I don't understand why the OP didn't just use the "chainguarder's" BF username to identify him.

Those comments were made by kalliergo (http://bikeforums.net/member.php?u=75755).

Why the secrecy?

Same reason nobody is replying...cept me. But then again, I'm just a little hitler who appeals to the masses and their base instincts so I can be a big fish in a little virtual pond, so ya gotta expect this kind of thing from me. :lol:

http://probicycle.com/da/bluebikers.html


When I first read it, some time ago, I was ROTFL :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

Then I stopped for a minute and thought about Bike Forums
which caused me to fall down ROTFL again :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
thinking how much you, rando, Bek, Diane and a few others would hate it.
Chainguard has been dissing the blue bike lanes for at least four, maybe more, years now. It's getting old, and it's not funny. No one at Chainguard has even the slightest bit of firsthand knowledge regarding the blue bike lanes, their 'satire' is all based on dogmatic VC BS. If you're laughing that hard you're way too easily amused.

LittleBigMan ... From my perspective, ILTB did not call you a liar. But his post was neither particularly diplomatic nor kind.

Anyway, ILTB and LBM, can we move on in the public forum?

The OP was clearly referring to the posters and postings found on the the Yahoo Groups ChainGuard discussion list, http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/message/23134 NOT the WebSite run by Chuck Taylor. Good try at diverting attention from the OP. And the "gist" of the OP.
ILTB has a habit of making specific accusations, then forgetting they ever happened.

"Good try at diverting attention from the OP." I said, "intentionally diverting a thread." ILTB says, "intentional is your qualifier, not mine."

I don't mind dropping it, but since even you, Invisiblehand, didn't see it, I wanted to bring it back into the open. If ILTB wants to play dirty, I'm going to fight back publicly.

But now I'm "whining" again. :D

Anyway, ILTB and LBM, can we move on in the public forum?
Sure. Perhaps our BF pal who wrote about the "gist" of BF thought/motivations and desires on the Yahoo Chainguard list can fill us in how about he made that determination about what we all think and say.

Did this BF scholar use the same psychoanalysis techniques that Forester used to uncover that the "gist" of cyclists' thought/motivations and desires ( at least the 95% whom are alleged to be "incompetent") are derived from phobias and irrational fears?

Chainguard has been dissing the blue bike lanes for at least four, maybe more, years now. It's getting old, and it's not funny. No one at Chainguard has even the slightest bit of firsthand knowledge regarding the blue bike lanes, their 'satire' is all based on dogmatic VC BS. If you're laughing that hard you're way too easily amused.

I didn't actually get the whole blue biker thing, except that it was a bit mean spirited. It seemed a bit underhanded to be dissing what is essentially a trial program for an idea which seems to make some sense - highlight the bike lane to make motorists more aware of the possiblity of bicyclists crossing their path. It seems to be a particular VC thing though, to seek to undercut all attempts to obtain quantifiable data on anything related to bicycling. It's kind of like all those philosophers who laughed in Galileo's face when he demonstrated that all objects fell at the same rate. Of course, if you think it through logically, lighter objects will fall at a speed proportional to their weight. Unfortunately, nature objects to this logic...

I didn't actually get the whole blue biker thing, except that it was a bit mean spirited. It seemed a bit underhanded to be dissing what is essentially a trial program for an idea which seems to make some sense - highlight the bike lane to make motorists more aware of the possiblity of bicyclists crossing their path. It seems to be a particular VC thing though, to seek to undercut all attempts to obtain quantifiable data on anything related to bicycling. It's kind of like all those philosophers who laughed in Galileo's face when he demonstrated that all objects fell at the same rate. Of course, if you think it through logically, lighter objects will fall at a speed proportional to their weight. Unfortunately, nature objects to this logic...

The idea of VCers "quantifying all things related to cycling" is a bit ironic considering that very little (if any) post study has been devoted to the VC method.

While I do ride in a VC fashion, it is mostly borne out of what works and what I have to do in an autocentric society, vice the result of collected data.

Chainguard has been dissing the blue bike lanes for at least four, maybe more, years now. It's getting old, and it's not funny. No one at Chainguard has even the slightest bit of firsthand knowledge regarding the blue bike lanes, their 'satire' is all based on dogmatic VC BS. If you're laughing that hard you're way too easily amused.
OK, whatever. But Wade Smith did have some good insight as reflected here in BFs.

"On our Blue Biker feature:
Wonderfully brilliant satire, but I wonder how many people will actually know this is a satire, as it drips of proper bureaucratic-speak, which is all many "bicycle advocates" want to hear or know how to listen to. "
- Wade Smith
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

There is a perfect example of regionality. I have never heard of blue bike lanes. Never seen one.

I don't understand why the OP didn't just use the "chainguarder's" BF username to identify him.

Those comments were made by kalliergo (http://bikeforums.net/member.php?u=75755).

Why the secrecy?

I thought it was against the rules to reveal a poster's identity here on BF. That's why I didn't. I may have misunderstood.

There is a perfect example of regionality. I have never heard of blue bike lanes. Never seen one.

They are a Portland thing... they were discussed long ago in the Bike Lanes thread. Google Portland Blue Lanes... or follow this link: http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=deicg

I thought it had something to do with a lot of us being superheroes. or in the witness protection program.

They are a Portland thing... they were discussed long ago in the Bike Lanes thread. Google Portland Blue Lanes... or follow this link: http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=deicg
A Portland thing yes, but it is spreading to others areas. I understand that some of the other areas had contest on what color to use, and ended up with green.

I thought it had something to do with a lot of us being superheroes. or in the witness protection program.
:eek:

(I think it's that latter, or it is in my case, anyway. shhhh....)

I thought it was against the rules to reveal a poster's identity here on BF. That's why I didn't. I may have misunderstood.
I don't know if it's officially against the rules, per se, but at the very least, it's very bad form!:eek:

EDIT: For example, I'd never reveal that you were secretly Jimmy Hoffa.....oops!:eek:

wtf is Chainguard
and why don't I care? ;)

It's the email list where most of these hard-core anti-facilities VCers all get together and plot their strategies against their vast list of enemies, and worhsip their jesus, John Forester.

It's quite amusing.
http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/messages/23113?xm=1&m=p&tidx=1

You know, it seems that these guys (the hardcore VCers) are the ones with a problem. They are totally against special facilities, but use them... hypocritical if you ask me.
The rest of us, love the facilities for various reasons, but don't mind riding vehicularly (note that I did not say "VC") when we find ourselves in the road.
how many ways can we say "silly"?

It's the email list where most of these hard-core anti-facilities VCers all get together and plot their strategies against their vast list of enemies, and worhsip their jesus, John Forester.


Are you going to eat that thing, or just let it sit on your fork?

Sure. Perhaps our BF pal who wrote about the "gist" of BF thought/motivations and desires on the Yahoo Chainguard list can fill us in how about he made that determination about what we all think and say.

Did this BF scholar use the same psychoanalysis techniques that Forester used to uncover that the "gist" of cyclists' thought/motivations and desires ( at least the 95% whom are alleged to be "incompetent") are derived from phobias and irrational fears?

Hmmmm? I wrote something there. But I think you are talking about another post. (I am a little tired from moving ... I am more than a little slow today) I don't think it is worth arguing with them over this glop. If they really believe some of the more outrageous claims, well then they can have their little corner of the world and we will move on.

Despite writing this in the past, I will repeat myself, I find it hard to believe that many would look at the data on cycling and feel that much has been statistically proven. There are data consistent with particular ideas and one might have enough evidence for some obvious conclusions--i.e., don't run red lights and stop signs--but there are enough underlying issues that I don't think one could flip the null hypothesis around a question and come to the same conclusion.

Of course, we can still use our own anecdotal experiences and opinions along with data to come to some sort of personal truth about the world; but it isn't enough to pontificate to others. Within some obvious bounds, I think calling other riders who have managed to negotiate their own world happily and safely on a bicycle without hurting others incompetent and irrational would be pontificating.

Back to packing ...

BTW ... Just moved my bikes to the new place. I have my new commute all mapped out.

BTW2 ... If anyone is going to be in DC, I am leading a Cherry Blossom's ride next Saturday weather permitting. Although I warn you that there are always a lot of nubies so the pace is on the slow side. However, I will take you to the Mall, the Hidden Blossoms in Montgomery County, and a pass by the "Mushroom house." And its FREE! Although it does mean you will spend time with me so there is a cost ... ;)

BTW2 ... If anyone is going to be in DC, I am leading a Cherry Blossom's ride next Saturday weather permitting. Although I warn you that there are always a lot of nubies so the pace is on the slow side. However, I will take you to the Mall, the Hidden Blossoms in Montgomery County, and a pass by the "Mushroom house." And its FREE! Although it does mean you will spend time with me so there is a cost ... ;)
Wish I could.

I lived in Rockville until age 13. Me and some friends actually rode our bikes from Tilden Woods to downtown DC a couple of times, but I sure can't remember the route, now. This was in the early '70's.

They quit riding with me, because I was "too slow." Oh, well. :) What can you expect from a 12 year-old? BTW, we didn't have helmets back then.

Don't ask me about any specific roads or anything, I was not a driver, and all I basically remember is my immediate neighborhood, and that rather vaguely. I did a Mapquest search on my old address for the first time just last week. I saw the route we used to take to ride our bikes to Montgomery Mall.

Hmmmm? I wrote something there. But I think you are talking about another post.
Yep. The OP; also at:[Fixed link:] http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/message/23134

There has been another post recently from the same source along the same lines about what a bunch a meanies there are here on BF picking on all the poor defenseless little VC darlings.

Yep. The OP; also at: http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group.../message/23134

There has been another post recently from the same source along the same lines about what a bunch a meanies there are here on BF picking on all the poor defenseless little VC darlings.
Dead link! No document found!:eek:

*Ahem*

There are two types of people: those who put others in categories, and those who do not.

:)

Dead link! No document found!:eek:
Try again at:
http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/message/23134

Try again at:
http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/message/23134
AAAAH, OK, yeah, I read that from the first link.......can't say I agree with their generalization. I honestly believe the group is suffering from "Groupthink" phenomenon!:D

AAAAH, OK, yeah, I read that from the first link.......can't say I agree with their generalization. I honestly believe the group is suffering from "Groupthink" phenomenon!:D
A few of you here, take one post and attribute it to the entire group. Now who is involved in “Groupthink” or is it “Group accusations”.

You know, it seems that these guys (the hardcore VCers) are the ones with a problem. They are totally against special facilities, but use them... hypocritical if you ask me.The rest of us, love the facilities for various reasons, but don't mind riding vehicularly (note that I did not say "VC") when we find ourselves in the road.
how many ways can we say "silly"?
Another FALSE "Group accusation". ... hypocritical if you ask me.

A few of you here, take one post and attribute it to the entire group. Now who is involved in “Groupthink” or is it “Group accusations”.
I'll let Tom speak for himself, but I took his post to be referring to the group think positions on Forester Brand Science and Theory posted by the handful of regular posters on ChainGuard, not on BF.

A few of you here, take one post and attribute it to the entire group. Now who is involved in “Groupthink” or is it “Group accusations”.
I didn't take one post, I am capable of reading the entire thread after all, land forming my own opinions. By the way, I should have you take note that there are members in that same group that raised the same concern so

A) Don't lay that particular strawman at my door, and
B) Try asking me what I mean rather than assuming.....you know the old saw about what assume spells?


For the record: I am neither Pro nor Anti VC. I use the riding style appropriate to the situation at the time.

Edit for clarity: I am referring to the Chainguard ENTIRE thread, by the way

Yes, but how is this in any way a priority to anyone if there are no cyclists? If the road were uniformly made up of motorized traffic, then the mere possibility of adding a bicyclist is just a bother, especially if you have to insert words about nonexistent bicyclists into the driver's manual and provide wide outside lanes or bike lanes for their benefit.

I know I'm late replying here but I got busy at work during the week and forgot all about this post. Gotta do something about those distractions from BF's :)

You are making the false assumption that roads without wide outside lanes or bike lanes cannot accomodate cyclists. What is it about the standard 9-12 foot, smooth paved traffic lane that makes it unacceptable for cycling (disregard other traffic which obviously is a different debate)? What makes cyclists so special compared to any other slow moving vehicle anyway? All that drivers need to be aware of is the possibility of slow moving vehicles using the roads. That's a pretty simple concept to insert into the drivers manual. Without having to explain how to drive near a bike lane (it is obviously NOT intuitive since different states have different laws and even cyclists can't seem to agree on how motorists should turn across one) you get a much simpler manual in terms of cyclists. All it is has to say is that they have the same rights and must follow the same rules as drivers of motor vehicles. Done.

You have to have bicyclists in order to advocate for bicyclists' rights. The whole conflict between bicyclists and cars goes away when there are bicyclists around in numbers.

How does the conflict magically disappear? Are you saying that because of the huge number of cyclists in Amsterdam that there is no conflict with motorists? They created a whole freakin' seperate system for them! That's the extreme after-effect of a conflict in my opinion.

And, newsflash, cars are not guests on the road. They are, currently, the primary users of this particular public right of way - their needs come first until another vehicle type becomes prominant enough to demand some of the pie. The fact that driving is a licensed activity just means that public safety demands that all drivers be familiar with the rules of the road. The ability to obtain a license is a right which cannot be abridged lightly.

Again, if you disregard [the fear of] other traffic, what is it about the current roads that is unacceptable for cycling simply because it accomodates motorists too? I'm happy roads are wide enough to fit an automobile and smoothly paved. It makes my cycling a whole lot more efficient and fun.

If cyclists stopped trying to muck up the rules about right of way at intersections by adding bike lanes, motorists would have a much easier time understanding that the rules of the road are the same for cyclists and motorists.

It's a chicken and egg problem, for sure; but not really a paradox. You just need to solve the equations simultaineously and advocate for both increased rights on the road and more bicyclists out on the street at the same time.

Increased rights? Like what? Aside from removing cycling bans on some roadways (something most bike lane advocates seem to dismiss as an issue), I can't think of anywhere that I'd benefit greatly from increased rights. I know you cyclists in Portland would just love to be able to run stops signs at will and have it be legal though. I can only see negative impacts from passing that law, mainly a large jump in the number of collisions at stop signed intersections who fail to yield to other traffic now that they have the "right" to blow through the stop sign. What other increased rights do you want? Do you seriously believe that getting those rights will in anyway affect the number of cyclists using the roads?

You know, it seems that these guys (the hardcore VCers) are the ones with a problem. They are totally against special facilities, but use them... hypocritical if you ask me.The rest of us, love the facilities for various reasons, but don't mind riding vehicularly (note that I did not say "VC") when we find ourselves in the road.
how many ways can we say "silly"? Another FALSE "Group accusation". ... hypocritical if you ask me.

seem - To give the impression of being: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/seems)
So where is the hypocracy? I stated what something "seemed" to be to me. For there to be hypocracy in this I would have had to been guilty of making a statement contradicting your "Group accusation" stance when in fact I believe I said So this person sums our entire BF community up as a whole by the ideas of the few that posted in that one thread.
heh, kinda sounds like the things we do ourselves, but that don't make it right
just check post #3 of this thread.
So I ask you again, where was I being hypocritical? It looks like I was making your point long before you even chimed in on this thread.

I think I said it best here (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4181154&postcount=54) when I said

You know, it's the people with (what seems to be) the attitude you have displayed here that are the MAIN problem with A&S. You came in here, read my post, and tried to start some sort of confrontation using it. But instead of using what I said, you made your own stuff up and tried to put words in my mouth just so that you could argue with me.

It doesn't totally apply to you, but the gist is there. You are only here to argue and nothing more.

Here we go with your useless word games again, just to continue your arguing. Just go back and hide behind your word "seem".

I am not the only one getting tired of your circle logic here.