Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Positioning question when RTOL present

There is an intersection with a RTOL, no bike lanes, narrow lanes only, I am traveling thru.

I line up behind thru cars in rightmost thru lane.

Sometimes I am the last vehicle just about where the RTOL begins.

I find this a concerning postion. I normally watch appraoching vehicles in mirror and note them slowing - if they don't I am prepared to take evasive action. However if there is a fair amount of RTing traffic, drivers may approach very fast and make a last second swerve into the car width opening for the RTOL, narrowly missing my rear tire.

I do not like this position as I can not tell if drivers see me or not. The alternative is to filter foward using RTOL which blocks the heavily used RTOL aside from not following RotR. Another alternative is to stop 1.5 car lengths back from last car in line to block the RTOL opening, also an 'awkward' position.

Any thoughts? I left bias in this case which gives the most clearance, but I still feel less able to manage the situation vs. when there is no RTOL opening and simply lining up with vehicles, where the slowing of approaching vehicles is consistent.

(I ask that debate about alternate facilities not be discussed here)

Al

There is an intersection with a RTOL, no bike lanes, narrow lanes only, I am traveling thru.

I line up behind thru cars in rightmost thru lane.

Sometimes I am the last vehicle just about where the RTOL begins.

I find this a concerning postion. I normally watch appraoching vehicles in mirror and note them slowing - if they don't I am prepared to take evasive action. However if there is a fair amount of RTing traffic, drivers may approach very fast and make a last second swerve into the car width opening for the RTOL, narrowly missing my rear tire.

I do not like this position as I can not tell if drivers see me or not. The alternative is to filter foward using RTOL which blocks the heavily used RTOL aside from not following RotR. Another alternative is to stop 1.5 car lengths back from last car in line to block the RTOL opening, also an 'awkward' position.

Any thoughts? I left bias in this case which gives the most clearance, but I still feel less able to manage the situation vs. when there is no RTOL opening and simply lining up with vehicles, where the slowing of approaching vehicles is consistent.

(I ask that debate about alternate facilities not be discussed here)

Al



What, no video?
What street are you on, what is the cross street, and what direction are you headed? Google maps link?
How many through lanes in your direction?
If more than one through lane in your direction, can you filter forward on the left?
Can you filter forward on the right, in the RTOL, and then cut-in behind one of the cars in line, thus getting out of the RTOL (with a smile and wave to the driver you're cutting in front of, of course)?

There is an intersection with a RTOL, no bike lanes, narrow lanes only, I am traveling thru.

I line up behind thru cars in rightmost thru lane.

Sometimes I am the last vehicle just about where the RTOL begins.

I find this a concerning postion. I normally watch appraoching vehicles in mirror and note them slowing - if they don't I am prepared to take evasive action. However if there is a fair amount of RTing traffic, drivers may approach very fast and make a last second swerve into the car width opening for the RTOL, narrowly missing my rear tire.

I do not like this position as I can not tell if drivers see me or not. The alternative is to filter foward using RTOL which blocks the heavily used RTOL aside from not following RotR. Another alternative is to stop 1.5 car lengths back from last car in line to block the RTOL opening, also an 'awkward' position.

Any thoughts? I left bias in this case which gives the most clearance, but I still feel less able to manage the situation vs. when there is no RTOL opening and simply lining up with vehicles, where the slowing of approaching vehicles is consistent.

(I ask that debate about alternate facilities not be discussed here)

Al

I understand your problem. It occurs only when you are waiting just at the point where the RTOL starts, or where the line of waiting straight-through vehicles extends back to where there is only a very short (or call it narrow) opening into the RTOL. I think that were I to arrive at that situation, I would line up on the left-hand side of the straight-through lane, giving as much room as possible for the right-turning traffic to enter their lane.

I understand your problem. It occurs only when you are waiting just at the point where the RTOL starts, or where the line of waiting straight-through vehicles extends back to where there is only a very short (or call it narrow) opening into the RTOL. I think that were I to arrive at that situation, I would line up on the left-hand side of the straight-through lane, giving as much room as possible for the right-turning traffic to enter their lane.

I concur.

I have no desire to filter forward. Once the light turns green I will easily make the light and motor vehicle traffic will quickly be up to 45mph. Negotiating back into lane can be a bit difficult.

I can give video if I search my CDRs. I get in this potential position perhaps 1/20 times. I've posted video of this very intersection with different situations than this one.

Two same thru direction lanes, a LTO and RTO lane too.

There is a twist in that this road has a BL that ends just before the RTOL.

Al

I understand your problem. It occurs only when you are waiting just at the point where the RTOL starts, or where the line of waiting straight-through vehicles extends back to where there is only a very short (or call it narrow) opening into the RTOL. I think that were I to arrive at that situation, I would line up on the left-hand side of the straight-through lane, giving as much room as possible for the right-turning traffic to enter their lane.
Thanks John, this is indeed the situation I was describing. What you suggest is currently what I do (bias left in thru lane) as I noted in my original post. It is nice to have agreement from both yourself and Chipcom that this may be the best approach.

However even when biasing left I find it disconcerting to see vehicles approach faster than they normally do if stopping behind me. No longer is there is the behavioral clue that I have been noted and responded to.

Al

Thanks John, this is indeed the situation I was describing. What you suggest is currently what I do (bias left in thru lane) as I noted in my original post. It is nice to have agreement from both yourself and Chipcom that this may be the best approach.

However even when biasing left I find it disconcerting to see vehicles approach faster than they normally do if stopping behind me. No longer is there is the behavioral clue that I have been noted and responded to.

Al How long does this uncomfortable period last? The next through driver will stop behind you, and he will slow down first, right?
During a typical uncomfortable period, how many from-behind zoomers cut over into the RTOL?

What if a car was where you are? Two cars? At some point, the ability to cut over into the RTOL would be blocked off, right?

Can you move back and center, say, in order to cause such a block yourself? That would cause even the right-turners to have to slow down, no?

How long does this uncomfortable period last? The next through driver will stop behind you, and he will slow down first, right?
During a typical uncomfortable period, how many from-behind zoomers cut over into the RTOL?

What if a car was where you are? Two cars? At some point, the ability to cut over into the RTOL would be blocked off, right?

Can you move back and center, say, in order to cause such a block yourself? That would cause even the right-turners to have to slow down, no?
Between 1-5 cars will go into RTOL before a thru car stops behind me.
Yes moving back to block is possible, but not what I want to do. I might as well go into RTOL and block them the same.

Really this is a minor issue, more about thoughtful discussion about fine tuning methods vs. gaining significant benefits.

Al

Al, you can get a little more room by going left, as mentioned, but angling the bike so that your rear end is centerish. This provides a bit more space, a wider visibility profile, allows you to easily monitor the approaching traffic without using the mirror and the ability to push-off up the left-hand side of the car in front of you if you feel the need to bail, (leave your front tire facing forward as if you are going to move around and filter up the left lane line).

Al,

Is the issue that cars are racing to cut you off to get into the RTOL while you are slowing down to stop in the through lane? Or that they are approaching a little too fast from behind to cut over into the RTOL while you are already stopped in the through lane?

If it's the latter, I would suggest tacks.

Between 1-5 cars will go into RTOL before a thru car stops behind me.
Yes moving back to block is possible, but not what I want to do. I might as well go into RTOL and block them the same.

Really this is a minor issue, more about thoughtful discussion about fine tuning methods vs. gaining significant benefits.

Al Gotchya, and I am talking about fine tuning.

Here's a fine tuner: stay back and right to block to cause them to slow, then move forward and left when they're close to let them by.

If it's the latter, I would suggest tacks.

Fits nicely on a rear rack. :D
http://www.joelogon.com/images_temp/011206claymore400.jpg

Al, you can get a little more room by going left, as mentioned, but angling the bike so that your rear end is centerish. This provides a bit more space, a wider visibility profile, allows you to easily monitor the approaching traffic without using the mirror and the ability to push-off up the left-hand side of the car in front of you if you feel the need to bail, (leave your front tire facing forward as if you are going to move around and filter up the left lane line).
Thanks Chip, thats kinda what I do, maybe not angled as much as you suggest, but pointing to the space between the two thru lanes as my 'escape' path.

Unless there are new ideas I think this is over, I achieved two results that I like:
1. Feedback that the left bias is a good approach
2. That others recognise this as a unique situation

And a third unintended but great result - having folks who like to argue come together with helpful thoughts and agreement.

Al

Here's a fine tuner: stay back and right to block to cause them to slow, then move forward and left when they're close to let them by.
That works for the first, and better if they are already close, but there can be others later.

Thanks - I am not dismissive, just commenting

Al

Only think I can say is just do what you are doing, stopping and waiting in the left side of the through lane. You could also give approaching cars the slow/stop hand signal if the cars appear to be speeding toward you and look for turn signals (not that many drivers use them any more.....).

I think you will just have to hope a strait-through car stops and blocks for you as soon as possible.

And a third unintended but great result - having folks who like to argue come together with helpful thoughts and agreement.

Easy to do when we stick to talking about riding without getting all the politics and dogma involved.

Seems to me that as disconcerting as it may seem that people are coming up quickly with no indication of slowing, that there is your indication that they are headed for the right turn lane.

Seems to me that as disconcerting as it may seem that people are coming up quickly with no indication of slowing, that there is your indication that they are headed for the right turn lane.

Sounds like the drivers in that area are no better at using turn signals or giving idications of what their intentions are than the drivers in my area are.

We have an intersection in our area, where a through street dead ends into an industrial area within a block. At the intersection the drivers from the through lane will turn right 98% of the time, but very seldom use their turn signals. The local drivers from the cross lane are so used to the other drivers turning right without signaling {and very few going straight through** that they assume everyone is turning even without signals. It is very hard to go straight through without someone pulling out in front of you. This is mostly because of the lack of using signals, but also a problem of familiarity of this particular intersection.

Sorry didn't me to get side tracked, but feel part of your uncomfortable feeling is not knowing the drivers intentions. Turn right or go straight into you!

I understand your problem. It occurs only when you are waiting just at the point where the RTOL starts, or where the line of waiting straight-through vehicles extends back to where there is only a very short (or call it narrow) opening into the RTOL. I think that were I to arrive at that situation, I would line up on the left-hand side of the straight-through lane, giving as much room as possible for the right-turning traffic to enter their lane.

1+

That's how I do it.

Seems to me that as disconcerting as it may seem that people are coming up quickly with no indication of slowing, that there is your indication that they are headed for the right turn lane.
Now look who is thinking hardcore VC!

Now look who is thinking hardcore VC!
Wouldn't the right attitude be that one should not assume what another driver is doing and instead take full reponsibility for ones safety?

I can do this when waiting in back of a normal line of traffic, noting the approaching vehicles slowing. If one doesn't I can take evasive action. However in this case one can not be certain if the driver has not seen the stopped traffic or is instead turning.

People do get rear ended waiting stopped at lights. Just last week a co-worker in the office next to me was stopped in line for a fairly long period of time. (A police car was stopped next to them in adjacent lane.) A driver (on cell phone) plowed into them at over 45mph, pushing them into several cars ahead. Airbags, crumple zones and such resulted in reduced injuries, even though the rear bumper was deep within the trunk of the car against the rear seat.

Al

You could avoid that intesection (I hate that option), you could also carry an old hairdryer and turn around and pretend to be taking down their speeds with RADAR, you could carry a bullhorn and tell them to "SLOW THE F--- DOWN!"

What about threading on the left hands side? (I know, not necessarily a good idea... I do it on 25mph roads with backed-up right lanes and clear left lanes sometimes, and time the light so I can always find a nice gap to merge back into...)

These are just random ideas, i still like the left side of the through lane, angled, idea the best. Maybe detach your head light, and point it straight in the faster drivers' eyes.

Once again.... Left biased in rightmost thru lane is what I always have done and what I will continue to do.

Al

Wouldn't the right attitude be that one should not assume what another driver is doing and instead take full reponsibility for ones safety?

Al

Just the fact that you are uncomfortable in the situation in your OP indicates that you have cyclist inferiority phobia. :p ;)

Just the fact that you are uncomfortable in the situation in your OP indicates that you have cyclist inferiority phobia. :p ;)
I get the same feeling when in the same position in my SUV. Seriously.
Al

I get the same feeling when in the same position in my SUV. Seriously.
Al

Which has always been my point...being uncomfortable in many traffic situations is not some phobia, it's being human.

Which has always been my point...being uncomfortable in many traffic situations is not some phobia, it's being human. The difference is whether the discomfort is based on rational assumptions about risk, or irrational ones.

In this case Al provided the reasons for his discomfort - that motorists from behind are approaching very quickly without any indication of whether they are planning to cut right into the RTOL, or they're going to plow into him from behind. He has also noted his discomfort is the same whether he is on a bike or in his SUV.

When Forester talks about a phobia, he is talking about people expressing discomfort or fear for the safety of cyclists based on no reason. When asked in person, they stutter, or hem and haw. In forums like this, the posted questions remain unanswered. There is no reason. Those fears are irrational. That's why Forester refers to them as phobias.

Can you recognize and appreciate the difference?

The difference is whether the discomfort is based on rational assumptions about risk, or irrational ones.

In this case Al provided the reasons for his discomfort - that motorists from behind are approaching very quickly without any indication of whether they are planning to cut right into the RTOL, or they're going to plow into him from behind. He has also noted his discomfort is the same whether he is on a bike or in his SUV.

When Forester talks about a phobia, he is talking about people expressing discomfort or fear for the safety of cyclists based on no reason. When asked in person, they stutter, or hem and haw. In forums like this, the posted questions remain unanswered. There is no reason. Those fears are irrational. That's why Forester refers to them as phobias.

Can you recognize and appreciate the difference?

irrational defined by you and others with an axe to grind...oh yeah I know the difference. :rolleyes:

I was having a little fun with Al, HH....freakin drop it and save it for another thread.

irrational defined by you and others with an axe to grind...oh yeah I know the difference. :rolleyes:

I was having a little fun with Al, HH....freakin drop it and save it for another thread.
I call BS on you trying to pull the "just kidding" card with respect to #26:


Which has always been my point...being uncomfortable in many traffic situations is not some phobia, it's being human.

So... um... yeah.... that leftish position in the right-most through lane is coo'... (don't crack joke about phobias, don't crack joke about phobias)

I call BS on you trying to pull the "just kidding" card with respect to #26:

WTF is your problem? The only BS around here is your inability to let two people have a conversation without butting your fat okole into it. Nobody was talking to you, the thread was nice for a change, then you gotta start your typical BS concerning something that was not even addressed to you. Go seek help, you have serious mental issues.

I get the same feeling when in the same position in my SUV. Seriously.
Al

Which has always been my point...being uncomfortable in many traffic situations is not some phobia, it's being human.

This makes more sense than labling it a "phobia" and using it as a battering ram.

In defense of John Forester, I think he's in a bit of a bad spot here - forced to defend a bad position. He coined the term to catch people's attention when he wrote "Effective Cycling." Back when I was learning, his use of that term caught my attention as well. What got me into cycling on the road was the thought I had one day (before I heard of JF or EC or anything like that), was that "drivers don't want to hit me." The collarary to this is "don't do anything that will force them to hit me." JF's writings reinforced this opinion.

It is a bit of what Robert Hurst noticed. People take John Forester too literally sometimes, both to oppose his ideas and to support his ideas. His riding style is sound and even his use of the term "phobia" is sound if you take it for what it is: a retorical teaching device to get people's attention. Saying this, to defend this retorical "phobia" too far is to do the concepts of vehicular cycling a grave disfavor. Just like in defending an analogy to the death, defending the use of this term as an actual medical condition is stupid. The use of "phobia", like the use of an analogy to explain a concept, is not a tool for discussion, but rather a tool for teaching. Once the discussion starts, all the cutsy retorical devices need to be dropped and the ideas bared of all their window dressings.

This makes more sense than labling it a "phobia" and using it as a battering ram.

In defense of John Forester, I think he's in a bit of a bad spot here - forced to defend a bad position. He coined the term to catch people's attention when he wrote "Effective Cycling." Back when I was learning, his use of that term caught my attention as well. What got me into cycling on the road was the thought I had one day (before I heard of JF or EC or anything like that), was that "drivers don't want to hit me." The collarary to this is "don't do anything that will force them to hit me." JF's writings reinforced this opinion.

It is a bit of what Robert Hurst noticed. People take John Forester too literally sometimes, both to oppose his ideas and to support his ideas. His riding style is sound and even his use of the term "phobia" is sound if you take it for what it is: a retorical teaching device to get people's attention. Saying this, to defend this retorical "phobia" too far is to do the concepts of vehicular cycling a grave disfavor. Just like in defending an analogy to the death, defending the use of this term as an actual medical condition is stupid. The use of "phobia", like the use of an analogy to explain a concept, is not a tool for discussion, but rather a tool for teaching. Once the discussion starts, all the cutsy retorical devices need to be dropped and the ideas bared of all their window dressings. :beer:

Exactly.

I certainly agree it's inappropriate to interpret a rhetorical device literally, and I certainly agree that that's what anti-Foresterites do (including Chipcom when he says, "being uncomfortable in many traffic situations is not some phobia, it's being human" - to say "it's not some phobia" requires a literal interpretation of Forester's meaning, outside of the rhetorical context he intends), but I don't see where this mistake has been made in support of his ideas. Who has done that where?

WTF is your problem? The only BS around here is your inability to let two people have a conversation without butting your fat okole into it. Nobody was talking to you, the thread was nice for a change, then you gotta start your typical BS concerning something that was not even addressed to you. .
Talk about BS, if you want to have a two person conversation, use PM.
There is no such thing as "butting" in in a public forum like this. Everyone's comments should be welcome, and making them is subject to anyone else commenting on them too. Duh.


Go seek help, you have serious mental issues
I suggest you worry about your own mental condition.

It is also not helpful to use a retorical device in the midst of a discussion amongst equals. Concern about traffic and comfort during traffic cycling is not to be dismissed in a discussion amongst equals, but rather talked about in neutral terms and broken down to its components and felt out. We are having a discussion amongst equals, are we not?

If "anti-Foresterites" are accused of interpreting a retorical device literally, then the "Foresterites" are accused of using this said retorical term to dismiss legitimate topics of discussion. One begets the other: If "Foresterites" use the term in a literal fashion, as in using the term to accuse member of having this condition as a justification for dismissing their ideas out of hand, then the "anti-Foresterites" have no choice than to interpret the term literally.

The term needs to be dropped in these discussions altogether. That means everyone.

It is also not helpful to use a retorical device in the midst of a discussion amongst equals. Concern about traffic and comfort during traffic cycling is not to be dismissed in a discussion amongst equals, but rather talked about in neutral terms and broken down to its components and felt out. We are having a discussion amongst equals, are we not?

If "anti-Foresterites" are accused of interpreting a retorical device literally, then the "Foresterites" are accused of using this said retorical term to dismiss legitimate topics of discussion. One begets the other: If "Foresterites" use the term in a literal fashion, as in using the term to accuse member of having this condition as a justification for dismissing their ideas out of hand, then the "anti-Foresterites" have no choice than to interpret the term literally.

The term needs to be dropped in these discussions altogether. That means everyone.
Hoorah, and I agree wholeheartedly! Valid points on all sides are being lost in the background noise!:)

It is also not helpful to use a retorical device in the midst of a discussion amongst equals. Concern about traffic and comfort during traffic cycling is not to be dismissed in a discussion amongst equals, but rather talked about in neutral terms and broken down to its components and felt out. We are having a discussion amongst equals, are we not? I don't understand the relevance of "equals" to the appropriateness of using rhetorical devices. Perhaps you're thinking such devices are only useful in the context of someone trying to teach someone else?

I think they're useful in any context where people are trying to communicate meaning and concepts among each other, which is exactly what's going on here. Let's not forget that concepts are maintained in our minds and go through two translation processes when attempting to convey between people. The "sender" has to translate his concept into written English, and then the "reciever" has to translate the written English into a concept in his mind. Both translation points are imperfect (few concepts can be fully and accurately conveyed in ordinary written language - this is why technical areas, like math, law, medicine, computer science, etc,. have to have their own specific technical language) and prone to error. Written English is limited. It is very difficult to accurately translate a concept undamaged from one person to another through this process. Yet this is exactly what we must do in this forum, except when we can augment what we're trying to convey with photos or video clips, which is always a great help. But "rhetorical devices" are also useful, however imperfect, in improving this never-perfect process.



If "anti-Foresterites" are accused of interpreting a retorical device literally, then the "Foresterites" are accused of using this said retorical term to dismiss legitimate topics of discussion. One begets the other: If "Foresterites" use the term in a literal fashion, as in using the term to accuse member of having this condition as a justification for dismissing their ideas out of hand, then the "anti-Foresterites" have no choice than to interpret the term literally.

The term needs to be dropped in these discussions altogether. That means everyone. It is just as inappropriate to interpret what someone says literally rather than make a genuine effort to understand what they really mean as it is to use a rhetorical device to disingenuously dismiss a legitimate topic.

But those are reasons to not interpet literally and to not dismiss legitimate points; neither is a reason to stop using rhetorical devices altogether.

Talk about BS, if you want to have a two person conversation, use PM.
There is no such thing as "butting" in in a public forum like this. Everyone's comments should be welcome, and making them is subject to anyone else commenting on them too. Duh.


I suggest you worry about your own mental condition.

The thread was civil until you just had to open your big mouth, as always. You got control issues, pal, seek help.

The thread was civil until you just had to open your big mouth, as always. You got control issues, pal, seek help.
If that's correct, I'd like to know what I did, so I can learn and improve.

What specifically did I say, in which specific post, did you find to be uncivil?

good point,AL

I go with the angle, I might place my front tire on the left side of the vheicle I am behind then angle my back tire toward the plate number. Also splitting the lane if the other lane is filled with cars which I do a reverse placing my front tire angled towrd the plate. Of course hand signals galore to all my motorists Issuing a stop signal for the car that want come up on you. Err behind you.

I have used both of these in other situations and yes a WOL that turns into a ROTL keeping the WOL portion.

The thread was civil until you just had to open your big mouth, as always. You got control issues, pal, seek help.

The following, by the way, is the first post I find to be uncivil in this thread.




The difference is whether the discomfort is based on rational assumptions about risk, or irrational ones.

In this case Al provided the reasons for his discomfort - that motorists from behind are approaching very quickly without any indication of whether they are planning to cut right into the RTOL, or they're going to plow into him from behind. He has also noted his discomfort is the same whether he is on a bike or in his SUV.

When Forester talks about a phobia, he is talking about people expressing discomfort or fear for the safety of cyclists based on no reason. When asked in person, they stutter, or hem and haw. In forums like this, the posted questions remain unanswered. There is no reason. Those fears are irrational. That's why Forester refers to them as phobias.

Can you recognize and appreciate the difference? irrational defined by you and others with an axe to grind...oh yeah I know the difference. :rolleyes:

I was having a little fun with Al, HH....freakin drop it and save it for another thread.
I find it to be uncivil because it's disrespectful:
the reference to "you and others with an axe to grind"
the rolling eyes
the "freakin drop it" comment.Now, what did I do to provoke this disrespectful uncivility?

Your insistance on injecting your pompus, know-it-all, patronizing opinion into every single converstation is what is uncivil. I was addressing Al and you just had to pipe in with your usual BS to pick a fight because you can't stand not to have the last word. I am serious, seek help, you have a major mental problem. Learn to STFU once in a while.

Chip, we all have our personalities here. Learn to deal with them.
If you want me to be honest - your initial comment about 'dogma and politics' put me off a bit for reasons I can't articulate well, but if I try - mainly, why bring it up? also there is an implication its the vc folks with the politics/dogma, not you. Your later post sticking your tounge out at me did too. But I didn't complain as I know your online personality and while I recognized it as a bit of fun also felt it wasn't really needed.

Al

Your insistance on injecting your pompus, know-it-all, patronizing opinion into every single converstation is what is uncivil. I was addressing Al and you just had to pipe in with your usual BS to pick a fight because you can't stand not to have the last word. I am serious, seek help, you have a major mental problem. Learn to STFU once in a while.
Talk about pompous and patronizing, consider taking a look in the mirror, buddy.

I certainly don't presume to tell anyone else what they should do or how they should behave on this forum based on some vague subjective personal definition of what constitutes "uncivil" behavior. We have forum guidelines for that, and "don't butt in" is not among them.

Left bias in the thru lane.

Lock the thread (I could give a rat behole if it is or not actually ;) )

Al

I apologize Al...it was nice while it lasted, but I just have no more patience with HH and it is giving me a short fuse and making me overly cynical of anything A&S related. I'll just spend my time in other forums where I can enjoy myself, rather than get my blood pressure up over the same old subjects that will never get resolved, and the same old people who insure that will always be the case.

Just my observation........for what ever it's worth...




Can you recognize and appreciate the difference?
This was in response to CHIPCOM, but I felt like HH was talking down to all of us in the thread.
Like if the rest of us don't fully agree with HH, it must be because we are deficient in the abillity to recognize and appreciate the difference.

It takes two to tango, but at least CHIPCOM is man enough to apologise.

AL thanks for starting the thread, I learned a better way to safely possition myself in a situation like you described.

Thanks Chip. We should all work to be a bit more constructive round here.

I apologize Al...it was nice while it lasted, but I just have no more patience with HH and it is giving me a short fuse and making me overly cynical of anything A&S related. I'll just spend my time in other forums where I can enjoy myself, rather than get my blood pressure up over the same old subjects that will never get resolved, and the same old people who insure that will always be the case.
While you're enjoying yourself in other forums, try to remember to avoid "injecting your pompous, know-it-all, patronizing opinion into every single conversation".

Just a friendly suggestion.

Just my observation........for what ever it's worth...


This was in response to CHIPCOM, but I felt like HH was talking down to all of us in the thread.
Like if the rest of us don't fully agree with HH, it must be because we are deficient in the abillity to recognize and appreciate the difference.

It takes two to tango, but at least CHIPCOM is man enough to apologise.

AL thanks for starting the thread, I learned a better way to safely possition myself in a situation like you described.
Chipcom's comment, "being uncomfortable in many traffic situations is not some phobia, it's being human.", indicated a lack of recognizing and appreciating the difference between discomfort in traffic based on a reasonable assessment of relative risks, and discomfort based on irrationality, which is what Forester has always been talking about.

Further, Chip's own words, "I have always held... ", indicated this is nothing new, yet he continues to make this point without showing any recognition or appreciation for this difference.

Now, either he really doesn't understand, or he's intentionally being disingenuous. I chose to give him the benefit of the doubt, and tried to explain the difference to him, then asked if he understood.

I did not mean to "talk down". I need things explained to me all the time. Nobody understands everything. We all comprehend different concepts in different ways at different rates. Much of this stuff is not easy to explain in written English. I reject the notion that trying to explain something that appears to not be understood, and, after the explanation, asking if it was understood, is "talking down".