Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Someone convince me not to put John Forester on ignore

Let's just all work together to raise the bar in terms of how we treat each other, shall we? We should be able to accomplish that without anyone getting banned, and hopefully without anyone even being warned.

Jeezus, Forester has called almost everybody an idiot, insane or stupid on this board at one time or another. why does HE get a pass? he should be warned too.

How bout you all but each other on ignore? That would save me a lot of time and effort. :D

I thought this subforum was created so we could all insult each other to our heart's content without moderator interference (but I guess it just takes one tattletale to ruin it for everyone else).

As long as no one is complaining I stay away from A&S.

...

In regards to #2, from where do you have an estimate of the number of fatalities while cycling alone versus cycling in groups? Then where do you get the denominator from which to estimate the rate of fatalities; i.e., the number of miles/trips ridden alone versus ridden in a group? Then where do you find these figures broken out for the appropriate age groups?

Note that the statistics I refer to in this thread are based on accident surveys, and concern injuries but not fatalities. Dead men don't wear plaid, and they don't answer surveys.


...
Robert raises some interesting points. I frequently observe the selection of "safe" routes among the recreational riders. Writing about myself, Bek asked me a question regarding hugging the curb on narrow-high-speed roads a while back. If my memory is correct, I answered that while I never purposely hug the curb but that I would be a bad person to ask since my regular travel routes avoid such roads when alternatives are readily available.

But Robert, there could be a selection bias with respect to messengers as well. Specifically, people choose to become a bike messenger and, as time passes, the choice to remain a bike messenger. For instance, perhaps all of the dangerous bike messengers get smashed or scared early in their career and leave. Those that survive either have good intuition, reflexes, decision rules, peripheral vision, balance, timing, constitution, or some combination thereof that allowed them to proceed. Some of the aforementioned qualities would be difficult to transfer to a general population and, consequently, of little practical use. Note that one could similarly write that there is a selection bias to becoming a messenger; i.e., people that choose to become a bike messenger are those with good intuition, reflexes, decisions rules, ... and so on.
...
EDIT: Of course, LCI_Brian's comments about different survey methodology is appropriate. It is quite difficult to quantify the effects of survey differences.

Hey you are thinking on a deeper level than is even necessary to undermine this whole enterprise of considering and comparing bicycle accident stats. You need only scratch the surface and the whole thing falls apart. ILTB is quite right about that. That said there are some useful surveys with results that are meaningful if we can restrain ourselves from wild extrapolation.

Robert

Jeezus, Forester has called almost everybody an idiot, insane or stupid on this board at one time or another. why does HE get a pass? he should be warned too.
I'm not suggesting anyone should be warned for anything they've done prior to today.
If anyone, including Forester, violates the guidelines I will call them on it, and if it doesn't stop I will report the post. I invite others to join me, and hold me to the same standards.

Jeezus, Forester has called almost everybody an idiot, insane or stupid on this board at one time or another. why does HE get a pass? he should be warned too.

The difference is, when John calls someone an idiot, insane, or stupid, it is because that person clearly IS an idiot, insane or stupid. The rest of us just toss those words around when we are upset with someone. HE is stated an obvious fact. The rest of us are merely engaging in name-calling.

Note that the statistics I refer to in this thread are based on accident surveys, and concern injuries but not fatalities. Dead men don't wear plaid, and they don't answer surveys.

I thought that the above was in a response to Bek. If my wires got crossed, sorry Robert.


Hey you are thinking on a deeper level than is even necessary to undermine this whole enterprise of considering and comparing bicycle accident stats. You need only scratch the surface and the whole thing falls apart. ILTB is quite right about that. That said there are some useful surveys with results that are meaningful if we can restrain ourselves from wild extrapolation.

Robert

Actually, I do think that we can get a fuzzy picture from the surveys. As I have discussed with ILTB, I would consider most of the statistics descriptive and definitely not conclusive. Written differently, I do think that there is enough there to come up with theories and practices; but too little to convincingly "prove" the point without a series of specific caveats.

What I object to is the definitive language that gets used and how particular statistics are misrepresented.

So I think that we agree.

-G

He's more biased and arrogant than Helmet Head, he doesn't listen to what he's told, he's immune to logic and reason, and sometimes it seems like a discussion with a bag of hammers would have a more reasonable outcome.

Any reason not to put him on ignore (just like the most of the rest of the bicycling community did a long time ago)?

Because he's par for the course in the A&S forum?

Most of the time i put this whole forum on "ignore".

The difference is, when John calls someone an idiot, insane, or stupid, it is because that person clearly IS an idiot, insane or stupid. The rest of us just toss those words around when we are upset with someone. HE is stated an obvious fact. The rest of us are merely engaging in name-calling.
Calling a forum member a name like idiot, insane, or stupid is against the forum guidelines and is not justified no matter how true one may feel it to be. That's the whole point. Referring to something a member says, or to how a member is behaving, as being idiotic, crazy or stupid is fair game, however. The distinction is critical to fruitful and productive discussion and debate. At least that's what I get from reading the guidelines.

I disagree.

Calling someone's behavior stupid is as insulting in tone and disrespectful and as much a violation of forum guidelines as calling you stupid.

not like jf's going to change his tone, however.

The difference is, when John calls someone an idiot, insane, or stupid, it is because that person clearly IS an idiot, insane or stupid. The rest of us just toss those words around when we are upset with someone. HE is stated an obvious fact. The rest of us are merely engaging in name-calling.

I'm glad you think John Forester is a diety

:rolleyes:


:rolleyes:


:rolleyes:

Calling a forum member a name like idiot, insane, or stupid is against the forum guidelines and is not justified no matter how true one may feel it to be. That's the whole point. Referring to something a member says, or to how a member is behaving, as being idiotic, crazy or stupid is fair game, however. The distinction is critical to fruitful and productive discussion and debate. At least that's what I get from reading the guidelines.

Not to disagree with you and I have noticed that lately the major offenders have cooled it a bit but still I think there were some individuals that were allowed to be overly abusive and those bad vibes are still bouncing around. I stopped reporting posts here when the mods didn't do any thing, one day is a call for civility and the next day it's anything goes as long as its not a censored word. You can't keep changing the rules every few weeks and expect people to keep pace.

We had a call for civility once and it was a joke, trying to do it again seems a bit insulting, not that I am for insulting posts, far from it, but the mods tolerance for select abusive personalities really has to stop.

One key litmus test is the use of personnel phrases such as "you are" [something derogatory]
Apply it fairly and universally.

I disagree.

Calling someone's behavior stupid is as insulting in tone and disrespectful and as much a violation of forum guidelines as calling you stupid.

not like jf's going to change his tone, however.

I agree with Bek's disagreeing.

I disagree.

Calling someone's behavior stupid is as insulting in tone and disrespectful and as much a violation of forum guidelines as calling you stupid.

not like jf's going to change his tone, however.
I don't see that in the guidelines, but I have no problem with this interpretation.

Tell you what, Beck, if you agree to abide by it and call/report others for violating it, so will I, including when it's John Forester.

I don't see that in the guidelines, but I have no problem with this interpretation.

Forum guide lines:

Respectfulness
We expect our member to show respect for others. Respecting their person, their views, their time and their opinions, and their belief systems ... even if you disagree with them.


...For instance, the use of terms such as "idiot, moron, stupid" and other derogatory terms constitutes harassment. ... Repeated critical and sharply negative posts toward a forum member can also constitute harassment. ...

Forum guide lines:
Okay, I guess saying someone's views are stupid is not showing respect for their views.

If Bek, Randya and others abide by this, so will I, and I will encourage John Forester to do the same, and report him if he doesn't. Hopefully the moderators will enforce it.

a stunning reversal! almost unheard of concessions!!! an amazing jump in reading comprehension!!!! what savvy understanding!!!!

The difference is, when John calls someone an idiot, insane, or stupid, it is because that person clearly IS an idiot, insane or stupid. The rest of us just toss those words around when we are upset with someone. HE is stated an obvious fact. The rest of us are merely engaging in name-calling.


oh wait your arent joking!?!:eek: