What makes a Vehicular Cyclist?

[Brian Ratliff]

I'm having an identity crisis. I've been informed by an esteemed member of our forums that I have a mental disease called "cyclist inferiority syndrome". Apparently, I said some things that made the diagnosis a "for certain" thing. Before, I guess I was like this Jeffery Hills (or something) guy who wrote a fruity piece titled "Listening to Bike Lanes". Now, I'm not like that guy at all! :eek: In fact, I might not even be a Vehicular Cyclist anymore! I think I've been expelled from the club.

So tell me, in your own words, dear readers, what a Vehicular Cyclist is. That might resolve my identity crisis. I am particularly interested in on John Forester's views. And don't point me to a Wiki page. And someone please tell me who originated this term, and when it was originated. Nobody here on this forum seems to know. I'd contribute myself, but apparently I'm confused and have this mental disease. Remember, in your own words folks. In addition to Wiki, the bicycling life page, the bicycle driving page, and the John Forester page is off limits. In fact, don't point me anywhere. Just give your best explaination.

In your own words.

[Bekologist]

supposedly, it's its operating according to the rules of the road...but from what I understand, it's very, very loose.

vc can use bike paths, can ride in bike lanes, run stop signs, and not have to signal. esentially, expedient bicycling to suit the rider.

Oh,oh, oh, you have to be against bike specific infrastructure and against bike lanes- THAT'S what makes a "VC." They can use a bike lane, but have to be allied against them.

This is parody, btw :D but not ironic.

[chipcom]

Vehicular Cyclist - one who follows the rules and laws of the road while riding on the road - period. All the rest of the wackiness, added by JF, HH and the rest of the merry zealots is nothing but political rhetoric and horsepucky designed to make themselves feel like they are the only 'real' cyclists,

[sbhikes]

"Vehicular Cyclist" is a brand for HH and Forester to whack over the heads of normal people.

"vehicular cyclist" is what normal people are who ride bicycles lawfully.

[galen_52657]

Operates bike as any other vehicle in accordance with the rules of the road.

[dewaday]

It seems to be a form of phobia against clarity and brevity.
The better question would be: Is this phobia environmentally or biologically determinant?

[rando]

It depends on who you ask. to some, it's following the rules of the road. to others, it's that plus a bunch of other stuff that has little to do with that.

[Brian Ratliff]

Operates bike as any other vehicle in accordance with the rules of the road.

So, how does my disease I have fit in? If I "operate my bike as any other vehicle in accordance with the rules of the road", is this necessary and sufficient for me to be a vehicular cyclist? Despite my disease?

I mean, I do this. I did this for 100 miles already this week. But yet, I seem to have this disease...

[Brian Ratliff]

HH: If I have this disease (the "cyclist inferiority syndrome" for those of you just entering the discussion), is this enough to precude me from being a Vehicular Cyclist? Even if I follow galen's riding style and ride as any other vehicule in accordance to the rules of the road?

John Forester? How about your opinion? This is a serious question.

[chipcom]

Ahh... the phobia. :rolleyes: I'd say the cyclist inferiority phobia applies more to HH, JF and others who have these unrealistic fears of paint, lines, parked cars, laws, non-serious cyclists and anything that might make them seem like cyclists, rather than 'vehicles'.

[Helmet Head]

HH: If I have this disease (the "cyclist inferiority syndrome" for those of you just entering the discussion), is this enough to precude me from being a Vehicular Cyclist? Even if I follow galen's riding style and ride as any other vehicule in accordance to the rules of the road?

John Forester? How about your opinion? This is a serious question. To be clear, believing that cyclists are inferior does not preclude one from riding vehicularly from time to time, but it makes it all but impossible to be a vehicular cyclist - one who rides on roads vehicularly consistently, and feels comfortable and not "out of place" (your words) when he's doing it.

EDIT: That is, if you don't feel comfortable and not "out of place" when riding vehicularly, then it's probably impossible to convey the confidence and make the appropriate vehicular-style decisions in real-time traffic required to ride vehicularly consistently. In order to ride vehicularly consistently, you need to have vehicular instincts, if you will, and I don't see how you could have those instincts if you feel inferior and "out of place" when you're out in traffic.

[Bekologist]

just curious, before the sophist goes any further,

how many miles have you cycled on roads this week, mr. head? peloton rides don't count.

I've put down 85 miles, brian's put down 100, he's likely to do another 50 today.

who's got the issue of 'not riding in traffic much'?

[Brian Ratliff]

To be clear, believing that cyclists are inferior does not preclude one from riding vehicularly from time to time, but it makes it all but impossible to be a vehicular cyclist - one who rides on roads vehicularly consistently, and feels comfortable and not "out of place" (your words) when he's doing it.

EDIT: That is, if you don't feel comfortable and not "out of place" when riding vehicularly, then it's probably impossible to convey the confidence and make the appropriate vehicular-style decisions in real-time traffic. In order to ride vehicularly consistently, you need to have vehicular instincts, if you will, and I don't see how you could have those instincts if you feel inferior and "out of place" when you're out in traffic.

I submit myself as a counter example. Apparently, I have this disease, but I do all the confidence stuff and make all the appropriate "vehicular-style" decisions in real time traffic. Expand on these "vehicular-style" decisions and this "vehicular instinct" you refer to. I swear I have these.

I ride all the time in all sorts of traffic on all sorts of roads. All last summer I rode 100-200 miles a week on rural, narrow roads with no shoulders at all during rush hour. I've never made a two part left turn in recent history, I always take to the left turn lane. I've merged into and across multiple lanes of high speed traffic. I've streamed with traffic downtown. I've streamed with traffic in the suburbs too.

I've read all the books. Everything. How does this remain in keeping with the "fact" that I have this disease?

[Brian Ratliff]

just curious, before the sophist goes any further,

how many miles have you cycled on roads this week, mr. head? peloton rides don't count.

I've put down 85 miles, brian's put down 100, he's likely to do another 50 today.

who's got the issue of 'not riding in traffic much'?

Naw, day off today to rest the legs today. But 50 more tomorrow. I'm shooting for 200 next week. (I only get to ride 4 days a week; have to run errands on Friday - it's hard to carry 15 cases of 5 dozen eggs on the back of my bike)

[Bekologist]

my 'complex' is that I'm a vehicular cyclist AND I advocate for bike infrastructure including bike lanes-

I'm a vehicularist that recognizes bicycling following the law and bike-specific infrastructure like bike lanes are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

[chipcom]

HH confuses his inferiority phobia with the simple acceptance of the limitiations of being on a bicycle rather than in a motor vehicle. Indeed, if the limitations (and advantages) of a bicycle don't enter into his 'vehicular' decision making, he's a danger to himself and others.

[Helmet Head]

I submit myself as a counter example. Apparently, I have this disease, but I do all the confidence stuff and make all the appropriate "vehicular-style" decisions in real time traffic. Expand on these "vehicular-style" decisions and this "vehicular instinct" you refer to. I swear I have these.

I ride all the time in all sorts of traffic on all sorts of roads. All last summer I rode 100-200 miles a week on rural, narrow roads with no shoulders at all during rush hour. I've never made a two part left turn in recent history, I always take to the left turn lane. I've merged into and across multiple lanes of high speed traffic. I've streamed with traffic downtown. I've streamed with traffic in the suburbs too.

I've read all the books. Everything. How does this remain in keeping with the "fact" that I have this disease? It is not impossible that you're an exception. It's also possible to hide low self-esteem pretty effectively, but usually, sooner or later, it manifests itself one way or another. Arrogance can be such a manifestation.

It's hard to judge how one rides based on how he writes about it, but I think it gives one an idea. In terms of what you have written, what comes to mind now is the lack of emphasis you place on negotiating for ROW when writing about merging left in busy/fast traffic. You talk about waving one car to go by, and then cutting in, asserting your right to be there without confidently negotiating for it with the next guy. I might be wrong, but this kind of arrogant move seems to reveal a lack of true confidence in your equal right to be on the road.

[Bekologist]

:roflmao: helemt head has 'cyclist full of himself" disorder. stop diagnosing cyclists that ride a HECK OF A LOT MORE and MORE VEHICUARILY than yourself, mr. head. you're stuck on yourself.

how many miles in traffic this week, mr. head, without a peloton?

[Brian Ratliff]

HH confuses his inferiority phobia with the simple acceptance of the limitiations of being on a bicycle rather than in a motor vehicle. Indeed, if the limitations (and advantages) of a bicycle don't enter into his 'vehicular' decision making, he's a danger to himself and others.

I think there is some truth to this statement. When I started cycling vehicularly round about 8 or 9 years ago, I bought into all the stock arguments found on the usual websites. Now, with more miles and more experience under my belt, I am finding myself deviating from the "VC line" more and more, even as I am riding more miles in traffic than ever before. Robert Hurst and many of you here also fit this pattern, of riding vehicularly, but not taking the VC line. I mean, look at it. Robert Hurst is probably the most experienced traffic cyclist of all of us here, being that it was his job for, what 15 years or so. He says some stuff coming directly from his experience, and gets chewed on by a part time commuter with a 6 mile commute who only "discovered" vehicular cycling a few years ago.

I am starting to come of the opinion that I should be listening to the people with the most experience. Not the inexperienced ones defending canned arguments using simplistic logical argumentative techniques. I mean, you, for example, might not win a logical argument, but that doesn't mean that your ideas are wrong. Robert Hurst might be more English Major than Philosophy Major, but it doesn't mean that his ideas are wrong, even if he has to give up against a wall of words attack.

The VC line, and all this stuff about the VC attitude, is just a delusion, perhaps a useful delusion, to get a cyclist to ride vehicularly. Once vehicular cycling is standard operating procedure for a person, then the delusion is no longer necessary and the "VC attitude" can be dropped, as well as all the political positions which stem from the "VC attitude."

[Brian Ratliff]

It is not impossible that you're an exception. It's also possible to hide low self-esteem pretty effectively, but usually, sooner or later, it manifests itself one way or another. Arrogance can be such a manifestation.

It's hard to judge how one rides based on how he writes about it, but I think it gives one an idea. In terms of what you have written, what comes to mind now is the lack of emphasis you place on negotiating for ROW when writing about merging left in busy/fast traffic. You talk about waving one car to go by, and then cutting in, asserting your right to be there without confidently negotiating for it with the next guy. I might be wrong, but this kind of arrogant move seems to reveal a lack of true confidence in your equal right to be on the road.

:roflmao: Whatever image of me floats your boat.

No, HH, you've got it wrong. I can create a gap, if necessary; kind of like creating a gap when changing lanes on the freeway. I don't, usually, because it is rude. If there is a gap in traffic, I take it. But if not, I'll create one. Just like in a car.

BTW, you missed the part where, after I wave the next car through, before it is done passing, I wave the car proceding it back to create a gap. I am basically directing traffic. Like what you do when you throw out your fabled "slow/stop" signal, but more direct about my intentions.

[Helmet Head]

HH confuses his inferiority phobia with the simple acceptance of the limitiations of being on a bicycle rather than in a motor vehicle. Indeed, if the limitations (and advantages) of a bicycle don't enter into his 'vehicular' decision making, he's a danger to himself and others.
It is a common misconception to think vehicular cyclists do not recognize and accept the differences of being on a bicycle rather than driving a motor vehicle. No matter what vehicle you drive, you must take into account the physical and operational characteristics of that vehicle, and that affects your behavior. Bicycles are no different. But one aspect of vehicular cyclists over inferiority thinkers is we don't see these differences as "limitations" (much as blind people don't "see" their blindess as a "limitation", and deaf people don't see not hearing as a "limitation"). The words we all use serve as a window into our core beliefs, and our core beliefs determine our self-image, and, ultimately, our behavior.

[Brian Ratliff]

^^^
So, if the ability to not travel at pace with traffic is not a limitation, then what is it? A difference which makes it difficult to maneuver a bicycle in traffic is a limitation, no? Are you playing word games again?

BTW, I never heard your take on what makes a Vehicular Cyclist. In your own words now.

[Helmet Head]

No, HH, you've got it wrong. I can create a gap, if necessary; kind of like creating a gap when changing lanes on the freeway.
This is a revealing comment as well. I see little comparison between changing lanes on freeways and merging left in busy traffic while cycling with respect to "creating gaps". When changing lanes on a freeway, signaling is almost useless for creating gaps, and I know of no other method to create one. If I start signalling on a freeway, odds are I will be ignored. Almost always I must speed up or slow down to find a gap in order to change lanes on a busy freeway.

The exception is in congested traffic on a freeway that is stopped or barely moving. Yes, then, signalling is the only way to change lanes, and it usually works.

I don't, usually, because it is rude. Creating gaps is rude? Requesting someone to yield to you is rude?

If there is a gap in traffic, I take it. But if not, I'll create one. Just like in a car. What you've written about before is taking gaps that are relatively small in which your ROW is not established, because taking that gap forces the next guy to hit the brakes.

BTW, you missed the part where, after I wave the next car through, before it is done passing, I wave the car proceding it back to create a gap. I am basically directing traffic. What I missed was the part where you wait for a sign from them that they are agreeing to yield to you. I missed it then, and I'm missing it now.

Like what you do when you throw out your fabled "slow/stop" signal, but more direct about my intentions.
I throw out the slow/stop signal when I have the ROW. That's what's missing from how you describe all this, despite reading "all the books": a vehicular cyclist's recognition and appreciation for the role of ROW in all these scenarios.

[Brian Ratliff]

Yes, master. I see if they see my signal and respond. I am not suicidal, of course. ...What an anal retentive jerk. See, you cannot even give me the benefit of the doubt.

You are a noob, I can see. I don't think you are as skilled as you think you are. I don't think you are as experienced as you think you are. I can tell by the way you talk about this subject. All this bluster is about covering up your inexperience. What is your experience again? What kind of bike do you ride, and how far and where do you ride it? You have a bunch of book knowledge, but not a lot of experience, it seems.

Again. What makes a Vehicular Cyclist? Isn't it common courtousy to answer the question asked in the OP before going off on a tangent?

[Brian Ratliff]

HH: I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt as to your experience. Perhaps in error? You talk about it very little. Less than most of us.

You've been talking down to me continuously for a while. I need some bonifieds from you if this is going to continue.

[saraflux]

The words we all use serve as a window into our core beliefs, and our core beliefs determine our self-image, and, ultimately, our behavior.

...so you behave as if you were always and infallibly correct?! judging from the innumerable posts of yours related to VC that i have actually read and tried to understand, your words reflect a deep belief in your status as the only one (except maybe JF) who knows how to ride a bike. so... if words are a window into core beliefs, which determine self-image and behavior, you seem to me to be well on your way to a superiority complex of epic proportions. to tell people they are wrong in so many different ways, no matter what the topic under discussion must take fairly serious conviction... like the fundamentalists who tell me that i'm going to hell because i don't accept JC as my personal savior. same kind of smug, superior, rude behavior.

that's some pretty intense arrogance you got there... napoleon has nothing on you, my friend.

...btw, you still haven't answered either of the questions posed to you. i'm mainly curious about how many miles/week you ride. the VC thing i couldn't possibly care less about...

[rando]

this is an interesting thread. I am interested to see VC defined by the "deciders". in about 20 minutes I will be biking to work, using a variety of VC and Adaptive cycling techniques, including some deemed "dangerous", such as riding on sidewalks. I may also blow through a stop sign or two if there is no traffic coming. Have fun, you guys, and get a ride in if you can.

[Helmet Head]

HH: I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt as to your experience. Perhaps in error? You talk about it very little. Less than most of us.

You've been talking down to me continuously for a while. I need some bonifieds from you if this is going to continue. I don't understand why my experience matters at all, or why anyone's experience matters here. It smells like a red herring, and a slimy effort to sneak in an ad hominem attack.

I don't assign weight to what someone says based on some surely flawed estimate of what their experience is. Do you? Bek might have much more riding experience than Roody, for example, so what? I read the words, I understand them as best as I can, and I give them fair/objective consideration. The only time the experience of the writer might matter is when he or she is saying something that is predicated on how much experience they have. I try to avoid assertions of that nature in a forum where we have little if any ability to evaluate the experience of each other.

[Helmet Head]

...btw, you still haven't answered either of the questions posed to you. i'm mainly curious about how many miles/week you ride. the VC thing i couldn't possibly care less about...
I've answered these questions before, and they're irrelvant.

What's particularly irrelevant is how many times I've commuted in any one particular week.

If there is something in particular I said in this thread whose veracity you question and for which knowing how much experience I have would be relevant to your evaluation of its truth, please identify what that is.

[deputyjones]

He is a member of 3, COUNT THEM 3!!!! Advocacy groups ;)

Apparently, VC also has to include in it's definition a penchant for ridiculous, meaningless, circular argument that does nothing to further advocacy or help anyone figure what the heck to do when riding their bike.

[Brian Ratliff]

Because riding bicycles in traffic is all about experience, not some words in a book or anywhere else. Take all your fancy arguments about logical this and logical that, and it doesn't amount to anything unless there is experience to back up those words. Otherwise, you are a danger to others who you argue with, getting them to ride in certain ways that experience shows to be not wise.

You are reinforcing my opinion that you have little experience backing all your words. This is no ad hominem attack. That would be like you stating a position and me responding that, since you slept with someone not your wife, that your position is irrelevent. Here, I am looking for a credibility check. If Bek has more riding experience than Roody, then I put more weight on Beks words if they say something contradictory to each other. If Robert Hurst has more experience than you, or if I have more experience than you, and we or you and Robert contradict each other, then I put more weight on the person with the most experience.

So, are you covering for the fact that you have little experience with this little protestation?

[chipcom]

It is a common misconception to think vehicular cyclists do not recognize and accept the differences of being on a bicycle rather than driving a motor vehicle. No matter what vehicle you drive, you must take into account the physical and operational characteristics of that vehicle, and that affects your behavior. Bicycles are no different. But one aspect of vehicular cyclists over inferiority thinkers is we don't see these differences as "limitations" (much as blind people don't "see" their blindess as a "limitation", and deaf people don't see not hearing as a "limitation"). The words we all use serve as a window into our core beliefs, and our core beliefs determine our self-image, and, ultimately, our behavior.

You are so full of bullwinkle that your eyes are brown like moose.

[Brian Ratliff]

Experience matters because there is very little formal data on the subject. Everything here is speculation unless there is experience to back the arguments. To continue with you, HH, I need to be reasured that I'm not just going around in circles with a noob.

[flipped4bikes]

I don't understand why my experience matters at all, or why anyone's experience matters here. It smells like a red herring, and a slimy effort to sneak in an ad hominem attack.

Are you a Vehicular Cyclist? No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Ad hominem enough for you?

[chipcom]

HH: I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt as to your experience. Perhaps in error? You talk about it very little. Less than most of us.

You've been talking down to me continuously for a while. I need some bonifieds from you if this is going to continue.

We established that he has less experience than many of us a long time ago. Go ahead HH, give us the chronology of your metamorphasis from cycling-inferiority-infested club rider to alpha-dawg vc expert cyclist, one more time.

[Helmet Head]

...so you behave as if you were always and infallibly correct?! Of course not. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong and I admit it. Just the other day Robert Hurst revealed where I misinterpreted something John Forester had written, and I admitted it. I try to limit how often that happens by being careful about what I assert to be true.

judging from the innumerable posts of yours related to VC that i have actually read and tried to understand, your words reflect a deep belief in your status as the only one (except maybe JF) who knows how to ride a bike. You misunderstand. Among those who "get VC" on this forum, off the top of my head I would include, in no particular order: JoeJack951, Galen, JRA, Roody, Daily Commute, noisebeam, Sggoodri, Bruce Rosar, LCI_Brian, etc.

so... if words are a window into core beliefs, which determine self-image and behavior, you seem to me to be well on your way to a superiority complex of epic proportions. to tell people they are wrong in so many different ways, no matter what the topic under discussion must take fairly serious conviction... like the fundamentalists who tell me that i'm going to hell because i don't accept JC as my personal savior. same kind of smug, superior, rude behavior.

that's some pretty intense arrogance you got there... napoleon has nothing on you, my friend. You say it's the same kind of smug, superior, rude behavior as those who tell you you're going to hell because you don't accept JC, and I see it as the same kind of smug, superior, rude behavior as those who tell the intelligent design proponents that they're idiots who are full of cr@p.

"Smug, superior, rude" behavior in and of itself does not say anything about whether the person is right or wrong. You have to examine what they're saying, regardless of how they are saying, to figure that out.

[chipcom]

I've answered these questions before, and they're irrelvant.

What's particularly irrelevant is how many times I've commuted in any one particular week.

If there is something in particular I said in this thread whose veracity you question and for which knowing how much experience I have would be relevant to your evaluation of its truth, please identify what that is.

Translation: if I cite my lack of experience and lack of using my bicycle for more than recreational purposes, I will expose myself as a fraud.

[Brian Ratliff]

I've answered these questions before, and they're irrelvant.

What's particularly irrelevant is how many times I've commuted in any one particular week.

If there is something in particular I said in this thread whose veracity you question and for which knowing how much experience I have would be relevant to your evaluation of its truth, please identify what that is.

Be a pal and answer the OP question one more time for us.

Experience is, in particular, extremely relevent in these discussions. What works for the casual commuter might accidentally work for the one mildly difficult intersection they ride in, but not in general. You are so defensive about this subject, I think that you know that your position will be undermined if you revealed how little experience you have.

Basically everything you write is pure speculation until you can back this with experience.

[flipped4bikes]

"Smug, superior, rude" behavior in and of itself does not say anything about whether the person is right or wrong. You have to examine what they're saying, regardless of how they are saying, to figure that out.

When was the last time smug, superior and rude behavior actually won over anybody? Seriously...

[Helmet Head]

It is a common misconception to think vehicular cyclists do not recognize and accept the differences of being on a bicycle rather than driving a motor vehicle. No matter what vehicle you drive, you must take into account the physical and operational characteristics of that vehicle, and that affects your behavior. Bicycles are no different. But one aspect of vehicular cyclists over inferiority thinkers is we don't see these differences as "limitations" (much as blind people don't "see" their blindess as a "limitation", and deaf people don't see not hearing as a "limitation"). The words we all use serve as a window into our core beliefs, and our core beliefs determine our self-image, and, ultimately, our behavior.

You are so full of bullwinkle that your eyes are brown like moose.

Perhaps. The point is, whether you agree with what I said or not, what should determine whether you agree or not is your own knowledge and experience, not your perception of my experience.

Given your experience and knowledge, does the above make sense to you or not? If so, great. If not, why not? What in your knowledge and experience is inconsistent with what I said?

[Helmet Head]

When was the last time smug, superior and rude behavior actually won over anybody? Seriously...
That's a different argument. It may not be an effective approach, especially for those who are swayed more by emotion than reason, but it still doesn't say anything about whether the underlying points are right or wrong.

[HeedPantsNow]

HH experience**********************

\'Been riding for 40 years, 1000 to 5000 miles per year for the last 35 years.
My commute for the last 7 years has been only 6 miles each way, and I don\'t ride every day, though I do when I can. Some days I work from home, other days I drive. On weekends I like to get a 50 mile ride in.\'

[chipcom]

You have to examine what they're saying, regardless of how they are saying, to figure that out.

Considering that I am supposedly one of those who doesn't get it and doesn't debate honestly, you sure do regurgitate a lot material that I have written. :rolleyes:

So how about answering the questions that have been posed to you by:

1. answering the OP
2. outlining your experience cycling in traffic
3. outlining how often you use your bike as transportation....say commuting to work.

[chipcom]

HH experience**********************

\'Been riding for 40 years, 1000 to 5000 miles per year for the last 35 years.
My commute for the last 7 years has been only 6 miles each way, and I don\'t ride every day, though I do when I can. Some days I work from home, other days I drive. On weekends I like to get a 50 mile ride in.\'

Go back a little farther...this is only his latest iteration, he has broken it down differently quite a few times, changing after getting ridculed about his lack of actual traffic cycling experience and commuting.

[Brian Ratliff]

Perhaps. The point is, whether you agree with what I said or not, what should determine whether you agree or not is your own knowledge and experience, not your perception of my experience.

Given your experience and knowledge, does the above make sense to you or not? If so, great. If not, why not? What in your knowledge and experience is inconsistent with what I said?

I believe that all of us with experience know why this position is weak. You made the statement, it has been contradicted by another's direct experience; it is up to you to convince us that our experience is decieving and that in your experience (whatever that may be) your statement is correct. Usually this means that you talk about a snippet of your experience and use it as the basis of your discussion.

Instead, you usually insist that the people with contratictory experiences are wrong, and you are right. You repeat your statement and repeat it again until everyone loses interest and stops arguing with you.

[chipcom]

Perhaps. The point is, whether you agree with what I said or not, what should determine whether you agree or not is your own knowledge and experience, not your perception of my experience.

Given your experience and knowledge, does the above make sense to you or not? If so, great. If not, why not? What in your knowledge and experience is inconsistent with what I said?

I think my original response gives a pretty good indication that I think what you said is BS, plain and simple. Go back one response prior and you can see why....your political BS, if used in your decision making, makes you a danger to yourself and others.

[chipcom]

Instead, you usually insist that the people with contratictory experiences are wrong, and you are right. You repeat your statement and repeat it again until everyone loses interestest and stops arguing with you.

The only reason I bothered coming back into this cesspool of HH BS is because I felt the need to vent due to catching crap about cycling from coworkers that I cannot respond - causing me stress. A thread that includes HH is about as fun as a trip to the dentist, but at least the dentist gives you good drugs.

[Helmet Head]

Be a pal and answer the OP question one more time for us.

Experience is, in particular, extremely relevent in these discussions. What works for the casual commuter might accidentally work for the one mildly difficult intersection they ride in, but not in general. You are so defensive about this subject, I think that you know that your position will be undermined if you revealed how little experience you have.

Basically everything you write is pure speculation until you can back this with experience. Of course experience is relevant in these discussions. But your perception of the experience of any given member should not be relevant to your evaluation of what he or she is saying, which should be entirely based on your knowledge and experience.

For example, I might write, "When merging left, looking back is an effective way to get folks to yield to you". Let's consider the two extremes: that statement is based on 40 years of experience doing that, or that statement is based on pure speculation (I just pulled it out of my *****). What difference does it make? Seriously.

When you read it, you need to evaluate it based on your experience and knowledge. It may be consistent with your experience and knowledge, it may be contrary to it, or it may give you pause, and inspire you to consider experimenting. Whatever it is, it makes no difference whether the person who said it was purely speculating, or speaking from experience. That's what objective evaluation is all about. The statement stands on its own: "When merging left, looking back is an effective way to get folks to yield to you". It's either true or false, no matter who said it, or what their experience it is. They might have just heard it some where, and actually think it's totally wrong, and are just repeating it here for fun. It may turn out to be true, even though the person asserting it believes it to be false.

You need to evaluate, as objectively as you can, anything anyone says, based on your experience and knowledge. If you want to give some extra weight to an assertion because it happens to come from someone for whom you have respect or faith or whatever, well, that's up to you. Generally, I try to avoid doing that, and I certainly don't expect anyone to give that kind of extra weight to anything I have to say.

[chipcom]

Of course experience is relevant in these discussions. But your perception of the experience of any given member should not be relevant to your evaluation of what he or she is saying, which should be entirely based on your knowledge and experience.

For example, I might write, "When merging left, looking back is an effective way to get folks to yield to you". Let's consider the two extremes: that statement is based on 40 years of experience doing that, or that statement is based on pure speculation (I just pulled it out of my *****). What difference does it make? Seriously.

When you read it, you need to evaluate it based on your experience and knowledge. It may be consistent with your experience and knowledge, it may be contrary to it, or it may give you pause, and inspire you to consider experimenting. Whatever it is, it makes no difference whether the person who said it was purely speculating, or speaking from experience. That's what objective evaluation is all about. The statement stands on its own: "When merging left, looking back is an effective way to get folks to yield to you". It's either true or false, no matter who said it, or what their experience it is. They might have just heard it some where, and actually think it's totally wrong, and are just repeating it here for fun. It may turn out to be true, even though the person asserting it believes it to be false.

You need to evaluate, as objectively as you can, anything anyone says, based on your experience and knowledge. If you want to give some extra weight to an assertion because it happens to come from someone for whom you have respect or faith or whatever, well, that's up to you. Generally, I try to avoid doing that, and I certainly don't expect anyone to give that kind of extra weight to anything I have to say.


Translation: If we consider experience, I can't act like I am superior.

[Helmet Head]

I believe that all of us with experience know why this position is weak. You made the statement, it has been contradicted by another's direct experience; it is up to you to convince us that our experience is decieving and that in your experience (whatever that may be) your statement is correct. Usually this means that you talk about a snippet of your experience and use it as the basis of your discussion.
Huh? What is the statement that I made that has been contradicted by another's direct experience? What is that experience, and how does it contradict the statement?

Instead, you usually insist that the people with contratictory experiences are wrong, and you are right. You repeat your statement and repeat it again until everyone loses interest and stops arguing with you.
I understand this is your impression. Can you please provide a specific example of:


A statement that I made about something being true.
Someone saying their direct experience contradicted what my statement says is true.
An explanation for how that experience contradicts the statement.
My insistence that their contradictory experiences are wrong.