Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Other Agendas

snips

oh, you've now brought up that incredibly weak 'burden of proof' fallacy.



Please explain to all of us your new understanding of the fallacy regarding "burden of proof". I am sure that both the legal profession and professors of philosophy would be greatly interested in any new demonstration on that subject, that is, if it proves to be as substantial as you apparently believe.

who is the cyclist having to prove the burden to?

:roflmao: unless the bicyclist is riding in a courtroom, there is no 'burden of proof' requirement. a bicyclist simply rides a bike.

just 20 minutes ago I passed a 25mph line of traffic in the continuous left turn lane to get behind a city bus. I was tracking in the LTO lane for hundreds of yards as i slowly passed the remaining two cars behind the bus and a policeman passed in the opposite direction.

ooooh, no burden of proof required despite me not riding as a considerate vehicle driver does, as far to the right as practicable.

but sometimes 'getting uppity' :D is! :roflmao: maybe john would call my maneuver 'getting uppity'; what a load of anti-bicycling from the once-grand john forester.

cyclists have to move into a 'parking lane' under as far right as practicable rules??????

what a load of malarky.


The rule requires the cyclist to move into the "parking lane" when it is practicable to do so, and whenever the cyclist does so he is prohibited to return to the "motor" lane until the motor traffic permits him to do so. This case demonstrates the delays produced by making the cyclist a second-class road user.

bicyclists get delayed riding because we are required by law to ride in parking strips? :roflmao:

that 'case' only demonstrates more sophistry, more anti-bicycling and more hysterics from fallacious john forester!


so, john objects to bike specific parking signals and the requirement to ride in parking strips and a burden of proof while riding in courtrooms. okay, john, fair enough..... (quick, get the men in the white suits!)


why don't you sit down and compose yourself, john. what a load of hysterical nonsense.

Study finds a positive relationship between cycling infrastructure and encouraging cycling use.

So often in this thread the comment has been brought up... is there any study that shows that bikeways actually encourage cycling.

This study says "YES."

http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Pucher_Dill_Handy10.pdf

Study finds a positive relationship between cycling infrastructure and encouraging cycling use.

So often in this thread the comment has been brought up... is there any study that shows that bikeways actually encourage cycling.

This study says "YES."

http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Pucher_Dill_Handy10.pdf

The problem with this study is that the URL listed contains NO DATA. None

Here's one quote from that site that demonstrates the problem when these 'studies' go on and on without revealing their actual data:

At page 6: "A study of Seattle, WA residents found no relationship between the presence of a bike lane (objectively measured) and the odds of bicycling...." This is completely at odds with their general conclusions. This crap cannot be analyzed unless they publish their actual data. The summaries and pronouncements they make are worthless without the data.

Study finds a positive relationship between cycling infrastructure and encouraging cycling use.

So often in this thread the comment has been brought up... is there any study that shows that bikeways actually encourage cycling.

This study says "YES."

http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Pucher_Dill_Handy10.pdf

Not really. The authors of this survey paper carefully state that in most cases there is such an entanglement of different programs that no particular program can be claimed as the effective cause.

Oh, yes, the authors comment in several places that survey respondents preferred cycling on streets with bike lanes to no facilities. I don't wonder; who wants to cycle across other people's gardens, or across lakes, or try flying through the air with a bicycle. In short, the authors have no idea that they don't know what they are talking about.

However, even if it is assumed that bikeways do produce an increase in bicycle use, not really demonstrated, that says nothing whatsoever about whether vehicular cycling provides safer and more useful cycling than does cyclist-inferiority cycling on bikeways. All such an assumption would show is that most non-cyclists prefer incompetent cyclist-inferiority cycling on bikeways, which is a point that vehicular cyclists have long ago recognized.

yes, john. no one particular program. the authors of that exhaustive monograph about bicycling interventions are emphatic about the synergistic effect of bike planning of those particular programs.

the evidence is overwhelming in that paper, and trying to skew it with a 'not really' shows your desperate realization that bike interventions work in societies.

there are much more than assumptions supporting the efficacy of social interventions to support bicycling!


inferiority cycling on bikeways

what a load of malarky.

what john actually actually means to say as a bonifide bicycle transportation engineer would be


"lawful road bicycling behaviors enhanced by bikeways planning that facilitate bicycling across communities."

get the rudiments straight there, john forester.

I'd really like to know more about your fallacious insistence bicyclists get delayed because we are required to bike in parking strips under vehicular FRAP requirements!!!

:roflmao:

or the burden of proof fallacy you set up in your little games about bicycling advocacy.

there is no burden of proof legally required unless a bicyclist is facing prosecution in a courtroom. no other time is a cyclist legally required to prove a 'burden of proof' to anyone, they simply ride a bike.

insistence bicyclists are practically or legally delayed by having to ride in parking strips and ride under a relentless burden of proof on how we ride on roads is the heights of folly, john forester.


you have sunk to serious lows surrounding your misrepresentations of bicyclist 'best practices' john forester. you show your hand as a true anti-bicyclist with your worthless recriminations about bicycling best practices as allowed under law.

Blah... blah... blah....

"A study of Seattle, WA residents found no relationship between the presence of a bike lane (objectively measured) and the odds of bicycling...."

:roflmao:

yeah ,they talk about that a lot in Copenhagen I'm sure.

who is the cyclist having to prove the burden to?

:roflmao: unless the bicyclist is riding in a courtroom, there is no 'burden of proof' requirement. a bicyclist simply rides a bike.

just 20 minutes ago I passed a 25mph line of traffic in the continuous left turn lane to get behind a city bus. I was tracking in the LTO lane for hundreds of yards as i slowly passed the remaining two cars behind the bus and a policeman passed in the opposite direction.

ooooh, no burden of proof required despite me not riding as a considerate vehicle driver does, as far to the right as practicable.

but sometimes 'getting uppity' :D is! :roflmao: maybe john would call my maneuver 'getting uppity'; what a load of anti-bicycling from the once-grand john forester.

Bekologist first praises the requirement to obey the traffic laws, and then boasts that this requirement rarely applies, describing his ride of hundreds of yards going straight from what he calls a LTO lane.

that's all you've got in support of your fallacious burden of proof?

complaining about me 'getting uppity' as i passed vehicles on their left?

bicyclists operate under no burden of proof while riding on roadways, "burden of proof" is part of a courtroom proceeding. you complain about bicyclists riding in courtrooms! :roflmao:

john your recriminations further showcase the fraudulence of your position - the worthless bankrupt utterences of an admitted anti-bicyclist.

that's all you've got in support of your fallacious burden of proof?

complaining about me 'getting uppity' as i passed vehicles on their left?

there was no burden of proof.

john your recriminations further showcase the fraudulence of your position - the worthless bankrupt utterences of an admitted anti-bicyclist.

As I predicted, no analysis, only exclamations and name calling. You have no data, no evidence.

"A study of Seattle, WA residents found no relationship between the presence of a bike lane (objectively measured) and the odds of bicycling....":roflmao2:

Not really. The authors of this survey paper carefully state that in most cases there is such an entanglement of different programs that no particular program can be claimed as the effective cause.

Oh, yes, the authors comment in several places that survey respondents preferred cycling on streets with bike lanes to no facilities. I don't wonder; who wants to cycle across other people's gardens, or across lakes, or try flying through the air with a bicycle. In short, the authors have no idea that they don't know what they are talking about.

However, even if it is assumed that bikeways do produce an increase in bicycle use, not really demonstrated, that says nothing whatsoever about whether vehicular cycling provides safer and more useful cycling than does cyclist-inferiority cycling on bikeways. All such an assumption would show is that most non-cyclists prefer incompetent cyclist-inferiority cycling on bikeways, which is a point that vehicular cyclists have long ago recognized.

Show me a paper that you have not written that says vehicular cycling is safer, and has used anywhere near the references that the Pucher, Dill and Handy have. That means more than "Cross."

Show me a paper that you have not written that says vehicular cycling is safer, and has used anywhere near the references that the Pucher, Dill and Handy have. That means more than "Cross."

I see, Genec, that you attribute quality of information to the number of documents referenced in a paper, and, actually, regardless of whether or not the authors of those documents have any expert knowledge of the subject of vehicular cycling. Garbage in, garbage out, and the more garbage the better?

Garbage in, garbage out, and the more garbage the better?

yup, that's the motto of the vehicular cyclists, go team yesterday!

:beer:

:lol:

have we reached 2000 posts yet?

:roflmao:

yup, that's the motto of the vehicular cyclists, go team yesterday!

:beer:

:lol:

Certainly, that is the evidence concerning most bike planning information.

john tell us more about your fallacious interpretarion of bicyclists best practices as allowed under law.

please substantiate bicyclists getting "delayed" by having to ride in parking strips :rolleyes: by frap positioning. any studies support that, john?

you need to clarify your preposterous, incorrect use of the phrase 'burden of proof' (that's a real laugh, john. i can see why your courtroom expertise is considered questionable.)

There is no burden of proof legally required unless a bicyclist is facing prosecution in a courtroom. no other time is a cyclist legally required to prove a 'burden of proof' to anyone, they simply ride a bike. Insistence bicyclists are practically or legally delayed by having to ride in parking strips and ride under a relentless burden of proof on how we ride on roads is the heights of folly, john forester.

your interpretations are incorrect and worthless. Yet you have the audacity to consider yourself an 'expert' in bicycle transportation!


You have sunk to serious lows surrounding your misrepresentations of bicyclist 'best practices' john forester. you show your hand as a true anti-bicyclist with your worthless recriminations about bicycling best practices as allowed under law.

The motto of team VC seems to be "lie thru ones' teeth about bicyclists best practice"

Human Car, I have not yet seen your answer to the question I asked of you. "To what study did I 'add a bogus argument that twists a study result to say the exact opposite' "?