 5", and I probably won't get much protest. What matters is the underlying argument, not the terms used to express the argument.

Defining his own terms does not give one an ability to prove things to be true that otherwise could not be proven. It's simply a tool to be able to convey an argument more effectively.


Can you see where confusion and confrontation are getting its fuel here?

Frankly, no. Personally, I think things would really improve if everyone made a similar effort to be clear about their meaning and intent.

Helmet Head,
With all due respect herer, and I mean that sincerely, what gives you the right to generate your own definition and subsective definitions of a term/paridgm that you neither coined, fathered, nor can be held as a person responsible for the original definition of the neologism itself? And then it seems you are using these definitions that you have created, as a backdrop to support your theories and ideas that, no doubt, you believe whole heartedly in?
Using this line of thinking, could I not create my own definition of "right" and argue each and every one of you that bicycles do not have the right to be on the road in the first place? Using, of course, my own definition as my basis on this argument and continually referring back ot it in order to prove my point(s)?

Can you see where confusion and confrontation are getting its fuel here?
Just my take on things.

Excellent point PJ, and BTW your pragmatic, common sense style are appreciated here and in other threads ;).

Although I appreciate your attempt to define VC to a certain extent HH, I find this poll inadequate to describe those that may be proponents of VC along with the appropriate use of facilities. I think with these options you are pigeon-holing and, in fact, alienating those who might otherwise actually be advocates of VC. Many, if not most, in this forum do ride VC and would advocate this method to others where they deemed it appropriate. Those same people also use facilities where appropriate, like myself and as you have previously stated you do as well (actually you said you had no problem with the use of sidewalks or facilities where appropriate which assumes you use them, where appropriate).

You have also stated before that VC is a subset of what has been previously defined on this forum as AC. So, where does VC fit in these definitions in relation to AC? Since you mention no facilities in the definitions, one can only assume you are specifing directions in BVC and AVC to act in accordance to strict VC. That leaves strict VC as the only thing you are asking if people advocate.

I have the same right as everyone does to invent terms and specify their meanings, or clarify what I mean when I use existing terms.
Yes, you do have the right to create terms, but I was referring to your redefining of a term, the term "VC" has already been defined and spelled out clearly by John Forester. And there is no indication that I can see that he had or has the intentions of subsects of this, such as "BVC" or "AVC". Maybe it would be more compelling for you to create original terms for these things instead of piggybacking off of someone elses defined work. I for one would be more compelled to try and understand you better if that were the case.

What brought me to ask you my previous question was the tone I am getting from others responses in this thread, especially the views of JRA and the discussion the two of you held.

As for clarifying what you mean by using existing terms, that is where my last comment to you comes from. You are using your interpetation of what the phrase coiner meant. Instead of making definitions, why not start the whole thing with "this is how I interpet it" rather than "vc defined".
Hopefully that makes sens, some. I can feel what I am thinking and trying to convey here, but for some reasons the proper words are escaping me.

Aha!, the post by deputyjones finally made it click in my mind what I was trying to say, and in a clear enough tone to be understood. so here goes my best and making my point, and a small one it is, clear.
You are asking here if people are advocating VC. So someone who sees the title, comes in, makes their vote, and makes their comments. Sure they see your definition, but they do not expect it to differ from what they have previously learned when regarding VC.
For instance. I clicked on the sub form, saw the post asking if I advocate VC. In my mind I sequence thru the following:
* What is vc?
* Oh yeah, it's that thing that John Forester pushes and teaches.
* Do I agree with him?
* Well let's see, here is what I have learned from him.
* ...... .......... ... ..... ..... .
So then I enter the poll, I see you defining VC. well, since I already know what it is, after all, the father of it already told me, I decide not to read your post because, well, because I don't expect you to redefine it. After all, why should you have?
I make my vote.
Then I post a comment and begin reading some bickering and wot not. Some of it makes sense, some of it is like "woah, wtf is bvc? something about my blood alcahol level? oh well, nevermind", and I go on with life.

So what do we end up with? A poll with baseless votes and alot of bickering in the thread because you decided to exercise your right to redefine a term (which I do dispute your right to redifine an existing term) instead of explaining from the get go that what you are asking is if people agree to advocating YOUR INTERPETATION of an existing technique.

Please, is that more clear? It's the best I can do... sorry.

Aha!, the post by deputyjones finally made it click in my mind what I was trying to say, and in a clear enough tone to be understood. so here goes my best and making my point, and a small one it is, clear.
You are asking here if people are advocating VC. So someone who sees the title, comes in, makes their vote, and makes their comments. Sure they see your definition, but they do not expect it to differ from what they have previously learned when regarding VC.
For instance. I clicked on the sub form, saw the post asking if I advocate VC. In my mind I sequence thru the following:
* What is vc?
* Oh yeah, it's that thing that John Forester pushes and teaches.
* Do I agree with him?
* Well let's see, here is what I have learned from him.
* ...... .......... ... ..... ..... .
So then I enter the poll, I see you defining VC. well, since I already know what it is, after all, the father of it already told me, I decide not to read your post because, well, because I don't expect you to redefine it. After all, why should you have?
I make my vote.
Then I post a comment and begin reading some bickering and wot not. Some of it makes sense, some of it is like "woah, wtf is bvc? something about my blood alcahol level? oh well, nevermind", and I go on with life.

So what do we end up with? A poll with baseless votes and alot of bickering in the thread because you decided to exercise your right to redefine a term (which I do dispute your right to redifine an existing term) instead of explaining from the get go that what you are asking is if people agree to advocating YOUR INTERPETATION of an existing technique.

Please, is that more clear? It's the best I can do... sorry.

Ha! Funny, I didn't read it that way, but now I can definitely see why you did, and that is exactly the reason HH has been accused in the past of actually being John Forester posting in this forum under the pseudonym of HH.

Ha! Funny, I didn't read it that way, but now I can definitely see why you did, and that is exactly the reason HH has been accused in the past of actually being John Forester posting in this forum under the pseudonym of HH.

thanks for your ataboy earlier, though I don't rightly know what "pragmatic" means exactly, I'm sure it's something good :)

Over the last couple of days I have actually found myself able to start understanding Helmet Head, and the funny thing is, when I look back at things that he and I have disagreed over in the past, I can see myself and him actually arguing the same side, only in different ways. It's all in the wording I guess. But last night I finally truely understood why he dislikes the idea of people preferring a shoulder/bikelane. Do I agree with him? Well, in some circumstance yes.
Oddly, once I got over all of the "oh great, what turd is he going to polish today" idea, he started making some good points... it's just the package he wraps it up in that I find confusing and alarming.

Does that mean I'll stop arguing him? Oh hell no, he's too good of an advisery to abandon, but I'll try and read thru the delivery of his ideas before shooting them down first. Then I'll let it rip! :D:D:D