Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety > Vehicular Cycling (VC)
Reload this Page >

What makes a Vehicular Cyclist?

Notices
Vehicular Cycling (VC) No other subject has polarized the A&S members like VC has. Here's a place to share, debate, and educate.

What makes a Vehicular Cyclist?

Old 04-25-07, 11:22 AM
  #51  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Posts: 10,123

Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Of course I evaluate things I read through the lense of my experience. I register my problems with it, and you repeat the argument, a little differently, but in the same fundamental form. If the measure is reading and responding in light of your own experience, the fact that you just keep repeating yourself means that you, yourself, have little experience beyond what you read of others that you agree with just to be fashionable.

But, when talking about things I haven't thought about or are outside my experiences, as you claim you are, then the experience of the "teacher" is of extreme relevance. You try to play teacher, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt. But not anymore. If you want to continue to play teacher, then you need to have the bonifieds to back that status.

So, you've got three questions before you. I'm waiting patiently for your response.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 11:25 AM
  #52  
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom
Translation: If we consider experience, I can't act like I am superior.


Quite the contrary. What I am saying is YOU are superior. YOU, each and everyone one of you who reads this or anything else is the SUPREME AUTHORITY on what YOU determine to be true, just as I am that for me (but of course not for you, because you, and only you, are that for you).
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 11:29 AM
  #53  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Posts: 10,123

Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Huh? What is the statement that I made that has been contradicted by another's direct experience? What is that experience, and how does it contradict the statement?
I believe that the term "bull*****" is an exclaimation of contradiction.

I understand this is your impression. Can you please provide a specific example of:
  1. A statement that I made about something being true.
  2. Someone saying their direct experience contradicted what my statement says is true.
  3. An explanation for how that experience contradicts the statement.
  4. My insistence that their contradictory experiences are wrong.
No. The examples don't fit your list because you've tailored the list to not fit the examples - you like putting things in boxes that way. The list arguments progress down the list, however, but in a form which is unquotable, as it usually spans a 12 or 20 page thread. However, a couple of posts proceeding, you've been directly contradicted. You've had many a discussion with me and with others where the arguments went round and round without resolution because you keep coming back to the same statement you started with, despite many experience based explainations to the contrary. You have denegrated those who state experienced based objections as having "cyclist inferiority syndrome" which is another way of saying that their experiences don't count... which is proceeded by another repeat of your argument.

With the subject of bike lanes, this has happened repeatedly.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 11:32 AM
  #54  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Posts: 10,123

Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head


Quite the contrary. What I am saying is YOU are superior. YOU, each and everyone one of you who reads this or anything else is the SUPREME AUTHORITY on what YOU determine to be true, just as I am that for me (but of course not for you, because you, and only you, are that for you).
So, if we deem you irrelevent, then we can ignore you. But what happens when some person with little experience reads your little spiels thinking that you have a lot of experience, follows your advice, and then is put in danger? If you have little experience, but keep talking, then some of us who knows better need to put a check on you. Unfortunately, this check needs to happen repeatedly, because you never stop talking.

Now, you've got three questions to determine your authority to play teacher. Each time you refuse is good, because it lets people know that your statements are of little relevence to anything and more people will ignore you.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 11:33 AM
  #55  
Senior Member
 
LCI_Brian's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: in the hills of Orange, CA
Posts: 1,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is that experience doesn't always correlate with skill. For example, who is more skilled, the wrong-way cyclist that has stayed only on quiet residential streets for 40 years, or the cyclist who has only been riding for 5 years but has done so in many different traffic scenarios? The reason I bring this up is that I've seen the former say they are "cycling experts" when participating in bicycle advisory committees and similar venues.
LCI_Brian is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 11:33 AM
  #56  
Senior Member
 
BLIZZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Missouri
Posts: 336

Bikes: Scott CR1-Gary Fisher Sugar-Litespeed Ultimate

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff

But, when talking about things I haven't thought about or are outside my experiences, as you claim you are, then the experience of the "teacher" is of extreme relevance. You try to play teacher, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt. But not anymore. If you want to continue to play teacher, then you need to have the bonifieds to back that status.
Reminds me of the old saying THOSE THAT CAN...DO. THOSE THAT CAN'T...TEACH.
BLIZZ is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 11:35 AM
  #57  
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
Of course I evaluate things I read through the lense of my experience. I register my problems with it, and you repeat the argument, a little differently, but in the same fundamental form. If the measure is reading and responding in light of your own experience, the fact that you just keep repeating yourself means that you, yourself, have little experience beyond what you read of others that you agree with just to be fashionable.
For the sake of argument, let's say that's true. So what? Again, the statements I or anyone else makes, if evaluated objectively, should not be considerd in light of who makes them. Again, if you want to give them extra weight based on who said them, that's up to you. I recommend you do not.

But, when talking about things I haven't thought about or are outside my experiences, as you claim you are, then the experience of the "teacher" is of extreme relevance. You try to play teacher, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt. But not anymore. If you want to continue to play teacher, then you need to have the bonifieds to back that status.

So, you've got three questions before you. I'm waiting patiently for your response.
I guess we just have fundamentally different philosophies of life.

For me, everyone is a teacher, even Bek, even my 7 year old daughter when she was 6 months old. Everyone has experience and knowledge that I don't have. When someone says something, I listen to it, no matter who says it, and I evaluate it, as objectively as I can. Sometimes I have to take into account who said in order to put it in context and understand what it means, but I rarely use that information -- who said it or my evaluation of them, including their experience -- to determine whether I believe what they say is true.

There are exceptions, of course. There are certainly authoritative contexts in which I assume what some authority is saying is true until proven otherwise. But I certainly hope neither you or anyone else gives anything I or anyone else says in an internet forum that kind of authority, except maybe when they are writing something about their own experience, which requires you to take their word for it. That's why I try to limit writing much about my own experience, and why I'm surprised when people ask for that kind of subjective information.
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 11:37 AM
  #58  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Posts: 10,123

Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by LCI_Brian
One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is that experience doesn't always correlate with skill. For example, who is more skilled, the wrong-way cyclist that has stayed only on quiet residential streets for 40 years, or the cyclist who has only been riding for 5 years but has done so in many different traffic scenarios? The reason I bring this up is that I've seen the former say they are "cycling experts" when participating in bicycle advisory committees and similar venues.
You are right. That's why the questions to HH. I want to know if he is one of those "cycling experts" who doesn't, in fact, have any relevent experience.

HH: here are the questions again:

1. answering the OP
2. outlining your experience cycling in traffic
3. outlining how often you use your bike as transportation....say commuting to work.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 11:39 AM
  #59  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: upper devonian
Posts: 894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quite the contrary. What I am saying is YOU are superior. YOU, each and everyone one of you who reads this or anything else is the SUPREME AUTHORITY on what YOU determine to be true, just as I am that for me (but of course not for you, because you, and only you, are that for you).
Anyone else hear a tele-evangelist, just before he passes the plate?
dewaday is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 11:43 AM
  #60  
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
All I hear is myself speaking in tongues and copping feels under cover of uncontrolled spasms.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 11:46 AM
  #61  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Posts: 10,123

Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
HH: if you don't think that experience matters, it certainly doesn't harm you let us in on what your experience is, does it?

You are being disingenuous. You know that you have no right to berate and argue with people if it is revealed that you are all hot air. Not only disingenuous, but you are dangerous too; you speak as if from authority, and there are some who do take you for your word. Your interest is to convince people to agree with you, and you are thrilled if they take you for your word. But nobody is going to be convinced if they find out that you have no experience backing those words, now will they. This is why you refuse.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 11:47 AM
  #62  
Part-time epistemologist
 
invisiblehand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 5,870

Bikes: Jamis Nova, Bike Friday triplet, Bike Friday NWT, STRIDA, Austro Daimler Vent Noir, Hollands Tourer

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
In my own words ...

Riding VC is, roughly speaking, cycling on roads subject to the normal traffic rules for standard vehicles. This implies that one is subject to the rules, norms, and responsibilities of a standard vehicle.

...

More importantly, I believe that we should all distinguish between the cycling strategy and the advocacy strategy that is often implied with the VC label. That is cycling VC and advocating that others ride VC is not the same thing as John Forester's (just in case there is another John floating around here) belief that cycling advocacy should focus on the avid/competent/transportational cyclist and omit increasing the cycling population as a primary goal.

-G
invisiblehand is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 11:53 AM
  #63  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Posts: 10,123

Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
^^^
I have often tried to separate the vehicular cycling techniques from Vehicular Cycling Advocacy. I consider myself to ride in the vehicular cycling style, but I am not a Vehicular Cyclist (or at least, I don't think I am ). The Vehicular Cyclists though, don't accept this distinction. To them, riding style is wrapped up with advocacy.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 11:53 AM
  #64  
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
What I am saying is YOU are superior. YOU, each and everyone one of you who reads this or anything else is the SUPREME AUTHORITY on what YOU determine to be true, just as I am that for me (but of course not for you, because you, and only you, are that for you).
So, if we deem you irrelevent, then we can ignore you.
Do you believe there is a dichotomy here? That you must take everything someone says on faith to be true, or ignore them? Those are the two choices? If you can't take everything I say to be true on faith, then you must ignore me?

What I mean by you being the supreme authority on deciding what you believe to be true, is that you objectively evaluate anything anyone says, and, based on your own experience and knowledge, you decide whether it's true. There is no one on Earth who is never going to say anything false, and there is no one who only speaks the truth (whether intentionally or by mistake, everyone speaks or writes falsehoods from time to time, and I'm certainly no exception). So it's a false dichotomy. No matter who says something, you need to evaluate it, because knowing who said it tells you nothing about whether you should believe it or not. At best, maybe it tells you something about how probable it is to be true or false. But even someone who lies all the time is bound to say something truthful once in a while, something you can objectively evaluate, so you might as well. And even someone who is usually right is bound to be wrong once in a while, so you still need to objectively evaluate what they say. The need to objectively evaluate words should not be a function of who said them, or what that person's experience is, or any other subjective factor, by definition.

But what happens when some person with little experience reads your little spiels thinking that you have a lot of experience, follows your advice, and then is put in danger?
If anyone takes anything anyone says on faith, and does something that they don't believe to be safe based on their own knowledge and experience, that's nobody's fault but their own.

If you have little experience, but keep talking, then some of us who knows better need to put a check on you. Unfortunately, this check needs to happen repeatedly, because you never stop talking.
This is getting serious. Please understand. If I (or anyone else) ever posts anything that you believe to be poor or dangerous advice, then I expect you and everyone else who believes it to be poor or dangerous advice, to say so, and explain why. I would think this goes without saying. But that's very different from villifying someone because you don't like the way they say things, or how much they say it, or their attitude. That, Brian, is an ad hominem attack, and has no place in a rational and civil forum.

Now, you've got three questions to determine your authority to play teacher. Each time you refuse is good, because it lets people know that your statements are of little relevence to anything and more people will ignore you.
I claim no authority to play teacher, and so have no need to establish such credentials.

You and everyone else are free to objectively evaluate everything I say exclusively based on your own experience and knowledge, which is what I recommend and expect that you do.

Last edited by Helmet Head; 04-25-07 at 12:00 PM.
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 12:02 PM
  #65  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Posts: 10,123

Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Still waiting on those questions, HH.

This is no ad hominem attack. This is a simple request for some background, asked of someone who writes a lot on a subject which is very experience oriented. It is a very simple request.

I should point out that there have been many examples of people pointing out that you give bad (and dangerous) advice, including recently about splitting lanes in traffic while approaching a light.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 12:07 PM
  #66  
Senior Member
 
LCI_Brian's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: in the hills of Orange, CA
Posts: 1,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
In brief...

My riding style: using vehicular cycling techniques
My advocacy platform: maintaining our road rights, but OK with optional use facilities

I suspect most on this subforum would agree, right?
LCI_Brian is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 12:08 PM
  #67  
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
^^^
I have often tried to separate the vehicular cycling techniques from Vehicular Cycling Advocacy. I consider myself to ride in the vehicular cycling style, but I am not a Vehicular Cyclist (or at least, I don't think I am ). The Vehicular Cyclists though, don't accept this distinction. To them, riding style is wrapped up with advocacy.
You can certainly separate the practices from the advocacy, but I don't think you can separate the practices from the philosophy, because I believe you can only actually practice true vehicular cycling if you adopt the philosophy. You have to believe, deep down, that you have the same right to the road as any other driver, and that your right is not inferior to the right others to ride on the same roads in the same space in accordance to the same rules (including slower traffic should keep right when safe and reasonable to do so), in order to ride accordingly (which is practicing vehicular cycling).

DISCLAIMER: When evaluating the words above, please assume the writer of the above has never been a human being living on Earth, much less ever ridden a bicycle.
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 12:21 PM
  #68  
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
You are right. That's why the questions to HH. I want to know if he is one of those "cycling experts" who doesn't, in fact, have any relevent experience.

HH: here are the questions again:

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

I will not answer questions 2 and 3, because for you to believe my answer no matter what I say would require me to have some credibility with you, which you're obviously not giving me, so what would be the point?

I prefer to continue making assertions that require no credibility to be made, which is true for 99% of what I write on this forum (and why I continue to wonder why you think establishing credibility has any relevance here).
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 12:29 PM
  #69  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Posts: 10,123

Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by LCI_Brian
In brief...

My riding style: using vehicular cycling techniques
My advocacy platform: maintaining our road rights, but OK with optional use facilities

I suspect most on this subforum would agree, right?
Yes. Perfectly stated.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 12:31 PM
  #70  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Posts: 10,123

Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Oh HH. I don't suspect that you will lie to me about your experience. But your refusal tells me much about your personality. I am simply not giving you the benefit of the doubt, at the moment.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 12:32 PM
  #71  
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
Originally Posted by LCI_Brian
In brief...

My riding style: using vehicular cycling techniques
My advocacy platform: maintaining our road rights, but OK with optional use facilities

I suspect most on this subforum would agree, right?
Yes. Perfectly stated.
Agreed.

To clarify my understanding, Brians, so in a state where bike lane use is not optional, such as in OR, AZ, CA, ..., you oppose bike lanes?
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 12:33 PM
  #72  
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
Oh HH. I don't suspect that you will lie to me about your experience. But your refusal tells me much about your personality. I am simply not giving you the benefit of the doubt, at the moment.
Brian, please understand: I never expect the benefit of the doubt from you or anyone else. If there is any doubt, please don't believe what I say to be true. Is that clear?
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 12:34 PM
  #73  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Posts: 10,123

Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Agreed.

To clarify my understanding, Brians, so in a state where bike lane use is not optional, such as in OR, AZ, CA, ..., you oppose bike lanes?
What does this have to do with "what makes a Vehicular Cyclist?" Keep to the subject, HH. No tangents. Three questions were asked of you. I'm waiting.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 12:36 PM
  #74  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Posts: 10,123

Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Brian, please understand: I never expect the benefit of the doubt from you or anyone else. If there is any doubt, please don't believe what I say to be true. Is that clear?
Yet, you keep repeating the bull***** that people (with more experience then I suspect that you have) say aren't true. Tell me about your experience.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 12:38 PM
  #75  
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
What does this have to do with "what makes a Vehicular Cyclist?"
Beats me. I'm just trying to clarify what exactly you're agreeing with when you answer "Yes. Perfectly stated" to Brian. But if you want to leave the meaning and implications of your answer ambiguous, fine.

Three questions were asked of you. I'm waiting.
Ain't gonna happen for reasons already stated. Any further requests to answer the questions (except the OP which I'll get to) will be ignored.
Helmet Head is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.