Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 256
  1. #126
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,071
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sbhikes
    All this lofty language about one's beliefs and faiths and blah blah blah... What does that do practically, on the ground, to make cycling more accessible to regular people?

    I do web development for a living. I can fire up some stupid program like Front Page and whip out a web page and say, with all the confidence I can muster, that because I believe my web site to be superior, because it works perfectly in Internet Explorer (and all those other browsers are too inferior to worry about) and because I have faith that the message I've written on my web page is so important everybody will want to read it, my web page is top notch.

    Then the reality sinks in. The code doesn't validate. The accessibility to screen readers and text browsers sucks. Google can't give it a decent page rank because you've got no semantic structure and hardly any meaningful text near the top of the page. In short, your faith and confidence means el-zippo. Nobody is going to find your message, and only a small few who do will be able to read it.

    What are you VC zealots doing to improve the user interface out there? Absolutely nothing, that's what!

    Most of us regular posters ride plenty VC but we want the environment to improve. We want the motorists to believe in our right to the roads and we want easily-navigable roads.
    Your observations about web page development are completely irrelevant to a discussion of proper roadway traffic-cycling technique.

  2. #127
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,869
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    Very good, joejack951, but it not quite correct to say that "Even John Forester agrees that wider lanes ... " The "Even" is incorrect, for I have been advocating wide outside lanes for thirty years, because that makes sense in the context of obeying the rules of the road.
    Good point. I'll make that clearer from now on.

  3. #128
    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)
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
    How in the WORLD did this get to be about bike lanes AGAIN?!

    Jesus, people. Is that all that defines a Vehicular Cyclist? I'm starting to think this is the defining issue, the opposition to bike lanes. EVERY discussion ends up being about how you guys are completely against bike lanes.

    Let it go, folks.
    Can someone start a thread about chocolate and see how many posts it takes to get to bike lanes?

  4. #129
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,869
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
    How in the WORLD did this get to be about bike lanes AGAIN?!

    Jesus, people. Is that all that defines a Vehicular Cyclist? I'm starting to think this is the defining issue, the opposition to bike lanes. EVERY discussion ends up being about how you guys are completely against bike lanes.

    Let it go, folks.
    See post #112 for the assertion that bike lanes remove cyclists from traffic. I'm well aware that not every bike lane proponent feels this way but I believe that far too many do.

  5. #130
    Senior Member Brian Ratliff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Near Portland, OR
    My Bikes
    Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
    Posts
    9,973
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951
    See post #112 for the assertion that bike lanes remove cyclists from traffic. I'm well aware that not every bike lane proponent feels this way but I believe that far too many do.
    And you feel you have to correct such obviously wrong assertions, don't you? Let it go. Let other's have their opinions. If you want to discuss some aspect of bike lanes, get your own thread. It's pretty easy. There's a link at the top of the page that says "Click here to start a new thread."
    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

  6. #131
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,869
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
    And you feel you have to correct such obviously wrong assertions, don't you? Let it go. Let other's have their opinions. If you want to discuss some aspect of bike lanes, get your own thread. It's pretty easy. There's a link at the top of the page that says "Click here to start a new thread."
    I felt as though it relates to the thread topic. Maybe I should have made my point more clearly and stated that a vehicular cyclist will realize that even when he is riding in the space demarcated by a bike lane that he is still a part of the traffic on the roadway. You seem to agree that it's obviously wrong to believe the opposite which could imply that you feel it is an important distinction to make, right? Could it not be included as a way to distinguish between two cyclists both riding in a bike lane, where one has a vehicular attitude and one does not?

  7. #132
    Senior Member randya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    in bed with your mom
    My Bikes
    who cares?
    Posts
    13,696
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
    And you feel you have to correct such obviously wrong assertions, don't you? Let it go. Let other's have their opinions. If you want to discuss some aspect of bike lanes, get your own thread. It's pretty easy. There's a link at the top of the page that says "Click here to start a new thread."
    Please, we're dying for a poll!!!!


  8. #133
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i believe i mentioned in post #2 the true believers of CV have to oppose on road bike infrastructure, even if they use them.

    I think for guys like head and ol' mossy, it IS all about the bike lanes. they don't want to have more people out riding bikes because of bike infrastructure. they want to keep riding bikes elitist because of their own psychological disorders.

    those punters (head, old mossy) suck tailpipe. and neither ride in traffic much!
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  9. #134
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    DISCLAIMER: THIS POST IS A PARODY (PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE WITHOUT THE DISCLAIMER)

    Quote Originally Posted by chipcom
    I'm sorry that your faith has let you down so badly.
    I'm sorry that you're wrong.

    (do these types of posts exchanging baseless statemens of pure opinion contribute anything positive to the forum?)

    DISCLAIMER: THIS POST IS A PARODY (PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE WITHOUT THE DISCLAIMER)

  10. #135
    Senior Member randya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    in bed with your mom
    My Bikes
    who cares?
    Posts
    13,696
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ^^ off your meds again???

  11. #136
    Senior Member Brian Ratliff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Near Portland, OR
    My Bikes
    Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
    Posts
    9,973
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head


    I'm sorry that you're wrong.

    (do these types of posts exchanging baseless statemens of pure opinion contribute anything positive to the forum?)
    No, you are wrong.

    PS. I do this just to piss him off.
    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

  12. #137
    Senior Member Brian Ratliff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Near Portland, OR
    My Bikes
    Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
    Posts
    9,973
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951
    I felt as though it relates to the thread topic. Maybe I should have made my point more clearly and stated that a vehicular cyclist will realize that even when he is riding in the space demarcated by a bike lane that he is still a part of the traffic on the roadway. You seem to agree that it's obviously wrong to believe the opposite which could imply that you feel it is an important distinction to make, right? Could it not be included as a way to distinguish between two cyclists both riding in a bike lane, where one has a vehicular attitude and one does not?
    First, the "space demarcated by a bike lane" is "the bike lane." To say it like you have it written would be "the space demarcated by a bike lane line." But, I know, a true VC'ist cannot bring himself to admit that the "space demarcated by a bike lane line" is, in fact, a "bike lane." That would be to admit that the bike lane, is *gasp* a lane!

    Second, I am not following you. What does a bike lane have to do with being a Vehicular Cyclist?
    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

  13. #138
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeJack951
    I felt as though it relates to the thread topic. Maybe I should have made my point more clearly and stated that a vehicular cyclist will realize that even when he is riding in the space demarcated by a bike lane that he is still a part of the traffic on the roadway. You seem to agree that it's obviously wrong to believe the opposite which could imply that you feel it is an important distinction to make, right? Could it not be included as a way to distinguish between two cyclists both riding in a bike lane, where one has a vehicular attitude and one does not?
    First, the "space demarcated by a bike lane" is "the bike lane." To say it like you have it written would be "the space demarcated by a bike lane line." But, I know, a true VC'ist cannot bring himself to admit that the "space demarcated by a bike lane line" is, in fact, a "bike lane." That would be to admit that the bike lane, is *gasp* a lane!
    It's not a "line", Ratliff, it has breadth (4 to 6" wide) and thickness (it's painted). It's a stripe. Sheesh!

    Second, I am not following you. What does a bike lane have to do with being a Vehicular Cyclist?
    Ask and answered:

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeJack951
    See post #112 for the assertion that bike lanes remove cyclists from traffic.
    And (from above):
    "A vehicular cyclist will realize that even when he is riding in the space demarcated by a bike lane [stripe] that he is still a part of the traffic on the roadway."

    JJ argues that recognizing that riding in a bike lane does not separate you from traffic -- that you're just as much a part of traffic as you would be if the bike lane stripe was not there -- is a distinguishing characteristic of a vehicular cyclist. It's part of "what makes a Vehicular Cyclist". Note that your father, for one, has demonstrated that this distinguishing characteristic does not apply to him. And here is what natelutkjohn wrote, which clearly implies that he beliefs bike lanes separate cyclists from motor traffic:

    Quote Originally Posted by natelutkjohn
    Others need to travel from place to place, but not all choose to ride with traffic on fast roads for whatever reason ..., therefore, would it not seem proper to allow them to ride to their destination by means of a segregated/marked path/lane?
    Last edited by Helmet Head; 04-25-07 at 11:35 PM.

  14. #139
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ho hum. the "vehicular cyclist" that hardly rides his bike pontificates once again.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 04-26-07 at 12:05 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  15. #140
    Cheesmonger Extraordinair natelutkjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    417
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    And (from above):
    "A vehicular cyclist will realize that even when he is riding in the space demarcated by a bike lane [stripe] that he is still a part of the traffic on the roadway."

    JJ argues that recognizing that riding in a bike lane does not separate you from traffic -- that you're just as much a part of traffic as you would be if the bike lane stripe was not there -- is a distinguishing characteristic of a vehicular cyclist. It's part of "what makes a Vehicular Cyclist". Note that your father, for one, has demonstrated that this distinguishing characteristic does not apply to him. And here is what natelutkjohn wrote, which clearly implies that he beliefs bike lanes separate cyclists from motor traffic:
    And you imply you don't bicycle much at all, therefore you must not.... I believe they are the same as having a slow lane and a fast lane - much safer to go in the slow lane if you are slow then in the fast lane if you are fast. Also, slow-moving LARGE vehicles tend to be much easier to see with thier flags and occasional signs. A motorist comes over a hill/around a corner/just not paying attention at 45mph and a dude is going 5mph in the center of the lane all VC like and no matter what any of you its say, it is not just as safe as if they were in a "slow" bike lane doing the same speed. Although, yes, he sure has the right to ride in that jane JJ, but he shouldn't have to if he wants to go to work.

    As a side note, what about the elderly who like to ride? Many are fit as a fiddle and can handle high speeds, others are not, should they be forced to get off the bike to drive places because they don't have the strength or 100% coordination to fully power a bicycle at safe speeds and super straight lines, fighting headwinds, cross winds etc? A slower lane is much safer then not having one at all - at least give people an option you control freaks.
    But wait, why did I ask this question? I keep forgetting that HH, JF and others know whats best for me and the rest of us. THANKS dads!
    Last edited by natelutkjohn; 04-26-07 at 02:03 AM.

  16. #141
    Dominatrikes sbhikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Still in Santa Barbara
    My Bikes
    Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
    Posts
    4,920
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Another thing that makes one a Vehicular Cyclist(TM) is you have to be blind to anything to the right of certain stripes on the road (but not others). The whole road must simply vanish to the right of certain kinds of stripes.

    You have to become incapable of recognizing some roadway markings as being part of the roadway. And you have to be able to convice yourself that the same exact markings on the road are a valid part of the roadway if they aren't associated with bicycles.

    You must also have such a severe fear of the rear that you feel a need to ensure evasive manuevers occur with every approaching vehicle before you will yield (of course you'll naturally have to yield anyway, but you like to think you are in control so you learn to fool yourself this way that you're in control and "safe".)

    I think these are called deslusional beliefs, using the non-psychiatric definition. So basically, to be VC(TM) (with capital letters) you must have delusions.
    ~Diane
    Recumbents: Lightning Thunderbolt, '06 Catrike Pocket. Upright: Trek Mountain Bike.
    8.5 mile commute. I like bike lanes.

  17. #142
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by natelutkjohn
    I believe they [bike lanes] are the same as having a slow lane and a fast lane - much safer to go in the slow lane if you are slow then in the fast lane if you are fast.
    Imagine a road with a slow and fast lane. Now, remove the stripe. Is it any less safe? At first glance it may seem so, but not if you think it through. What actually happens is that all traffic slows down because of the ambiguity caused by the lack of clear demarcated stripes. What stripes do to a road is not make it safer, but make it just as safe at higher speeds. That is, all the bike lane stripe does is allow the cars passing you in the adjacent space to be passing you at a higher speed. Is that a benefit to cyclists?

    Same with slow truck lanes. That's not a benefit to the truck drivers. It's a benefit to the drivers of cars who can now pass the slow trucks easier, without having to slow down. I don't see the Teamsters lobbying for more slow truck lanes. It's silly for bike advocates to be lobbying for essentially the same thing for cyclists, particularly in areas with intersections (pretty much any urban or suburban street). We should be encouraging traffic calming measures, like removing bike lane stripes, not adding them.

    Also, slow-moving LARGE vehicles tend to be much easier to see with thier flags and occasional signs. A motorist comes over a hill/around a corner/just not paying attention at 45mph and a dude is going 5mph in the center of the lane all VC like and no matter what any of you its say, it is not just as safe as if they were in a "slow" bike lane doing the same speed. Although, yes, he sure has the right to ride in that jane JJ, but he shouldn't have to if he wants to go to work.
    Yes, this is easy to imagine, but there is no evidence that shows there is any truth to this claim. On my commute is a blind right-hand curve where motorists at 50+ mph are regularly taking the inside track, driving in the bike lane. Evidence for this is:
    1. that part of the bike lane is always noticably cleaner than the rest of it,
    2. the stripe is more worn there
    3. I see it just about any time I drive or bike there.

    Never-the-less, when there is a bike in the bike lane, they always see him and move left (I watch them do this in my mirror regularly) just as they would if the stripe were not there.

    As a side note, what about the elderly who like to ride? Many are fit as a fiddle and can handle high speeds, others are not, should they be forced to get off the bike to drive places because they don't have the strength or 100% coordination to fully power a bicycle at safe speeds and super straight lines, fighting headwinds, cross winds etc? A slower lane is much safer then not having one at all - at least give people an option you control freaks.
    But wait, why did I ask this question? I keep forgetting that HH, JF and others know whats best for me and the rest of us. THANKS dads!
    Your question is based on the assumption that "a slower lane is much safer than not having one at all", the very issue we are debating. That's called "putting the cart before the horse", and is a common logical fallacy.

    I just explained the reasons I believe this assumption is not true. Do you accept these reasons, or not? If not, what are your reasons? (assuming your position is based in reason, pardon me if it isn't, in which case we have nothing to discuss).

  18. #143
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    lets remember, everybody, that vehicular cyclists can and do use bike lanes, all over the country, to ride vehicularily on roads.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  19. #144
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    why do all the threads degenerate into a noobie telling all the other riders on this forum how flawed road engineering design is if it includes a bike lane?

    what is up with a team fred weekender dissing on other, much more vehicular cyclists' points of view on this forum?
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  20. #145
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,071
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
    First, the "space demarcated by a bike lane" is "the bike lane." To say it like you have it written would be "the space demarcated by a bike lane line." But, I know, a true VC'ist cannot bring himself to admit that the "space demarcated by a bike lane line" is, in fact, a "bike lane." That would be to admit that the bike lane, is *gasp* a lane!
    That's nothing but semantic foolishness. Nobody suggests that a bike lane is not a lane. It is the repeated appearance of such foolishness that demonstrates the lack of intellectual basis for "bicycle advocacy", put deliberately in quotes because it is not advocacy for cyclists.

  21. #146
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    so you agree, mossy? why belittle a point you agree with?
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  22. #147
    Senior Member BLIZZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Missouri
    My Bikes
    Scott CR1-Gary Fisher Sugar-Litespeed Ultimate
    Posts
    336
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Imagine a road with a slow and fast lane. Now, remove the stripe. Is it any less safe? At first glance it may seem so, but not if you think it through. What actually happens is that all traffic slows down because of the ambiguity caused by the lack of clear demarcated stripes. What stripes do to a road is not make it safer, but make it just as safe at higher speeds. That is, all the bike lane stripe does is allow the cars passing you in the adjacent space to be passing you at a higher speed. Is that a benefit to cyclists?
    In the winter time when the snow removes the lines from visibility {at least in my area of the country**, traffic doesn't move more efficiently.
    When drivers are left to their own ideas of were the lines in the road should be, they come up with all kinds of different ideas. Some drive in the middle, where the line is between two same direction lanes. Some are right on the curb, and some take some of the space dedicated to oncomming traffic!
    Drivers seem to need a bit of a visual indication of where they should place their car. This can be complicated by the fact that a lot of people don't have any indea where the corners of their car are.{they pass you much closer than they think sometimes**.
    I'm not totally useless....I can be used as a BAD example.

  23. #148
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    That's nothing but semantic foolishness. Nobody suggests that a bike lane is not a lane. It is the repeated appearance of such foolishness that demonstrates the lack of intellectual basis for "bicycle advocacy", put deliberately in quotes because it is not advocacy for cyclists.
    To be fair, I have argued that a bike "lane" is not treated by drivers or traffic engineers as a real "lane", but, rather, more like a shoulder. I suspect this might be what Ratliff the younger was referring to.

  24. #149
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,071
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist
    i believe i mentioned in post #2 the true believers of CV have to oppose on road bike infrastructure, even if they use them.

    I think for guys like head and ol' mossy, it IS all about the bike lanes. they don't want to have more people out riding bikes because of bike infrastructure. they want to keep riding bikes elitist because of their own psychological disorders.

    those punters (head, old mossy) suck tailpipe. and neither ride in traffic much!
    Falsehoods from beginning to end, falsehoods that have been corrected so many times that repeating them has now degenerated into telling lies to suit your ideology. There's nothing elitist about cycling in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Therefor, there is nothing elitist in opposing the views and programs that are opposed to cycling properly. We do not wish to limit cycling to some elitist few; all that we wish is that more cyclists rode properly and safely, and that society supported such operation instead of opposing it.

  25. #150
    Cheesmonger Extraordinair natelutkjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    417
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Imagine a road with a slow and fast lane. Now, remove the stripe. Is it any less safe? At first glance it may seem so, but not if you think it through. What actually happens is that all traffic slows down because of the ambiguity caused by the lack of clear demarcated stripes. What stripes do to a road is not make it safer, but make it just as safe at higher speeds. That is, all the bike lane stripe does is allow the cars passing you in the adjacent space to be passing you at a higher speed. Is that a benefit to cyclists?

    Same with slow truck lanes. That's not a benefit to the truck drivers. It's a benefit to the drivers of cars who can now pass the slow trucks easier, without having to slow down. I don't see the Teamsters lobbying for more slow truck lanes. It's silly for bike advocates to be lobbying for essentially the same thing for cyclists, particularly in areas with intersections (pretty much any urban or suburban street). We should be encouraging traffic calming measures, like removing bike lane stripes, not adding them.


    Yes, this is easy to imagine, but there is no evidence that shows there is any truth to this claim. On my commute is a blind right-hand curve where motorists at 50+ mph are regularly taking the inside track, driving in the bike lane. Evidence for this is:
    1. that part of the bike lane is always noticably cleaner than the rest of it,
    2. the stripe is more worn there
    3. I see it just about any time I drive or bike there.

    Never-the-less, when there is a bike in the bike lane, they always see him and move left (I watch them do this in my mirror regularly) just as they would if the stripe were not there.


    Your question is based on the assumption that "a slower lane is much safer than not having one at all", the very issue we are debating. That's called "putting the cart before the horse", and is a common logical fallacy.

    I just explained the reasons I believe this assumption is not true. Do you accept these reasons, or not? If not, what are your reasons? (assuming your position is based in reason, pardon me if it isn't, in which case we have nothing to discuss).

    There really is nothing to discuss with a hard head like you. I should have just stopped long ago man. I don't have the time to pick your asinine posts apart and then re-quote every part with a reply that has nothing to do with what was said, just so you can get an unrelated point across to your peanut gallery acolytes.

Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •