Vehicular Cycling (VC) - What is VC?

I take it that you are advancing the argument that bike lanes persuade people who have been riding on sidewalks to ride on the roadway instead. Short-term benefit but long-term loss.
No, I don't have any data on that.

I think that slower speed roads should be bike lane free. And that fast roads with few intersections should have good bike lanes that negotiate the few intersections well. I don't think fast roads and frequent intersections should be mixed (as they are in San Diego). I'm undecided about bike lanes in this scenario. I use them, but leave them before main intersections, and check my rear view/act carefully at minor intersections (driveways).

For example, Bike Lanes did not get me off sidewalks (it was a class that our elementary school put on). However, with that knowledge in hand, Bike Lanes encouraged me to go on roads that I would not have gone on had there not been a Bike Lane (like Pacific Coast Highway in San Diego).

Currently, if I have to face 45 mph traffic on level or uphill road with no shoulder, bike lane, or bail out area for more then a short distance... I will try hard to find an alternate route.

I believe that in most localities in the United States, it is against the law to ride against traffic, and it is required to have lights at night. These are two huge factors in cyclist mortality, are they not?


Right, for example, Mexico, where wrong-way cycling is often taught.

I would think that this would lead you to an idea that a wrong-way immigrant cyclist might just not be familiar with the local laws and safety, rather then having a death wish. What do you think?

In a hospital, it is typical to treat the patients who have a life threatening urgent problem before you give vitamins to guy that's in for a check up. This is hyperbole, but I'm making a point.

Don't you think that a person should learn to cycle the right way first, and then second, learn to, say, avoid the door zone?


Whence came the idea that some immigrant cyclists ride the way that they do because they have death wishes? The truth is more like the reverse, they ride the way that they do because they believe that this is the safer way, fallacious though that belief is. It is insufficient to teach the local laws; I suspect that the type of immigrant to which you refer has little respect for laws as such, particularly for traffic laws. They are also probably not very familiar with organized safety training. Probably the best way to interest them in cycling better is, as you write, teach them in ways that match their life. However, I also suggest that many of these people are interested in getting a car as soon as they can. Not all, of course, for some don't intend to stay and send much of their money homeward.

However, what proportion of those who cycle badly in the USA are recent immigrants? I don't know, but I suggest that it is not greatly different from the proportion of those who cycle badly in the USA in any case. Our problem is America-wide, and throughout American society.

I do believe we need to get large numbers of cyclists riding vehicularly before we can expect the cascade effect to commence.
Do you mean large as a percentage of total cyclists? No I mean "large" as in "enough to be seen as significant". I'm not sure what percentage that has to be, or even if it's a function of percentage.

If someone sees some significant number (5?) cyclists a week doing it, maybe it doesn't matter if he sees 10, 100, or 500 cyclists not doing it, before he decides to try it too.

No, I don't have any data on that.

I think that slower speed roads should be bike lane free. And that fast roads with few intersections should have good bike lanes that negotiate the few intersections well. I don't think fast roads and frequent intersections should be mixed (as they are in San Diego). I'm undecided about bike lanes in this scenario. I use them, but leave them before main intersections, and check my rear view/act carefully at minor intersections (driveways).

For example, Bike Lanes did not get me off sidewalks (it was a class that our elementary school put on). However, with that knowledge in hand, Bike Lanes encouraged me to go on roads that I would not have gone on had there not been a Bike Lane (like Pacific Coast Highway in San Diego).

Currently, if I have to face 45 mph traffic on level or uphill road with no shoulder, bike lane, or bail out area for more then a short distance... I will try hard to find an alternate route.

You advocate for fast roads "good bike lanes that negotiate the few intersections well." No such bike lanes have been invented. I suppose that the nearest attempt has been the intersection with multiple bike lanes, one for each direction in which the cyclist might go (U-turn, left turn, straight ahead, right turn). Typically there's no room for such, and the bike lanes are too short for the proper lane changing movements.

You say that you try very hard not to ride on roads with 45 mph traffic that do not have part of their width allocated to cyclists. Why not? Are you concerned that motorists will just drive over you? There are many greater dangers than that rare one.

However, what proportion of those who cycle badly in the USA are recent immigrants? I don't know, but I suggest that it is not greatly different from the proportion of those who cycle badly in the USA in any case. Our problem is America-wide, and throughout American society.
I probably wouldn't disagree, but I don't know the data. And we are also talking about several overlapping categories, recent immigrants, hispanic cyclists, etc. etc. so that does make the issue less clear.

However Helmet Head says that the biggest factor in determining how you are treated is your own behavior. So I would take it that when he looks at the fact that hispanic cyclists are killed out of proportion with their numbers an mileage, he would say that it is likely their behavior that caused this increase.

You advocate for fast roads "good bike lanes that negotiate the few intersections well." No such bike lanes have been invented. I suppose that the nearest attempt has been the intersection with multiple bike lanes, one for each direction in which the cyclist might go (U-turn, left turn, straight ahead, right turn). Typically there's no room for such, and the bike lanes are too short for the proper lane changing movements.
I mean, for example Bike Lanes that gradually position the cyclist to the left of RTOL. I find these to be pretty acceptable when intersections are few and far between. I had no problems with the ones on faster stretches of Pacific Coast Highway, even on a 3 speed.

Whereas riding vehicularly on a Bike Lane free road with a 25mph limit near my house (where I take the lane most of the time) takes more concentration then those stretches of PCH. Granted, it's safer, and probably takes less concentration then not taking the lane, but it does require more frequent and attentive concentration then those stretches of PCH.

And a bike laned road with a driveway every 50 feet, and 45mph traffic... no fun in my book. Cars have no tolerance for a cyclist outside of the Bike Lane, and dangers in the bike lane abound.


You say that you try very hard not to ride on roads with 45 mph traffic that do not have part of their width allocated to cyclists. Why not? Are you concerned that motorists will just drive over you? There are many greater dangers than that rare one.
There's just less room for error, and it makes cycling less enjoyable to me. I've seen it done. I do it on some roads. There's one on my commute, but I also have the advantage of a downhill that reduces our speed differential and makes negotiation a breeze.

I prefer driving in calm traffic, as opposed to fast and heavy freeway traffic. So when I drive, I plan to drive where I can take it easier.

I mean, for example Bike Lanes that gradually position the cyclist to the left of RTOL. I find these to be pretty acceptable when intersections are few and far between. I had no problems with the ones on faster stretches of Pacific Coast Highway, even on a 3 speed.

Whereas riding vehicularly on a Bike Lane free road with a 25mph limit near my house (where I take the lane most of the time) takes more concentration then those stretches of PCH. Granted, it's safer, and probably takes less concentration then not taking the lane, but it does require more frequent and attentive concentration then those stretches of PCH.
Why does it take more concentration to ride on a 25 mph street than on a 50 mph road? Are you paying enough attention on PCH?


And a bike laned road with a driveway every 50 feet, and 45mph traffic... no fun in my book. Cars have no tolerance for a cyclist outside of the Bike Lane, and dangers in the bike lane abound.Miramar Road, westbound.



There's just less room for error, and it makes cycling less enjoyable to me.
Less room for error between you and who else? Faster same direction traffic? Or you and crossing traffic?

More damned argumentation about nothing but words in the effort to discredit vehicular cycling. Such argumentation gives me a pain, but I feel that it needs to be discussed. "Auto-centric"? What does that mean? I would say that, at least since 1920, American roads have been built to accommodate motor traffic. Is that auto-centrism? I suppose so. However, that does not mean that American roads were built to accommodate only motor traffic, which is a different statement altogether. And it is a fact that the American road system, built to accommodate motor traffic, existed for fifty years without bike lanes. Does that mean that that road system was not auto-centric? If that has any meaning at all. And then, motorists invented, designed, and paid for bikeways, including bike lanes, to improve the convenience of motoring; in fact, to push bicycle traffic to the side, without regard to the safety or convenience of cyclists. If auto-centric refers to the ability of motorists to have their way, then bike lanes are certainly auto-centric features.

I repeat, the whole line of argument is worthless hot air and buzzing electrons about the meaning of words that have no meaning, all in the effort to discredit vehicular cycling. Since that's all that vehicular cycling's opponents can manage, their efforts ought to be consigned to the trash, but they won't accept that.

No, the line of argument is not worthless and not meant to discredit vehicular cycling... therein lies the rub. I simply mean to discredit the specious arguments that arise from some vehicular cycling advocates, not the style of cycling which has merit. There is a vast difference. I wish to kill the messenger, but not the message.

While you disagree with the terms I use, you do in fact give their use crediblity by acknowledging that the current road designs are done in a manner giving motorists "their way;" thus in my terms, "auto-centric."

Perhaps the issue which I decry the loudest in auto-centric design is the ability of the users to (through a process) push up the speed limit, in spite of the other users of the road.

The next issue that makes the road difficult for other users (peds and cyclists alike) are sweeping turns... while these work quite well at lower speeds, at higher speeds the solution for cyclists (even vehicular cyclists) breaks down to acting like a pedestrian.

The problem of speed and poorly designed roads (where "motorists have their way") are the two issues I see as problems for vehicular cyclists.

Beyond that are the more subtle issues of training all the users of the road... good luck herding cats.

Agreed. There needs to be both physical infrastructure (signs, etc) and educational infrastructure.


The part you're missing is how not everyone you ride by will think of you as an "example". Why should they? You're just some club racer in full kit on a fancy road bike. Why would you think they would just look at you and assume, "I should ride more like him?" Do you see other cyclists riding differently then you and suddenly decide to adopt their styles?

Maybe what your missing is that peer pressure and the power of example has the greatest effect when the parties are similar to each other. A small group of minority transportational cyclists could do much more benefit, then you whizzing by in the lane.



This is especially important and made even more difficult when every group except a few isolated cyclists are doing it "the wrong way," and yet every one thinks they are doing it right... even the motorists... who in many cases believe that vehicular cycling is wrong and that cyclists should be riding "the other style." (as I have been directly told)

No, the line of argument is not worthless and not meant to discredit vehicular cycling... therein lies the rub. I simply mean to discredit the specious arguments that arise from some vehicular cycling advocates, not the style of cycling which has merit. There is a vast difference. I wish to kill the messenger, but not the message.

While you disagree with the terms I use, you do in fact give their use crediblity by acknowledging that the current road designs are done in a manner giving motorists "their way;" thus in my terms, "auto-centric."

Perhaps the issue which I decry the loudest in auto-centric design is the ability of the users to (through a process) push up the speed limit, in spite of the other users of the road.

The next issue that makes the road difficult for other users (peds and cyclists alike) are sweeping turns... while these work quite well at lower speeds, at higher speeds the solution for cyclists (even vehicular cyclists) breaks down to acting like a pedestrian.

The problem of speed and poorly designed roads (where "motorists have their way") are the two issues I see as problems for vehicular cyclists.

Beyond that are the more subtle issues of training all the users of the road... good luck herding cats.
The fact that roads have some features which favor the vast majority of the drivers that use them should not be a surprise. We vehicular cycling advocates work to correct these issues where they are particularly problematic for cyclists (like getting intersections squared off, etc.). As has been noted on our local list, the 85th percentile rule is also used to lower speed limits.

Now, what exactly is the specious argument that you think you are discrediting?

The fact that roads have some features which favor the vast majority of the drivers that use them should not be a surprise. We vehicular cycling advocates work to correct these issues where they are particularly problematic for cyclists (like getting intersections squared off, etc.). As has been noted on our local list, the 85th percentile rule is also used to lower speed limits.

Now, what exactly is the specious argument that you think you are discrediting?
That roads are NOT auto-centric.

John disliked my terms, but agreed that roads are designed so that "motorists get their way." Thus are auto centric. He also felt that the whole argument was a waste of electrons... so be it. :rolleyes:

Gene, Mr. Forester said your argument was a waste of electrons because the terms were meaningless.

Put some meaning in your terms.

What is the definition of "auto centric"?


Designed to advantage auto users to the exclusion of other others.
Designed to favor needs of auto users over some other users in some isolated situations.

If (a), I disagree roads are auto-centric.
If (b), I agree roads are auto-centric.

ah yes, with us or against us - you are truly a uniter HH, not even close to a divider.

No, the line of argument is not worthless and not meant to discredit vehicular cycling... therein lies the rub. I simply mean to discredit the specious arguments that arise from some vehicular cycling advocates, not the style of cycling which has merit. There is a vast difference. I wish to kill the messenger, but not the message.

While you disagree with the terms I use, you do in fact give their use crediblity by acknowledging that the current road designs are done in a manner giving motorists "their way;" thus in my terms, "auto-centric."

Perhaps the issue which I decry the loudest in auto-centric design is the ability of the users to (through a process) push up the speed limit, in spite of the other users of the road.

The next issue that makes the road difficult for other users (peds and cyclists alike) are sweeping turns... while these work quite well at lower speeds, at higher speeds the solution for cyclists (even vehicular cyclists) breaks down to acting like a pedestrian.

The problem of speed and poorly designed roads (where "motorists have their way") are the two issues I see as problems for vehicular cyclists.

Beyond that are the more subtle issues of training all the users of the road... good luck herding cats.

I specifically stated that bike lanes were what you might mean by an auto-centric feature, specifically because they are designed to discriminate against cyclists in favor of motorists, as I have been writing since time began. That does not mean that roads in general are auto-centric. Your assertion is just bad logic, whatever auto-centric actually means.

Why does it take more concentration to ride on a 25 mph street than on a 50 mph road? Are you paying enough attention on PCH? Yep, and yep. I'm vigilant.

On the 25mph street (rush hour Adams Avenue) I take the lane. There is heavy traffic that tends to go from 0-20mph. There are many non-signalling right turners, sudden parkers, same or opposite direction left turners, sudden lurchers from driveways. Taking the lane is no guarantee against these, and often you have to react quickly. I keep up with traffic to discourage passing while I'm taking the lane, which means I have to be careful to also watch out for rear ending the unpredictable cars in front of me. I enjoy it because there is little speed differential, so I feel very in control, but it requires me to focus. I accellerate, I brake, I change gears.

Compare that to stretches on PCH where there are only on-ramps and off-ramps (and at longer intervals then Adams Avenue). In between I just need to watch the conditions of the bike lane, and check my mirror every few seconds to make sure the cars passing me are doing so safely. When I reach an onramp I glance back/right for mergers to negotiate, when I reach an off-ramp I glance in my mirror and back/left for exiters. Fewer variables, much simpler. I don't hardly need to change gears, never need to brake, and usually can maintain a steady cadence.


Miramar Road, westbound. You mean near Black Mountain Road? Good example of a road I dislike. No matter, since I hate the area, and stay out of it anyways. And with a NOL and no shoulder or bike lane, I imagine I'd like it even less.


Less room for error between you and who else? Faster same direction traffic? Or you and crossing traffic? Same direction traffic mostly. Less room for me to make a mistake, and still turn out ok. I'm no Lance. and I don't have his bike. If I throw my chain off my chainring, have a blowout, sneeze and wobble, I don't have much faith in the car behind me to be able to react in time, and I don't have much room to bail out. Besides, when I take the lane on roads like this, I generally get buzzed and yelled at more often. And then I get confrontational, start reciting the vehicle code at the top of my lungs, and ruin a perfectly good bike ride.

Uber-fredly, communication-challenged "VC" advocate who struggles mightily. Defined:

[IMG]removed
Beautiful pic.

(How about a pic of you, Pete?)

Gene, Mr. Forester said your argument was a waste of electrons because the terms were meaningless.

Put some meaning in your terms.

What is the definition of "auto centric"?


Designed to advantage auto users to the exclusion of other others.
Designed to favor needs of auto users over some other users in some isolated situations.

If (a), I disagree roads are auto-centric.
If (b), I agree roads are auto-centric.
If you actually find that modern roads are designed and safe for all uses except in 'some isolated situations' you are clearly delusional, and it's pointless to continue this conversation any further.

As usual, you offer two extremes with no middle ground. This is the chief problem with both you and AJ.

If you actually find that modern roads are designed and safe for all uses except in 'some isolated situations' you are clearly delusional, and it's pointless to continue this conversation any further. I can't speak for Portland, but I can't think of a single (non-freeway) road in all of San Diego County that is not reasonably safe for bicycling. Certainly, some are more "challenging" than others. On the vast majority even a bicyclist with only a modicum of traffic skills can be reasonably safe. On some roads with high speed diverges/converges, etc., more advanced skills are probably required.


As usual, you offer two extremes with no middle ground. This is the chief problem with both you and AJ. There is middle ground. There are other possible definitions of "auto-centric". Gene offered none. I offered two. Given the two that I offered, I indicated what my position would be on the issue at question. Gene offers his position without defining "auto-centric". Mr. Forester has explained why this is meaningless, but Gene still does not offer a definition. Yet you chastise me for offering only "two extremes" (by the way, neither definition offered is an extreme).

You, Gene or anyone else can offer other definitions of "auto-centric", and I will be happy to let you know my position on the issue with respect to them.

Perhaps there is a way I could be even more reasonable, but I'm doing my best. Not sure what your issue is.

Uber-fredly, communication-challenged "VC" advocate who struggles mightily. Defined:


Pete, this kind of crap is uncalled for - right up there with Forester's gleeful attempt to 'out' ILTB. I thought you had a little class and common sense...was I wrong?

Gene, Mr. Forester said your argument was a waste of electrons because the terms were meaningless.

Put some meaning in your terms.

What is the definition of "auto centric"?


Designed to advantage auto users to the exclusion of other others.
Designed to favor needs of auto users over some other users in some isolated situations.

If (a), I disagree roads are auto-centric.
If (b), I agree roads are auto-centric.

B.

the problem is that "some isolated situations" are the norm, where road engineers et al do not even consider cycling as part of the trasportation network. Further the laws favor roadways for motorists by allowing such things such as the 85 percentile rule... the latter which can change more roads into "isolated situations."

I can't speak for Portland, but I can't think of a single (non-freeway) road in all of San Diego County that is not reasonably safe for bicycling. Certainly, some are more "challenging" than others. On the vast majority even a bicyclist with only a modicum of traffic skills can be reasonably safe. On some roads with high speed diverges/converges, etc., more advanced skills are probably required.



If your grandma can't ride it at 10MPH using standard Road II techniques... then it is NOT a bike friendly road... If JF wouldn't let his grandkids ride it at 10MPH, then there are problems with the design... most likely that it is auto centric.

I can't speak for Portland, but I can't think of a single (non-freeway) road in all of San Diego County that is not reasonably safe for bicycling. Certainly, some are more "challenging" than others. On the vast majority even a bicyclist with only a modicum of traffic skills can be reasonably safe. On some roads with high speed diverges/converges, etc., more advanced skills are probably required.

Yet another reason not to listen to you. You obviously live in a sheltered area. Come out here to my neck of the woods and ride some of these roads. I have ridden the hairiest roads here with multiple interstate ramps, 55mph limits and no where to go in case of an emergency. I ride them and feel safe because I am a strong enough rider who can accelerate to 30mph in a pinch and hold it for a short while to reduce the speed difference and work around the on/off ramps. One area in particular is NOT safe for anyone but the strongest riders due to the length of road requiring INSANE manuvering and speed maintainance. Most people do not race (myself included) and many have a hard enough time holding 12mph for a short distance - to say that 12mph is a safe velocity in some of these areas, just requiring more skills is just stupid.
So since all your roads are safe for even the weakest yet skilled rider tells me you need to get out more before you continue to preach your gospel.

Pete, this kind of crap is uncalled for - right up there with Forester's gleeful attempt to 'out' ILTB. I thought you had a little class and common sense...was I wrong?
I'm torn. What's the right thing here?

I agree that it's wrong to reveal the identity of an anonymous forum user. However, when a forum user formerly posted under their real name, and openly referred to that fact, and when that user has a webpage that is easily found on google, and pictures like above are found on that user's own public webpage, do they still have a reasonable expectation of privacy (regarding those items that they themselves made publicly available only, of course)?

Like I said, I'm torn, and want to know your opinion (as well as from other members). Feel free to PM if you do not want to discuss this on the forum (I'm not trying to debate, just want to be corrected if my idea on the reasonable expectation of privacy is off-base).

Yet another reason not to listen to you. You obviously live in a sheltered area. Come out here to my neck of the woods and ride some of these roads. I have ridden the hairiest roads here with multiple interstate ramps, 55mph limits and no where to go in case of an emergency.
You think we don't have roads like that in San Diego? What you describe is my typical commute route.



I ride them and feel safe because I am a strong enough rider who can accelerate to 30mph in a pinch and hold it for a short while to reduce the speed difference and work around the on/off ramps. One area in particular is NOT safe for anyone but the strongest riders due to the length of road requiring INSANE manuvering and speed maintainance. Most people do not race (myself included) and many have a hard enough time holding 12mph for a short distance - to say that 12mph is a safe velocity in some of these areas, just requiring more skills is just stupid.
So since all your roads are safe for even the weakest yet skilled rider tells me you need to get out more before you continue to preach your gospel.
Just yesterday I had the manager of a bike racing team tell me he "feels" for me, because he knows the Interstate-5 freeway overpass that I have to cross every day. I told him it's not big deal, because it isn't, if you know what you're doing. And no, I cannot accelerate to 30 and hold it. But I do know about right of way and how to negotiate for it.

I'm torn. What's the right thing here?

I agree that it's wrong to reveal the identity of an anonymous forum user. However, when a forum user formerly posted under their real name, and openly referred to that fact, and when that user has a webpage that is easily found on google, and pictures like above are found on that user's own public webpage, do they still have a reasonable expectation of privacy (regarding those items that they themselves made publicly available only, of course)?

Like I said, I'm torn, and want to know your opinion (as well as from other members). Feel free to PM if you do not want to discuss this on the forum (I'm not trying to debate, just want to be corrected if my idea on the reasonable expectation of privacy is off-base).
When the moderators change a user's user name from his real name to an anonymous name in order to protect his real identity, the decision has been made (in this case, by the owner of this forum). There is nothing to be torn about.

You think we don't have roads like that in San Diego? What you describe is my typical commute route.



Just yesterday I had the manager of a bike racing team tell me he "feels" for me, because he knows the Interstate-5 freeway overpass that I have to cross every day. I told him it's not big deal, because it isn't, if you know what you're doing. And no, I cannot accelerate to 30 and hold it. But I do know about right of way and how to negotiate for it.

What I describe is a danergerous road based on the interstate on and off ramps and a stupid road design (car drivers in this area also admit this fact) - UNSAFE for typical bicyclers as low speed. It doesn't matter how much you know something, you aren't always gonna get it depending on the road layout and telling people they will if they behave a certain way is down right dangerous in some situations. :rolleyes:

When the moderators change a user's user name from his real name to an anonymous name in order to protect his real identity, the decision has been made (in this case, by the owner of this forum). There is nothing to be torn about.

You must have been (and still are) a pretty divisive individual for saftey to be a concern. No wonder you have such a hard time recruiting followers here - and a good reason for the Has the zealocy of "VC Advocates" shaped your opinion?
thread

Why do you think it was uncalled for? I have no idea about Bow Tie vs. ILTB.

Some of us don't mind having our pics, names, addresses and such plastered all over da interwebs, but others do and I just kinda think that respecting their privacy is something good folks do...even if we do blast the heck out of them for being that way or think they are a horse's patootie. ;)

"Protect"? What is there to protect? You're all over the internet. You've posted pictures of yourself on the internet. If you're afraid of something, then why do you allow the pictures to remain, why do you continue to use your real name on the internet, etc.

Also, you post as if the moderators are the final arbiters of what is "right" vs. "wrong." That's just plain silly.

Those same moderators have changed users' user names from an anonymous name to their real name in order to ...(still not sure what they hoped to accomplish other than expose their hypocrisy). I have personal reasons for why I want to protect my real identity as much as possible on this forum, and they are private and none of your business. Please respect that.

When the moderators change a user's user name from his real name to an anonymous name in order to protect his real identity, the decision has been made (in this case, by the owner of this forum). There is nothing to be torn about.
This thread still exists:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=99104

And you kept signing your posts as "-name redacted-".

Maybe the mods should delete that thread.

EDIT: Although the reason he was outed was because he wasn't trying very hard to hide it, quoting himself and all.


I only figured it out because Helmet Head quoted -name redacted- in a post. I wondered why on Earth someone would quote -name redacted- so I looked up his post history, and 22 minutes after -name redacted-'s last post, Helmet Head is born, on a thread -name redacted- started.

Those same moderators have changed users' user names from an anonymous name to their real name in order to ...

Make one Peter Fagerlin easier to find when searching for him on the forums. But I would like to request that you cut us all some slack here. I know the routine, you know the routine, and it's getting old.

Thanks,

Brian

Brian, that makes no sense, given the fact that the username that was converted was just as easily searched as my current one.

But now we no longer need to engage our brains to search for you. ;)

Come on Pete, I don't see a pic of you in your profile, email address, web site, home address, any of that. What are you trying to hide? It's just downright goofy to me. :p

Amazing, you own a car almost the same as ....his....and vacation in similar spots. Has anyone seen the two of you together lately????

;)

Come on Pete, I don't see a pic of you in your profile, email address, web site, home address, any of that. What are you trying to hide? It's just downright goofy to me. :p
I cleaned all that out of my profile a while back when the trolls in P&R dug too deep; but I've posted my pic here more than once, what's the big deal? Chip's picture is all over the place, eh what? If you want to keep your privacy, don't spread any more info than you want people to know about around the internet or anywhere else for that matter. It's sort of a caveat emptor world out there these days.

For the internet challenged, here's some TOP SECRET information:

http://www.petefagerlin.com/

p.s. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES LET THOSE SNEAKY BASTARDS AT GOOGLE KNOW ABOUT THIS PERSONAL INFORMATION! MT Y PRIVACY IS SACROSANCT!!!!!!!!

Very, very, very cool pictures, Pete. Makes me want to bust my wallet on a good mountain bike and learn to ride it ;).

For the internet challenged, here's some TOP SECRET information:

http://www.petefagerlin.com/

p.s. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES LET THOSE SNEAKY BASTARDS AT GOOGLE KNOW ABOUT THIS PERSONAL INFORMATION! MT Y PRIVACY IS SACROSANCT!!!!!!!!

Like some of us who have been in BF for a bit didn't already have that. :rolleyes: But yes, you must be worried about your privacy, since you don't bother publishing contact info on your web site or in your profile. Of course I have it anyway...so you won't mind if I post it for you, right?

Point being - good folks respect other folks privacy, even if they don't happen to like them or what they say in an Internet forum. Are you good folks, Pete?

A beautiful pic (in a tacky aloha shirt kind of way) of an incredibly confused, socially ******** zealot. I agree.

There are many pictures of me on the 'net. Do your own legwork if you're truly interested, squaw.
Why should I be insulted that you call me a female? My own mother is a wonderful person, someone I admire. Unless you think by calling me that, I would think less of myself.

Why would you think that, unless you thought females were less important than males?

By the way, I you never read the apology I sent you for disrespecting you.

Why do you assume that I was trying to insult you?
Pete, don't you think it's a little strange to attempt to insult people, then not remember a moment later?

Sorry charlie, there is no expectation of privacy when the person has posted "private" information on the internet.
You're fabricating a privacy issue where none exists.

Sorry Pete, neither I nor you can dictate what someone else's expectation is. It's just plain good manners...and if that isn't good enough for you and you insist on trying to justify what you did, well I'll just figure you and HH are different sides of the same coin.

For countless reasons, some writers use pen names and wish to have them not associated with their real name/identity. Decent people who are aware of the association respect such wishes.

Sure we can.

Assuming a minimal level of intelligence, if someone makes something public, say by the conscious act of purchasing a domain name, securing server space and uploading photographs to that website that is in the public domain, then they should have no expectation that what they have made public should remain private.

It's like someone mounting a big picture of themselves doing the macarena with Mickey Mouse on their garage door and being upset that people can see the picture as they drive by.
Actually, the image isn't in public domain, nor is any material posted unless you specifically waive or grant open source license. However, if you are trying to say there is no reasonable expectation of privacy as regards the image, then yes, I agree.....with the following codicil: If a person publishes under a pseudonym, then it is bad form to out them under their real name unless specifically authorized by them. It's not a legal issue, but one of common courtesy.

An example: If you are publishing under the name Pete Fagerlin and are really named Mortimer Snerd, it would be extremely rude to release that info, as I've said to others here as well. (Fictional example!);)

So... Mr. Snerd... if that is your real name...

If it's viewable on in my browser, on my monitor, it's public, not private.



Common courtesy? Please.

Apparently Mr. Head is in a BF witness protection program (again, a failed one) yet still blithely uses his real name everywhere else.

He publishes under both a pseudonym and his real name.
Well, if he uses both, then my previous argument is invalid on the face due to insufficient data!;)

As to viewing on the monitor, it's similar in context to reading a book. It's protected intellectual property and a lifetime license to read the material is granted by the act of publishing it. Other use, such as redistribution or use without referencing the source is a copyright violation or plagiarism. Exclusive pseudonym publication though, is under reasonable expectation of privacy.

So... Mr. Snerd... if that is your real name...

It is. I have been reading the forums for several years now, and was surprised to see my name mentioned.

What Pete did may have been in poor taste and/or violated this forum's guidelines in some way, but IMO Pete is correct about the lack of privacy expectations if your stuff is out there on the web for others to find. And HH voluntarily posted here under his own name long enough for those of us around back then to know what his real name is. And HH has been somewhat of a jerk ever since he started posting here, it's not a new development, it only seems to have gotten worse recently since he's had more direct support from AJ.

Please, continue to "educate" me about copyright law...

Before you continue off on that tangent, I would suggest you educate yourself about the notable exceptions to your blanket statements about.

Some terms to familiarize yourself with would include "fair use," "parody," "scholarship," and "review." Those would be a good start.

Good luck.
Fair use, scholarship and review are all under the citing the work aspect.

The core of my argument though is about privacy and I already conceded your point, Pete, concerning the fact that if an individual publishes under BOTH a pseudonym and their real name, then reasonable expectation of privacy is no longer an issue. Why are we arguing now?:eek:

I'd believe it!


By the way, Pete, parody is a humorous interpretation meant to lampoon and outing someone is in no way a parody or lampoon. As to further argument, if you disagree, then we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

The issue is plain old good manners. Going out of your way to 'out' someone just because you don't agree with them in some internet forum is poor manners. Of course it's my bad for bringing it up, since Pete has never been known for his manners.

Isn't VC an excuse for cyclists to break the law ... thus making all cyclists look bad in the eyes of drivers .... thus making cycling more dangerous for those of us who prefer to obey the law?


Maybe I'm wrong, but from the bits I've read about it, that's my impression of it. And people wonder (in other threads) why more women don't advocate that sort of behaviour. :rolleyes: